Ageism law

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Gun_Empty, Sep 29, 2006.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/5389842.stm

    Apologies if this has already been posted. Does anyone know the impact this legislation may have on the Army? Age based Terms of Service, continuance, promotion lines based on YOB?

    Is there anyone in the know out there who can offer advice? Its due in next month and I've heard nothing about it from APC.
     
  2. Have been listening to a debate about this on Radio 5. They had a lawyer in who claimed that she could probably get compo fora range of things that could be classed as ageism.

    for example

    1) 70y old poledancing job applicants

    2) The old fella who works in every department receiving a birthday card with wording such as "one day closer to the pipe and slippers" (aparently thats ageist hurt feelings)

    3) Someone shouting to a football player "you're too old/past it"

    Hopefully this is the peak of PC madness before common sense breaks out. Whats next i wonder being overweightist? institutional Baldism?

    The UK's gone mad i tells ya, mad as lorries!!!!!!
     
  3. Yeah ok so some people might try and kick the arrse out of it but the actual idea is a good one imo.

    No idea how old you are but imagine if your boss suddenly calls you into the office and says "Here you go Mr Seagull your P45. You're fired, we have found a Seagull egg that will do your job for half the wage, mind the door on the way out. Bye".

    Or as seen in German papers a lot, job adverts for jobs that you are well qualifed for but with an age range that you don't fit into? You have no chance whatsoever of getting the job purely because you are too old/young.

    Ok there are some jobs that can only be done by certain age groups but that is easily sorted by ensuring the job spec reflects the things that the older/younger applicants can't do.

    As for trying to get compenstation for a 70 year old pole dancer, well how come there aren't loads of compensation claims for men being refused a pole dancing job on the grounds of having no t1ts?

    So in all I reckon this is a good idea.

    Well I would do 'cos I am slowly but surely becoming ancient.
     
  4. The question of impact on the Army wont really be answered until the first court case and there will be one.
     
  5. The law regarding age discrimination which comes into effect on 1 October 2006 is governed by the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006.

    Those Regulations are here:

    www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2...266.htm#44

    This is a statutory instrument which gives effect to the European Directive which is the governing instrument requiring the Member States of the EU to harmonise it's laws in accordance with the terms of the Directive relating to age discrimination and incorporated into our domestic law by virtue of the European Communities Act 1972.

    In other words, the same law, as set out in the directive operates througout the member states of the EU and our Regulations implement that law within the domestic law of the UK.

    Regulation 44(4) of the EE(A)R 2006 exempts members of the Regular Armed Forces and Reserves from any of it's provisions.

    In other words, the law has no impact upon the Armed Forces - they are exempted from it's provisons.
     
  6. I can absolutely guarantee that there will be a legal challenge mounted to that provision. And, it is my opinion that it has a reasonable chance of success.
     
  7. Can it be read from this that you are mounting said challenge?
     
  8. No, Not me... I'm just aware of at least one case that's in the offing.

    From the UK's point of view, although not directly related to the Forces, the biggest problem is going to be under 21's claiming that they are entitled to the same level of wage as the rest of the population.
     
  9. My 6 year old son wants to be a train driver, before now i've told him he is too young! This has got to be ageism. I'm putting him up for an interview with British rail and before you rant about employment laws, he says he'll do it for a lollypop and a pack of panini footy stickers.
     
  10. I think your lad will get hired by Virgin Trains or Network Southeast as they are short handed at the moment! :wink:
     
  11. The Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006 derives it's authority from and must comply fully with the provisions of Council Directive 2000/78/EC as must all member states.

    That directive is here:

    http://www.ei-ie.org/payequity/EN/docs/EU%20Documents/2000%2078.pdf#search=%22EU%20Directive%20on%20age%20discrimination%22

    Look at Articles 18 and 19 of that Directive and you will see that the Armed Forces of the Member States may be excluded from it's provisions and this, the United Kingdom Government has done.

    It is difficult therefore to see on what legal principle any legal challenge could succeed unless Britain has failed to comply fully with article 19 and failed to define the scope of it's derogation from that provision.

    As a matter of EU Law, Britain must comply with directives. It's regulations must fully implement the terms of such directives t laws are to be harmonised across the whole of the EU. Any regulation that does not fully implement a directive, or only partially implements the terms of a directive allows any citizen in any member state (ie, you and I) to go along to any British Court or any Tribunal, and where there is any inconsistency found, then the Court or Tribunal is bound by law to strike down the inconsistent national provision and disapply it.

    This Process is called 'Direct Effect' or DE and is a powerful weapon in the hands of any citizen of the Union.

    Britain does not have an enviable record of fully implementing Directives or of only partially implementing them and our own citizens have gone before our courts and had them struck down, and where, on occasion, the courts have failed to do so, the European Court of Justice (not to be confused with the Court of Human Rights which is completely different) has ruled against Britain and forced it to comply with it's obigations.

    Anyone who remembers the Factortame litigation will recall that our refusal to comply with a directive by passing inconsistent legislation cost this country hundreds of millions of pounds in compensation to those it affected.

    In this case biscuits, I see very little chance of a successful action in this area.

    For those who 'knock' our membership of the EU, it is well to consider that 60 years ago we fought to restore rghts to Europe and now they are giving them back to us! Much of our consumer rights came from directives such as the one above. Much of our employment rights came from drectives. It was not Parliament who suddenly sat down one day and said: 'would'nt it be a good idea that we should allow people who order goods over the telephone or internet the absolute right of cancellation and refund. I was the Europeans who did that and much more for which Government Ministers seek to claim credit as implementing 'Government Policy' and 'look what Tony has done for us'!

    It was the Europeans that ended discrimination in the workplace, created equal pay for work of equal value, maternty leave and so on and not our own sorry arrsed Parliament!

    Regards and best wishes as always
    Iolis