I did a double-take when I saw that a Jersey lawyer was quoted in the Jersey Evening Post as saying that: “Young people may be forced to leave the Island to find work when anti-age discrimination law comes into effect in September.”

Island?  New Jersey?

Oh, not THAT Jersey — Jersey of the Channel Islands!

Baby, Boy, Child, Childhood, Computer

Still, I was a little taken aback that an employment solicitor, Lindsay Edwards-Thatcher of TM Legal Services, claimed that anti-age discrimination laws may not be economically practical or societally desirable:

“Anti-age discrimination law means that people can stay in work beyond the usual retirement age, which in effect means people can work for longer.  We need to be very careful about how we approach the new legislation.  If you have to keep older employees on, then that means you can’t bring new people in.”

No evidence of this dire situation was presented, of course.

Would she say the same thing about laws forbidding employment discrimination against women — that “men might be forced to leave the Island?”  Or laws forbidding race discrimination – that white workers might be forced “to leave the Island?”

Why are older employees different?

And why stop at employment — maybe older people should be marginalized in other aspects of life; we could save a heckuva lot of money on all that medical care provided for old people.

You get the point.