or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Florida man accuses Apple store of age discrimination
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Florida man accuses Apple store of age discrimination - Page 4

post #121 of 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by a_greer View Post

I have to say, I've never seen anyone working in an apple store who looked over 23, and not only that, they are all physically attractive too, ever seen a man with a receding hair line as an apple store employee? How about a lady with waist measurements not in "proper proportion" to chest measurements? I have not.

Apple wants pretty people, no different than any other modeling job, the difference, and the thing that will end up hanging them in this matter is that they don't call it what it is, modeling (read looking pretty to sell shit)- they classify it as tech support/advising/retail sales.

Ive seen plenty of 30yo plus employees, though not as many as the ones under 30yo. I also cant say Ive seen many attractive people. Maybe Im just too old to get it in my 30s but that hipster crowd look like new age hippies to me.

PS: I see AdoniSMU was getting some grief about his comment, with which I agreed. I, too, think its believable that someone at Apple in a management position could act unfairly toward someone, because I think this is possible with all companies that use people to manage other people. Based on the number of employees and the years in operation it seems highly unlikely that unethical discrimination has never happened at Apple. Didnt Steve Jobs himself judge and shun people if they looked too corporate at Apple when applying, or am I just remembered some TV movie?
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #122 of 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xerothecat View Post

Does younger mean MORE qualified? I doubt it. Does a youngster who finds himself in a hiring capacity mean he is more qualified to judge who is more or less qualified? Maybe he would just like to hire all his friends. That seems more likely the case. Apple has their "young, hip" image to project. You rarely see more mature experienced people working in a retail setting on the front lines...

yes, apple 'hello, i am mac' You look like that guy in the commercial? we want you.
you look like the guy that says 'i'm a pc'? forget it.
maybe they should change to match their leader? lets all go for the crazy, bald, bird-like, thin-death look.

ouch! that was bad i know...
post #123 of 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slang4Art View Post

I'd like it if I was able to run a business and discriminate against applicants for whatever reason I saw fit. That'd be nice.

Under the law you CAN discriminate against applications (or employees) for a nearly infinite number of reasons.

As long as you don't discriminate against them for a legally prohibited reason, discrimination is OK (actually, it's a positive thing - wouldn't you rather have employers discriminate against dangerous or incompetent employees?)

Illegal discrimination:
Age
Sex
Race
And so on

Legal discrimination:
Competence
Experience
Personality
Prior work history

And, legal in most states:
The color shirt they're wearing
Their eye color or hair color
Presence of tatoos or piercings
And so on....
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #124 of 181
I haven't read every last post here - and I'm not sure who'll read this one - but I notice a lots of the posts in this thread are either hostile to the plaintiff or defensive on Apple's behalf.

It's true that Apple has deep pockets, and that's 9/10 of the reason they are sued numerous times a day. But here's my perspective on Apple's retail age discrimination:

Apple retail (and many others, like A&F) is consciously a hip, attractive, youthful environment for selling. I don't care if that's true.

But when it comes to the management of the stores, it is structured so that older workers are almost never advanced to management. Just one of the ways Apple gets around this: they hire young managers from other retailers to avoid promoting qualified workers internally.

Qualified, in my own case, meant that I came to Apple with nearly 20 years of management and entrepreneurial background, including time as a technology COO. I'm a fanboy, and was willing to change my career radically to start at the bottom as a part-time Mac specialist.

My first full month in the store, I was the top salesperson by the key metric (and Apple measures everything): my sales per hour. I asked the store manager what it took to be promoted and he told me: "You have to work here a year." That was the first of many lies I encountered.

In two-and-a-half years with Apple retail - which I loved - I watched every managerial opening around me filled by younger, less experienced, less effective, newer employees, despite my top sales numbers, enthusiasm, product knowledge, work history, and any other factor that could have shaded in my favor. At one point I was full-time and given an "interim" management (keyholder) position. Our store was thriving but a new manager came in, took away my key and my management responsibilities, cut my pay and sent me to another store to work part-time. I left soon after; I'd gotten the message. I was in my mid-40s.

I don't know all the fact in the case from this news item. Proving age discrimination is a near-impossibility, unless there's a smoking gun (an email that explicitly says, "don't promote this guy, he's too old," for example). But there is a pattern of age discrimination at the Apple stores, and it's sad. As a stockholder, I think it's bad for the bottom line too, when they lose or underutilize talent. I hope Apple addresses this - not all of its customers are youngsters, either.
post #125 of 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Under the law you CAN discriminate against applications (or employees) for a nearly infinite number of reasons.

As long as you don't discriminate against them for a legally prohibited reason, discrimination is OK (actually, it's a positive thing - wouldn't you rather have employers discriminate against dangerous or incompetent employees?)

Illegal discrimination:
Age
Sex
Race
And so on

Legal discrimination:
Competence
Experience
Personality
Prior work history

And, legal in most states:
The color shirt they're wearing
Their eye color or hair color
Presence of tatoos or piercings
And so on....

I know this may be off topic, but I have always wondered -- are there exceptions to this rule for certain industries? for example, a movie/theater director could call for a middle aged Austrian male, or a young Caucasian Female to play a particular role (Arnold Schwarzenegger would not get picked to play Annie and Shirley Temple would never get picked to play the terminator). and same goes for modeling agencies, look at those stereotypical stock photos in corporate HR glossy team building mags that they give out in huge corporations: can a photographer put up a job post for models and specify race, age gender and such needed to make sure the picture looks "diverse enough"?

edit, back on topic: could apple claim that "image" or "setting a scene" is a reason to do this kind of discrimination the same way that modeling agencies and casting directors do? Someone in this thread mentioned A&F and other hip stores, surely there is some case law in this area, what about case law for dudes suing Hooters for not getting waitress jobs?
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
post #126 of 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by stonefree View Post

As a young, white, Christian (non practicing) , heterosexual male I've never had the luxury of being able to claim discrimination any time I've been passed up for a job or promotion in favor of someone less qualified.

No worries. Work in some of the "creative industries"... I'm sure your heterosexuality will hold you back plenty.
post #127 of 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post

Shame on you for making a snap judgment.

We don't have all the facts so no one should be making any kind of judgments. Perhaps it was about his age. Perhaps it was not. Perhaps the gentleman is wrong about his contention that those picked were un or under qualified. Perhaps he was passed over due to his availability to work the needed number of hours and/or actual hours of the day required. Perhaps he was passed over due to his personality. When you are working one on one with someone who could be a bonafide computer idiot for an extended period, personality would matter

I completely agree. I happen to be 60 and when I was about 55 and applying for jobs or consulting work, I definitely got the feeling that on occasion, I was rejected because of my age. But that also might be simply paranoia -- it's possible I didn't "sell myself" appropriately. The fact is that discrimination is usually hard to properly evaluate, unless it's a matter of pay parity or something similar.

It's certainly possible that younger managers didn't feel comfortable working with someone older and discriminated against this guy. Or, it's possible that this guy was a cranky and lazy worker who did a lousy job -- we simply don't know. However, the manager not knowing that this guy applied or wanted a more senior position is somewhat suspect.

Discrimination lawsuits are relatively hard to pursue these days unless you're claiming discrimination and a member of at least two groups subject to discrimination: like you're above 50 AND you're a member of a minority group. Or you're disabled AND gay. Etc.

The question is whether records were kept as to this employee's performance. If he received annual reviews that were positive, but he was fired after he pursued the more senior position, then he actually has a strong case. Managers frequently make this mistake: they give positive reviews because they don't want to confront their subordinates and because they don't want to screw someone out of a raise, but it comes back to haunt them when they want to get rid of someone. Most large companies have a policy where if an employee isn't performing well, they generally have to receive two warnings in writing, then be placed on "probation" or the equivalent, where they are given a fixed amount of time to improve their performance. Only after that can you fire them and it all has to be comprehensively documented. Companies adopt those policies so that they don't get lawsuits like this one.

A few years ago, I had a case where a lower level employee (who was hired by someone else) was clearly incompetent. She "dotted-line" reported to me, although I was a consultant, so I had limited hire/fire authority. But then she was given some assignments from other people and they all complained about her weak performance. So they decided to fire her. She started a lawsuit based on gender and ethnic discrimination, which was ridiculous because she was replaced by someone of the same gender and ethnicity. But we had to bring in outside counsel and it was going to cost a fortune, so there was going to be a settlement. But another consultant who was working for the company convinced her to drop the lawsuit, since it had no merit and it could ruin her reputation.
post #128 of 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by a_greer View Post

I know this may be off topic, but I have always wondered -- are there exceptions to this rule for certain industries? for example, a movie/theater director could call for a middle aged Austrian male, or a young Caucasian Female to play a particular role (Arnold Schwarzenegger would not get picked to play Annie and Shirley Temple would never get picked to play the terminator). and same goes for modeling agencies, look at those stereotypical stock photos in corporate HR glossy team building mags that they give out in huge corporations: can a photographer put up a job post for models and specify race, age gender and such needed to make sure the picture looks "diverse enough"?

Obviously those are exceptions, but remember that actors are not employees - they're independent contractors.

Back during the Clinton administration, the Government tried to go after the Hooters chain for gender discrimination, since they only hired females (and generally younger, good looking females at that) as wait staff. Hooters ran a counter-campaign showing an older, burly, hairy guy with a mustache dressed in a female Hooters outfit to make the case that the Government's effort was absurd. The Government backed down. But the reality is that Hooters could have hired good-looking athletic young guys and dressed them in tight t-shirts and shorts and it probably would have been fine - it might have even attracted more women to their restaurants. The question is how far should the government and courts should go in enforcing anti-discrimination laws in the workplace and what truly constitutes discrimination?

But whether you agree with Hooters (or my solution) or not, what theme restaurants like Hooters claim is that they are actually "theatre" - and therefore they have the right to choose what their employees look like. Certainly, fancy restaurants and high-end retailers, especially in New York and Los Angeles, also tend to hire only very good looking people - in fact many hire mostly out-of-work models and actors. Is that discrimination? When high-end companies hire receptionists who look like models, is that discrimination? In the strictest interpretation of the term, it is. But the courts have generally permitted this latitude by business and I personally think that's fine, as long as their definition of "theatre" is not that (for example), "only white males fit our image".
post #129 of 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by a_greer View Post

I know this may be off topic, but I have always wondered -- are there exceptions to this rule for certain industries? for example, a movie/theater director could call for a middle aged Austrian male, or a young Caucasian Female to play a particular role (Arnold Schwarzenegger would not get picked to play Annie and Shirley Temple would never get picked to play the terminator). and same goes for modeling agencies, look at those stereotypical stock photos in corporate HR glossy team building mags that they give out in huge corporations: can a photographer put up a job post for models and specify race, age gender and such needed to make sure the picture looks "diverse enough"?

Quote:
Originally Posted by zoetmb View Post

Obviously those are exceptions, but remember that actors are not employees - they're independent contractors.

There are exceptions, but it's up to the employer to prove that they're bonafide job requirements. For example, if you're hiring security guards who must occasionally pat down others (for example, TSA employees), then it is reasonable that you'll need both male and female guards. If your male positions are all filled, it would be perfectly legal to only interview and hire women.

The burden of proof is fairly high - making it difficult to get exceptions. For example, one might think that it would be OK to have an English language only policy for all employees in a retail store. In reality, you can't. You must prove that the employee has enough contact with customers where language would be a bona-fide job requirement and that inability to speak English would damage the store's business. IIRC, a major chain lost a case recently when they tried to enforce English - only for stock clerks.

Some background here:
http://www.withylaw.com/distopic.htm
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #130 of 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdonisSMU View Post

because I don't think someone files an EEOC complaint over a position they simply weren't interested in.

Actually yes sometimes it does. It my early days I was an assistant manager at a fairly major shop. We had a fired employee file a complaint against our all white management for racism, claiming we were firing all the non white employees. His complaint fell apart when we showed the investigators the pages of him clocking in late at least 50% of his shifts, calling out sick when he had a shift on Saturday morning. And then there were the three written and signed by him warnings, including the one just four days before he was fired saying if he was late again, he was out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jmmx View Post

However, I have to say that I have noticed how there are almost no older people working in Apple stores.

but how many apply. It is possible that not that many older applicants exist to be hired

Quote:
Originally Posted by a_greer View Post

I know this may be off topic, but I have always wondered -- are there exceptions to this rule for certain industries? for example, a movie/theater director could call for a middle aged Austrian male, or a young Caucasian Female to play a particular role

Yes and no. They can call for someone that looks a certain age, but outside of confirming that someone is over 18 (often required for major teenage roles due to child labor restictions) or over 24 (required for alcohol related commercial work) they can not ask your age during the audition process or rescind a signed contract if they find out your age later

What is a tad ironic in my odd little industry is that there are some groups up in arms about casting outside of gender and race. They went nuts when Jolie was hired to replace Cruise in Salt instead of another man. They also flipped out when M Night hired a kid from Texas and not a 'real' Asian for Last Airbender. Their belief is that it is better to have someone less skilled but 'correct' than the person who gave the best audition or has the needed amount of bank.
post #131 of 181
That's generalizing.... isn't it? I'm 66 and I'm still working and I don't think I'm entitled to anything that I haven't worked hard to get. Please don't put us all into the "entitlement" box. There are a lot of young folk around here that think because they can reproduce they deserve my tax money. Your comment was pretty inappropriate.
post #132 of 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Why was he terminated and who else at Apple has been treated this way by Katz manager(s) or Apple in general which shows a pattern of attitude toward the non-hipster crowd or whatever you want to call it.

Just as a point of clarification: Constructive termination means he *quit*, but says the issue at hand *forced* him to quit.
post #133 of 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by lukevaxhacker View Post

Just as a point of clarification: Constructive termination means he *quit*, but says the issue at hand *forced* him to quit.

Thank you. I wasnt aware of that phrasing.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #134 of 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post

No worries. Work in some of the "creative industries"... I'm sure your heterosexuality will hold you back plenty.

Disclaimer: Please do not take this too seriously.
post #135 of 181
I am in my 30s but I personally hate all the emo goober teens Apple hires. I would much rather be served by someone older. I mostly don't respect the hippie generation because a lot of them didn't save for their retirement, but the ones that are willing to work I *do* respect. That said, I don't know if this guy's complaint is genuine or if he's just making one last desperate grasp for the jackpot.
post #136 of 181
One consideration Apple needs to be very careful about:

They have federal contracts, and probably state contracts with Florida.

These contracts are very specific about what constitutes discrimination. Notwithstanding the merits of this particular EEOC complaint and subsequent lawsuit, if these continue and form a pattern, Apple is in danger of losing these contracts.

Apple needs to be very proactive in settling this.
post #137 of 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by heenow View Post

One consideration Apple needs to be very careful about:

They have federal contracts, and probably state contracts with Florida.

These contracts are very specific about what constitutes discrimination. Notwithstanding the merits of this particular EEOC complaint and subsequent lawsuit, if these continue and form a pattern, Apple is in danger of losing these contracts.

Apple needs to be very proactive in settling this.

I suspect that Apple's attorneys know what they're doing. They're probably also aware of the repercussions for losing an EEOC case.

Apple's attorneys will decide what to do based on whatever evidence the guy presents in his filing - and on deposition. If there's no evidence of wrong-doing, they might be harming themselves more by settling than by fighting it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Thank you. I wasnt aware of that phrasing.

I really wish people who don't understand a topic would refrain from posting. 'Constructive termination' is a very standard phrase in employment law. If you don't know the phrase, you have no business posting on an employment matter.

It's not just you, but there's an endless stream of people posting here who have no clue what they're talking about. Just this week:
- People arguing that challenging the validity of a patent is 'unprecedented'
- People arguing that a sample of 65 can not ever deliver meaningful results
- People arguing that you can't sue for discrimination in a 'right to work' state
- Not to mention all the knee jerk reactions from people who automatically assume Apple is guilty every time someone complains about something

Look, people, these matters are legal and technical issues. Please do not post if you don't have sufficient knowledge of a subject to be able to discuss it rationally and factually.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #138 of 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

I really wish people who don't understand a topic would refrain from posting. 'Constructive termination' is a very standard phrase in employment law. If you don't know the phrase, you have no business posting on an employment matter.

If your requirement t post in an open forum is to know everything about every aspect of a topic then that would disqualify every post youve ever made.

The bottom line is that its impossible so when you do find yourself knowing something that you think should be common knowledge you have two options. You can either post a constructive post like lukevaxhacker or make a hypocritical and smarmy comment telling people that should ever post if they dont know as much or more than you in every single way.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #139 of 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by doyourownthing View Post

this sounds just like those geniuses that were suing mcdonalds because their burgers made them fat

team apple

Yeah - and like that old lady who claimed she didn't know that coffee was hot at McDonalds!

Hey geniuses: McDonalds food makes you fat. Coffee is hot. And Apple doesn't promote old farts.

Get over it!


</sarcasm>
post #140 of 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

If your requirement t post in an open forum is to know everything about every aspect of a topic then that would disqualify every post youve ever made.

The bottom line is that its impossible so when you do find yourself knowing something that you think should be common knowledge you have two options. You can either post a constructive post like lukevaxhacker or make a hypocritical and smarmy comment telling people that should ever post if they dont know as much or more than you in every single way.

Nice strawman.

My argument is that you should know enough to post intelligently on a topic before posting. When you don't even understand the basic issues surrounding a topic, anything you post is worthless drivel.

But feel free to continue advocating that people should be cluttering up topics that they know nothing about.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #141 of 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by enohpI View Post

Yeah - and like that old lady who claimed she didn't know that coffee was hot at McDonalds!

Hey geniuses: McDonalds food makes you fat. Coffee is hot. And Apple doesn't promote old farts.

Get over it!

The case is more complex than that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck...taurants#Facts
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Nice strawman.

My argument is that you should know enough to post intelligently on a topic before posting. When you don't even understand the basic issues surrounding a topic, anything you post is worthless drivel.

But feel free to continue advocating that people should be cluttering up topics that they know nothing about.

You have the strawman here. You are taking an elitist position for something you can’t possibly defend. Being fired or quitting has no barring on previous comments about his guilt or innocent being determinable from the information given. You can disagree all you want — this is an open forum after all — but being a prick, telling people they shouldn’t post unless they know everything about a topic, despite your own limitations, is just you being a prick.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #142 of 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by macapptraining View Post

I worked as a Specialist for 2-3 years while teaching One-To-One lessons for 2 of those years. Kept getting promised the promotion to Creative and was teaching 8 lessons per day, while being paid as a Specialist. I was in my early 20's, in college for Film/Video Production, specialized in Final Cut Studio, Aperture, Logic, all the consumer apps too, everything... They gave the positions to "Older" employees with very little experience with Apple software and no knowledge whatsoever of Professional Apple Software. I ended up quitting. I started my own video training company for Apple software online, couldn't be happier. I was at the point though where the Store Manager told me I was the next Creative, and I got my schedule all set up with the Creative Team, went to Creative Training downtown Chicago, and then they all of sudden stopped talking to me about it, ignored me. When I would bring it up, another manager would talk to me and sort of try to talk me down saying "we didn't know you were still interested in it", etc, buncha crap like that. I trusted those managers. When they gave the positions to 2 older Specialists (late 40's/50's), less experienced, with less time working with the company than I, I quit and never looked back. Best decision I could have made looking back now. I should also mention that 6 months before finally being "promised" the next Creative spot, the store manager gave me a raise because I was a Specialist teaching 8 lessons of one-to-ones per day, but I NEVER GOT THE RAISE! I hope Steve Jobs reads this.



Welcome to retail. They knew that you would quit. The longest possible tenure for you was until you graduated.

So they lied to you and strung you along as long as possible, making undocumented promises.

That is the name of the game. And Apple is a VERY successful retailer.
post #143 of 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by deuxlavabo View Post

Nobody on this forum has any idea what actually transpired, myself included. It seems odd to me, however, that if there were a real possibility of discrimination here, AAPL wouldn't have "reconciled" the case out of court and out of the media -- even if they thought it was probably frivolous.

J

That depends entirely on how much money he demanded. If it were cheaper to pay him off, Apple likely would have done it. If it is cheaper to fight, Apple likely would choose that avenue.

The fact that they are fighting has no bearing on the facts of the matter - the decision to fight was a risk/reward cost/benefit analysis by Apple's accountants.
post #144 of 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by RayInHou View Post

You know, it is up to the manager no matter what... if the manager doesn't like you for whatever reason, he can promote someone else. It's totally his prerogative and not just based on performance and ability. It is always up to the manager.

What if the manager doesn't like "mud people"? Is that OK?
post #145 of 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by screamingfist View Post

he he. i have forgotten more about computing than most 20 year olds know lol.



I was programming mainframes before that manager was born.
post #146 of 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

You have the strawman here. You are taking an elitist position for something you cant possibly defend. Being fired or quitting has no barring on previous comments about his guilt or innocent being determinable from the information given. You can disagree all you want this is an open forum after all but being a prick, telling people they shouldnt post unless they know everything about a topic, despite your own limitations, is just you being a prick.

I see that you're unwilling to discuss the topic rationally - I guess my point was completely valid.

First, I haven't taken any elitist position. I said nothing about this guy's guilt or innocence. I have pointed out a couple of legal issues, but never said a word about whether he was guilty. So you're making things up. Strike 1.

Second, I never claimed that people should know everything about a topic. I already corrected you once on that and your continued assertion that I think people should know everything is a sure sign that you're unwilling to discuss it rationally. I said simply that people should know enough about a topic to have intelligent conversation about that topic before they post. Your continued attempts to pretend that I said something I never said are pretty solid proof that you don't have a real argument. Strike 2.

Third, I have taken a very reasonable position. I simply said that people who don't know anything about a subject should keep their mouths shut. Instead of discussing my statement, you launch into an entire series of ad hominem attacks, repeatedly calling me a 'prick'. Your inability to refute anything I've said is blatantly obvious. Strike 3.

You're out.

BTW, I'm curious why you're so insistent that people who don't have even a basic level of knowledge about a subject should be given any credibility. Just what rational argument can be made for people who don't have any knowledge about a subject being encouraged to post widely on that subject? Other than, of course, the right of free speech which allows anyone to post any stupid thing they wish, why in the world are you encouraging it and objecting to my calls for EDUCATED discource?
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #147 of 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by enohpI View Post

What if the manager doesn't like "mud people"? Is that OK?

By law, you can discriminate for any reason not prohibited by law. You can choose not to hire blondes. You can choose not to hire people who are left handed. You can choose not to hire people who wear blue jeans. You can choose not to hire people who eat caviar.

You can NOT discriminate against people on any restricted grounds - race, sex, religious beliefs, age, etc.

If a manager chose not to hire mud people, that would be his right - as long as he didn't do it for religious reasons. The mud people would be free to argue that they are a protected religious group. If they could prove that, then discrimination against them would be illegal.

It actually becomes even more subtle than that. I am permitted to not hire blondes - IF I can do that without violating the law. However, it could be argued that if I refuse to hire people with black hair that it would be discriminating against blacks or orientals - and that my choice to hire ONLY blondes would have an illegal effect and should therefore be prohibited.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #148 of 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

BTW, I'm curious why you're so insistent that people who don't have even a basic level of knowledge about a subject should be given any credibility. Just what rational argument can be made for people who don't have any knowledge about a subject being encouraged to post widely on that subject? Other than, of course, the right of free speech which allows anyone to post any stupid thing they wish, why in the world are you encouraging it and objecting to my calls for EDUCATED discource?

First of all, you stated "I really wish people who don't understand a topic would refrain from posting.” Since understanding a topic is not the same as knowing every possible phrase for a topic, the only position you can have is that you have to know everything about a topic. I have worked for many companies and quit my employment at all these companies at some point and I’m now retired, and yet have never heard that phrase. Does that I’ve never been employed, or simply that the phrase didn’t come up or that I may have forgotten it. I’ve forgotten plenty of things in my life and every now and then I come across a word that others seems to know but it new to me (and vice versa) so it’s possible. I’m sure I’ll forget many more things before I die, yet by your own assertion not knowing this phrase means one is not qualified to post on this topic in any way, shape or form. Hence, your hypocritical elitism.

The very fact that you don’t understand the full scope of this topic, are only focusing on a single term, and claiming that this open forum is something that it’s not means that you failed your own elitist criteria.

PS: I never called you a prick. I said you’re being a prick with your indefensible, hypocritical, elitist stance. Again, based on your words you shouldn’t be posting here or anywhere else.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #149 of 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

First of all, you stated "I really wish people who don't understand a topic would refrain from posting.” Since understanding a topic is not the same as knowing every possible phrase for a topic, the only position you can have is that you have to know everything about a topic.

I see. So in your bizarre logic, when I said people should understand a topic (and which I later clarified to say exactly that they should understand enough to be able to discuss it intelligently), you think that means that you must know EVERYTHING about a topic (even after I corrected you 3 times and said that no one expects poster to know everyhing)? Sorry, I can't be bothered with your idiotic statements. Since no one knows everything about ANY topic, your position we be that I was saying no one should ever say anything about anything - clearly a foolish, misguided position. And since I was specifically allowing for people who were knowledgeable about a topic (which does NOT mean knowing everything) to post, it's clearly in conflict with the silly corner you've painted yourself into.

Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

I have worked for many companies and quit my employment at all these companies at some point and I’m now retired, and yet have never heard that phrase. Does that I’ve never been employed, or simply that the phrase didn’t come up or that I may have forgotten it. I’ve forgotten plenty of things in my life and every now and then I come across a word that others seems to know but it new to me (and vice versa) so it’s possible. I’m sure I’ll forget many more things before I die, yet by your own assertion not knowing this phrase means one is not qualified to post on this topic in any way, shape or form. Hence, your hypocritical elitism.

'Constructive termination' is not an obscure, nit-picky term. It's a fundamental term that anyone with significant exposure to employment law would know. It's like someone who doesn't know the difference between a bit and a byte posting on a forum for microprocessor design. BY DEFINITION, if you don't know a bit from a byte, you're not qualified to be posting on a microprocessor design forum. Similarly, if you don't know what constructive termination is, then you're not qualified to be commenting on a labor law issue.

It is not elitist to expect people to have at least a basic understanding of a topic before publicly expounding upon it.

And it's certainly not hypocritical - I guess you really like throwing around words you don't understand.

Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

PS: I never called you a prick. I said you’re being a prick with your indefensible, hypocritical, elitist stance. Again, based on your words you shouldn’t be posting here or anywhere else.

I see. So you're saying I'm being a prick but you didn't say that I'm a prick. Care to explain the difference?

Face it - your position is foolish and untenable. I simply took a rational, defensible position that people shouldn't be posting about subjects they don't understand at some basic, fundamental level. You've taken offense to that and think that people should be able to post whatever they want about any subject they want, no matter how little they know or how uneducated their position is.

Legally, you're right - people have the right to post whatever the law and forum admins will let them post. But don't you understand the very simple concept that forums like this would be infinitely more valuable and useful if people who didn't know what the f$ck they're talking about would refrain from posting?
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #150 of 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Similarly, if you don't know what constructive termination is, then you're not qualified to be commenting on a labor law issue.

I find it odd that you don’t see this as elitism. Shame on you, really!

Quote:
But don't you understand the very simple concept that forums like this would be infinitely more valuable and useful if people who didn't know what the f$ck they're talking about would refrain from posting?

If people who think they are better than everyone else not post this forum would be a much better place. Your elitism has done nothing but disrupt an otherwise informative thread.

In the future, if you think you know something someone else doesn’t try to be constructive in your response.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #151 of 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

I find it odd that you don’t see this as elitism. Shame on you, really!

If people who think they are better than everyone else not post this forum would be a much better place. Your elitism has done nothing but disrupt an otherwise informative thread.

In the future, if you think you know something someone else doesn’t try to be constructive in your response.

I gave a very constructive response earlier.

As for the rest, I guess 'elitism' is another word you don't understand.

Expecting people to post only about subjects that they have at least a basic understanding of is not elitism. It's only reasonable to expect people not to clutter up a forum with uninformed posts that don't even have the basic issues right.

If I said I was better than them because I understand this topic and they don't, that would be elitism - but I never said that. Obviously, (at least obvious to everyone but you, apparently), the fact that someone isn't knowledgable about a particular topic doesn't make them a less valuable human being because they probably are more knowledgable in other areas. And even if they're not, there's no rule that says that only a knowledgable person is valuable. I know one person who is mentally retarded who is a gem of a person. YOU are the one pretending that I'm taking a position that 'knowledge on one particular topic defines your worth as a human being'. Why would you pretend something so foolish.

Throughout this entire discussion, you've been imagining things that aren't there and pretending that I said them. All to hide the fact that you're attempting to defend an indefensible position.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #152 of 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

I see. So in your bizarre logic, when I said people should understand a topic (and which I later clarified to say exactly that they should understand enough to be able to discuss it intelligently), you think that means that you must know EVERYTHING about a topic (even after I corrected you 3 times and said that no one expects poster to know everyhing)? Sorry, I can't be bothered with your idiotic statements. Since no one knows everything about ANY topic, your position we be that I was saying no one should ever say anything about anything - clearly a foolish, misguided position. And since I was specifically allowing for people who were knowledgeable about a topic (which does NOT mean knowing everything) to post, it's clearly in conflict with the silly corner you've painted yourself into.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Throughout this entire discussion, you've been imagining things that aren't there and pretending that I said them. All to hide the fact that you're attempting to defend an indefensible position.


Some people have called him a troll for doing these sorts of things.
post #153 of 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

I gave a very constructive response earlier.

As for the rest, I guess 'elitism' is another word you don't understand.

Expecting people to post only about subjects that they have at least a basic understanding of is not elitism. It's only reasonable to expect people not to clutter up a forum with uninformed posts that don't even have the basic issues right.

If I said I was better than them because I understand this topic and they don't, that would be elitism - but I never said that. Obviously, (at least obvious to everyone but you, apparently), the fact that someone isn't knowledgable about a particular topic doesn't make them a less valuable human being because they probably are more knowledgable in other areas. And even if they're not, there's no rule that says that only a knowledgable person is valuable. I know one person who is mentally retarded who is a gem of a person. YOU are the one pretending that I'm taking a position that 'knowledge on one particular topic defines your worth as a human being'. Why would you pretend something so foolish.

Throughout this entire discussion, you've been imagining things that aren't there and pretending that I said them. All to hide the fact that you're attempting to defend an indefensible position.

Except your posting history suggests that you have a pretty prickly sense of "basic facts", as you are in the habit of dismissing conflicting opinions as nonsense and irrelevant, even concerning matters where all the expertise in the world doesn't grant one the power to rend a final judgement.

Given that you're apparently a prohibitively knowledgable authority on economics, statistics, case law, international relations, computer design, et al, and that this is an internet forum, you'll forgive me if I'm less than eager to accede to your standards of discussion.

Since I'm actually fairly knowledgable in matters of rhetoric, I'd like to point out that formulations such as "obviously, (at least obvious to everyone but you, apparently)" is the grubbiest kind of bottom feeding internet gamesmanship, wherein you pretend to isolate Solipsism as a lone crank, and ally yourself with an entirely specious majority. He does not; I perfectly understand why he got a bit defensive, given your general tone of dismissiveness.

It's the internet, if your standards are such that you can't handle some good natured peanut gallery action you might be more comfortable in a seminar or informal roundtable with suitably informed friends. Claiming that pointing this out is an "indefensible position" is completely meaningless.

FYI, you are apparently unaware that "mud people" is a broad racial slur, so I would imagine your unfamiliarity with the realities of race baiting disqualify you from further (no doubt tedious) comments on that topic.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #154 of 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by enohpI View Post

Some people have called him a troll for doing these sorts of things.

Such people would typically be, of course, trolls seeking to muddy the waters and sew dissent.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #155 of 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

Except your posting history suggests that you have a pretty prickly sense of "basic facts", as you are in the habit of dismissing conflicting opinions as nonsense and irrelevant, even concerning matters where all the expertise in the world doesn't grant one the power to rend a final judgement.

I see that you haven't bothered to provide any facts to support your position. Nice ad hominem argument.

Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

Given that you're apparently a prohibitively knowledgable authority on economics, statistics, case law, international relations, computer design, et al, and that this is an internet forum, you'll forgive me if I'm less than eager to accede to your standards of discussion.

I see that you haven't bothered to provide any facts to support your position. Nice ad hominem argument.

Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

Since I'm actually fairly knowledgable in matters of rhetoric, I'd like to point out that formulations such as "obviously, (at least obvious to everyone but you, apparently)" is the grubbiest kind of bottom feeding internet gamesmanship, wherein you pretend to isolate Solipsism as a lone crank, and ally yourself with an entirely specious majority. He does not; I perfectly understand why he got a bit defensive, given your general tone of dismissiveness.

I see that you haven't bothered to provide any facts to support your position. Nice ad hominem argument.

Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

It's the internet, if your standards are such that you can't handle some good natured peanut gallery action you might be more comfortable in a seminar or informal roundtable with suitably informed friends. Claiming that pointing this out is an "indefensible position" is completely meaningless.

I see that you haven't bothered to provide any facts to support your position. Nice ad hominem argument.

Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

FYI, you are apparently unaware that "mud people" is a broad racial slur, so I would imagine your unfamiliarity with the realities of race baiting disqualify you from further (no doubt tedious) comments on that topic.

Mud People is also the name of a group of people living in the Midlands who are a borderline cult. Nice of you to launch into an attack without even attempting to learn the facts.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #156 of 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

I see that you haven't bothered to provide any facts to support your position. Nice ad hominem argument.



I see that you haven't bothered to provide any facts to support your position. Nice ad hominem argument.



I see that you haven't bothered to provide any facts to support your position. Nice ad hominem argument.



I see that you haven't bothered to provide any facts to support your position. Nice ad hominem argument.



Mud People is also the name of a group of people living in the Midlands who are a borderline cult. Nice of you to launch into an attack without even attempting to learn the facts.

Long time lurker, 1st time poster.

Jragosta: You've spent the vast majority of your postings (in this thread, and others) trying to "overtalk" the rest of the forum, as if you're so unbelievably intelligent and well-read that any other opinions made are irrelevant. I'll make the point as simple as possible so that the unwashed masses can keep up with your intellect as well: You're a fucking troll.

Please continue with the thread. /popcorn
post #157 of 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


'Constructive termination' is not an obscure, nit-picky term. It's a fundamental term that anyone with significant exposure to employment law would know.

Really? Because googling "constructive termination" indicates that the more common term is "constructive dismissal" or "constructive discharge". That is the term used in Title VII.

And it also appears to be a term used more for termination of a franchise than for employment. At least the case law using this specific term appears to be against wrongful termination of franchise agreements.

http://www.nixonpeabody.com/publicat...l3.asp?ID=3179

So the term is not necessarily as obvious as you claim although folks should figure out desired meaning in this context if they were used to the more common term "constructive dismissal".

Quote:
It's like someone who doesn't know the difference between a bit and a byte posting on a forum for microprocessor design. BY DEFINITION, if you don't know a bit from a byte, you're not qualified to be posting on a microprocessor design forum. Similarly, if you don't know what constructive termination is, then you're not qualified to be commenting on a labor law issue.

Meh...given that it's a complaint that Apple violated Florida Civil Rights Act and therefore suing under Florida Statute 760.07 the odds are you are no more knowledgeable about Florida labor laws than anyone else in this forum even if you were a lawyer practicing in another state. Which you aren't.

Quote:
It is not elitist to expect people to have at least a basic understanding of a topic before publicly expounding upon it.

And it's certainly not hypocritical - I guess you really like throwing around words you don't understand.

And if you had such a strong grasp on the subject you might have pointed out that it might be more commonly known as constructive dismissal.

Quote:
Face it - your position is foolish and untenable. I simply took a rational, defensible position that people shouldn't be posting about subjects they don't understand at some basic, fundamental level. You've taken offense to that and think that people should be able to post whatever they want about any subject they want, no matter how little they know or how uneducated their position is.

Face it - you called him out specifically and said he was clueless for not knowing what "constructive termination" was and to STFU.

Exactly how is that not to be taken offensively? If it were me, I wouldn't have said you were acting like a prick and risked the ban hammer or simply dropped you into the ignore list for being an asshat.

Playing all passive aggressive and "rational" after the fact doesn't make your comment any less offensive or trollish. You wanted a strong response and you got one. Unless you want to claim you don't understand human interaction at some "basic, fundamental level", or other equally inane excuse, you baited him into this stupid argument which you might think you have won.

Unfortunately I don't think the prize is what you expected.
post #158 of 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

Really? Because googling "constructive termination" indicates that the more common term is "constructive dismissal" or "constructive discharge". That is the term used in Title VII.

And it also appears to be a term used more for termination of a franchise than for employment. At least the case law using this specific term appears to be against wrongful termination of franchise agreements.

http://www.nixonpeabody.com/publicat...l3.asp?ID=3179

So the term is not necessarily as obvious as you claim although folks should figure out desired meaning in this context if they were used to the more common term "constructive dismissal".



Meh...given that it's a complaint that Apple violated Florida Civil Rights Act and therefore suing under Florida Statute 760.07 the odds are you are no more knowledgeable about Florida labor laws than anyone else in this forum even if you were a lawyer practicing in another state. Which you aren't.



And if you had such a strong grasp on the subject you might have pointed out that it might be more commonly known as constructive dismissal.



Face it - you called him out specifically and said he was clueless for not knowing what "constructive termination" was and to STFU.

Exactly how is that not to be taken offensively? If it were me, I wouldn't have said you were acting like a prick and risked the ban hammer or simply dropped you into the ignore list for being an asshat.

Playing all passive aggressive and "rational" after the fact doesn't make your comment any less offensive or trollish. You wanted a strong response and you got one. Unless you want to claim you don't understand human interaction at some "basic, fundamental level", or other equally inane excuse, you baited him into this stupid argument which you might think you have won.

Unfortunately I don't think the prize is what you expected.

Very well put. There's a certain kind of internet poster that really rubs me the wrong way, dressing up "you suck because you're teh stupid LOL" with freshman debating tactics.

I actually prefer plain old belligerence to, as you say, passive-agressive high ground fake innocence.
You can't stop it.
Reply
You can't stop it.
Reply
post #159 of 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

I see that you haven't bothered to provide any facts to support your position. Nice ad hominem argument.

I see that you haven't bothered to provide any facts to support your position. Nice ad hominem argument.

I see that you haven't bothered to provide any facts to support your position. Nice ad hominem argument.

I see that you haven't bothered to provide any facts to support your position. Nice ad hominem argument.

It is amazingly (and for you obliviously) ironic that your post protesting the lack of "facts" is simply further evidence of your asshattery.

OMG thanks for the laugh and welcome to my ignore list.
post #160 of 181
Nice posts Nht. That should quiet the troll.

As for the topic at hand, I've seen someone post that they felt discriminated against for being too young. In all of your collective experience, which have you seen more with Apple? Younger or Older discrimination?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Florida man accuses Apple store of age discrimination