Millennial Money
BIO
MOST SHARED
- The 'Real' Jobless Rate: 17.5% Of Workers Are Unemployed
- Why Amazon Rules Retail
- Paul: Audit the Fed
- HP Comes in As Expected; Is It Time to Buy?
- JAL Slides to Record Low on Bankruptcy Jitters
- Prepare For Large Decline In Stocks, Next Year?
- The Social Media Gaming Threat
- Holiday Travel Outlook
- Wave of Debt Payments Facing US Government
- Hewlett-Packard Profit Rises, Matches Guidance
- Remorseful Regulator Leads Reform Fight
- Lightning Round: AT&T, Verizon, Novartis and More
- Lightning Round OT: Alcoa, Weight Watchers and More
- Why Amazon Rules Retail
- Nordic American: Sinking Ship or Titan Tanker?
- Your First Move For Tuesday November 24th
- Cramer: What Monday’s Housing Number Really Means
- Pops & Drops: Cigna, Verizon...
- Giving Thanks: Energy
- Web Extra: Winning The Chocolate Wars
RSS FEED
Senior Writer, Mad Money
![]() |
Here's the latest from the front in Tuesday's Wall Street Journal, "employees in their 20s and 30s are finding themselves more at risk of a layoff, according to labor lawyers, as employers look to avoid age- discrimination lawsuits by adopting a "last one in, first one out" policy and turn to tenure as a means of conducting layoffs".
Okay, let me get this straight. Companies are firing younger workers because the legal system is stacked against us now? That's what this means, don't kid yourself about a level playing field.
If companies are more likely to be successfully sued by older workers when they enact "headcount reduction" plans, even though you can probably find someone younger to take the same job for less pay, something is very, very wrong.
This is so screwed up I'm having trouble getting my brain around it. Because older workers are paid more, then companies that want to save money but fear the wrath of the legal system, will have to lay off more total employees than they otherwise would.
Here's a thought for any corporation that's still in the business of capitalism: if you want to achieve cost savings by cutting back on your workforce, get rid of the people with "seniority." You won't have to fire as many because on average they have higher salaries than younger workers. And, let's be honest, if these are white collar jobs that involve computers, why the heck do you have anyone over 30 working for you in the first place? People who are still trying to figure out how to use the Xerox [XRX
Loading...
()
] machine do not belong in front of a keyboard, unless it's the keyboard of a typewriter.
Of course, old judges, along with juries made up of people who skew older, are more likely to side with their fellow-fogies (as are the people who probably design these, "fire the kids" policies), so maybe you'll lose lots of money in court and have reinstate some of the older workers you tried to fire.
Unbelievable. I am playing the age card. This is age discrimination. I don't even really care that it's not fair, what bothers me is that it's so stupid and craven.
Do you Agree/Disagree? Send your comments to
- The show attracts a big TV audience every year, but this year it may take on even more importance.
- …you'll want to be prepared. Tips for getting the most out of the post-Thanksgiving shopping frenzy.
- Congressman Ron Paul explains to Squawk Box why he’s pushing legislation to audit the Federal Reserve.
- CNBC’s Phil LeBeau took a test drive of GM’s flagship electric car. Here’s what he thought of the Volt.
- The energy company Power Efficiency is building tools that regulate the power electric motors use.
- CNBC’s technology reporter Jim Goldman guides you through the best gadgets to buy this holiday season.












