frame

PWC Age discrimination

Opening Argument

there is a lawsuit against PWC for discriminating against older workers and hiring essentially only very young out of school crowd.  

  1. Is PWC liable for age discrimination?

    9 votes
    1. Yes
      55.56%
    2. No
      44.44%
  2. Is PWC lawsuit going to set a precedent with other companies?

    9 votes
    1. Yes
      77.78%
    2. No
      22.22%

Status: Open Debate


Arguments

  • Looks like there is a real case and it was featured in WSJ yeaterday. There is concern that it will impact many companies with aggressive campus hiring programs
  • The suit is deserved for such a horrible crime.
  • PWC will defend its position.  It even markets itself as a place to work for millennials.
    AARP is strongly lobbying to support this lawsuit. 

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/wall-street-journal/pwc-defends-claims-of-age-discrimination-in-its-hiring/news-story/69405dadb13062e7b0d90771961d5ffc
    Live Long and Prosper
  • I don't think PWC did anything wrong. Their model is to hire millennials because of the skillset they bring.  
    I think though this lawsuit will make others more careful about having hugh college program as they don't want to be exposed to litigation 
    WhyTrump - a good question
  • inc4tinc4t 154 Pts
    That seems to be a legitimate case
  • PinoPino 67 Pts
    The success of any company is almost always  due to the ''intuitive'' management skills of its top executive(s). 
    In this case it would appear that the board of directors have deemed that the company's interests and achievement of profitability goals would be best served by employing younger and ''hungrier'' individuals.
    As PWC has been, and continues to be a highly successful corporation it would be reasonable to assume that the top management's congenital business acumen is exemplary and does not require interference from the intrusive laws by vote conscious politicians.
    Once companies are forced to deviate from the formula which has made their businesses successful, such as promoting or hiring on  gender, race, religion or age considerations then it is liable to either become less successful or go 'down the tubes'.
    If running a successful corporation didn't require that,'je ne sais quoi'
    then everybody would be doing it. 
    The draconian industrial relations laws amount to no more than forcing businessmen and women to reluctantly make decisions, which are contrary to their inborn professional instincts, to satisfy the fanciful notions of egotistical liberal politicians, few of whom ( President Trump excluded of course) have the remotest idea how to manage a company and even less knowledge how to make one successful.
    This political bullying is no more than a  recipe for institutionalized failure.  
     
  • inc4tinc4t 154 Pts
    @Pino, I agree that whenever government gets involved it just produces waste.  Based on the current laws and age discrimination policies it seems like a legit case though.
  • PinoPino 67 Pts
    @inc4t.Yes, but the point is that when company owners are forced to employ people on any criteria other than merit and/or against their better judgement then the laws which place the employer into a legal position of having to make decisions based on social considerations rather than for hard headed business reasons then those laws are wholly wrong and self defeating.
    Self defeating because they place the future of the entire company and it's total workforce, young and old, in jeopardy.
    Please consider this. 
    I ran my own company for 26 years employing over 30 full time members of staff.
    I always prioritised job applicants on their attitudinal abilities over their formal qualifications. 
    My secretary, who worked for me for 22 of those 26 years may not have been as well academically qualified as some of the other applicants for the position but I recognised in her the attributes such as loyalty, honesty, a willingness  to learn and help her colleagues that I wanted and just knew she was the perfect person for the job.
    These qualities combined with her naturally pleasant personality and customer relations abilities made her the perfect choice.
    On paper she should have been about 4th or 5th in order of preference and by choosing her I left myself open for prosecution.
    In reality she was the best possible choice and I knew that.
    The same scenario went for my foreman whose literacy and numeracy skills were almost non existent.
    But, he could do the work of three men and was always there, day or night when needed in times of crisis, i.e truck,plant or machinery breakdowns and would have worked all night to avoid such events becoming a disaster. 
    had I been forced by legislation to employ people because on paper they ticked more of the right boxes then I know absolutely that my company would not have run so smoothly nor been so successful. 

    aarongagsr
  • PinoPino 67 Pts
    @inc4tThanks for taking the time to read my epistle and for your kind comment. 
  • @Pino, I really like your point.  The more people can be empowered to make decisions, the better off we will all be.
    therep
    Live Long and Prosper
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

Debate Anything on DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2017 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch