‘OK boomer’ at work = age discrimination?

The phrase “OK boomer” has become a catch-all put-down that Generation Zers and young millennials have been using to dismiss retrograde arguments made by baby boomers, the generation of Americans who are currently 55 to 73 years old. From The US Conversation.

Though it originated online and primarily is fueling memes, Twitter feuds and a flurry of commentary, it has begun migrating to real life. Earlier this month, a New Zealand lawmaker lobbed the insult at an older legislator who had dismissed her argument about climate change.

As the term enters our everyday vocabulary, HR professionals and employment law specialists like me now face the age-old question: What happens if people start saying “OK boomer” at work?

Evidence of discrimination

A lot of the internet fights over “OK boomer” revolve around whether the phrase is offensive or not. But when you’re talking about the workplace, offensiveness is not the primary problem. The bigger issue is that the insult is age-related.

Workers aged 40 and older are protected by a federal statute called the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, which prohibits harassment and discrimination on the basis of age.

Comments that relate to a worker’s age are a problem because older workers often face negative employment decisions, like a layoff or being passed over for promotion. The only way to tell whether a decision like that is tainted by age discrimination is the surrounding context: comments and behavior by managers and coworkers.

If a manager said “OK boomer” to an older worker’s presentation at a meeting, that would make management seem biased. Even if that manager simply tolerated a joke made by someone else, it would suggest the boss was in on it.

Companies also risk age-based harassment claims. Saying “OK boomer” one time does not legally qualify as harassing behavior. But frequent comments about someone’s age – for example, calling a colleague “old” and “slow”, “old fart” or even “pops” – can become harassment over time.

Gen Xers are covered too

And it doesn’t matter if the target isn’t even a boomer.

Gen Xers were born around 1965 to 1979. That makes them older than 40 and covered by federal age discrimination law.

Yes, I get that the comment is a retort to “unwoke” elders who cannot be reasoned with. The problem is that the phrase is intended as a put-down that is based, at least partly, on age. If you say it at work, you’re essentially saying, “You’re old and therefore irrelevant.”

Lumping Gen Xers into a category with even older workers doesn’t make it better. Either way, you are commenting on their age.

Funny or not

I recently watched some of the “OK boomer” TikTok compilations.

A lot of them were quite funny, like the hairdresser imitating a customer who criticized her tattoos as unprofessional. She responded, “OK boomer,” while appearing to lop off a huge swath of the customer’s hair.

When I was an employment lawyer, I heard tons of hilarious stories of things people said in the workplace. But that’s the point: The story ended with a lawyer on the other end of the phone.

One of the most famous age-discrimination cases – which made its way all the way up to the Supreme Court – involved a manager who described an employee as “so old he must have come over on the Mayflower.”

In other words, “it was just a joke” is an awful legal defense.

Tit for tat

To millennials who have suffered through years of being called “snowflakes” by their elders, protests of age discrimination can seem a bit rich. Why didn’t HR ban all those millennial jokes about avocado toast?

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act only kicks in for workers who are 40 or older, which means millennials aren’t covered. For now.

The oldest millennials will turn 40 later this year. So fear not, the millennial jokes may eventually become a legal problem for companies as these workers age.

Also, a few states, including New York, ban age discrimination for all workers over 18, and employers in those states probably should have done something about the millennial jokes.

Millennials tired of their elders making fun of their love for avocado toast are out of luck. By Nelli Syrotynska/Shutterstock.com

Why older workers need protections

Boomers might seem really powerful, and yes, they might be your boss’s boss’s boss.

But older workers are more vulnerable than they seem. Older workers are expensive – by the time they’ve worked their way up the corporate ladder, their generous salaries start to weigh on the balance sheet. And management may have trouble envisioning spectacular growth and innovative ideas from them years into the future, even if they are ready and willing to deliver.

That’s why Congress thought it was important to extend protections to those workers. It wanted employers to treat them as individuals who shouldn’t be dismissed out of hand because of their age.

And in many ways, that’s what young people seem to want as well: a little respect for what they bring to the table. After all, that meme didn’t make itself.

Author: Elizabeth C. Tippett, Associate Professor, School of Law, University of Oregon

Westpac Responds To AUSTRAC But…

A statement by Lindsay Maxsted Chairman of Westpac:

The past week’s events have been deeply distressing.  

The issue raised by AUSTRAC that weaknesses in our systems failed to detect criminal actions by customers is incredibly serious and unacceptable. This is not the company we aspire to be and I, again, apologise unreservedly. 

As a long-time director, shareholder and customer of Westpac, I know we can – and will – do better for all stakeholders in meeting our Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing obligations. Being one of the country’s biggest financial institutions, we are alert to the critical role we play in helping law enforcement agencies such as AUSTRAC prevent criminals from carrying out illegal activity. 

Today, we provided an update on how we are responding. 

These build on several actions we have already been working on, including implementing a multi-year financial crime program, undertaking leadership changes in risk and financial crime and doubling the resourcing dedicated to financial crime to around 750 people, which we expect will further grow. 

As a starting point, it’s important to note that we understand the gravity of the issues raised by AUSTRAC and the importance of – and focus on – accountability. To ensure we get all the facts and assess the issues fully, we will appoint an external expert to provide independent oversight of the process and will make the recommendations public. In the interim, all or part of the 2019 short term variable rewards for the full executive team and several general managers will be delayed, subject to the assessment of accountability. 

We also understand the importance of urgently fixing the issues raised by AUSTRAC, lifting our standards, and doing this effectively. As a board, we treat our oversight responsibilities with the utmost seriousness. 

Our response has been divided into three areas: immediate fixes, lifting our standards and protecting people. 

Firstly, we need to step up to better assist law enforcement agencies in tracking and ultimately stopping payments that can facilitate wrongdoing. When we introduced our LitePay product in 2016, transaction monitoring was put in place to identify suspicious transactions. However, more advanced monitoring, including updated “typologies” from AUSTRAC regarding child exploitation were not put in place for LitePay payments to the Philippines until June 2018. 

While the updated detection scenarios are now in place for the Philippines across the SWIFT payment channel, we accept this should have occurred earlier and was not handled appropriately. 

As part of our range of immediate actions, we are now closing LitePay. 

Where Westpac flags transactions that suggest potential child exploitation in high risk locations, these transactions are now prioritised for action and reported to AUSTRAC within 24 hours. This is faster than regulatory standards require.

We have re-reviewed the 12 customers highlighted by AUSTRAC and taken action and are working with authorities. We are also providing $18 million over the next three years to International Justice Mission, a global not for profit that protects vulnerable people from violence, to assist their critical work in Southeast Asia in relation to Online Sexual Exploitation of Children (OSEC). 

On the separate issue of International Funds Transfer Instructions (IFTIs) – which make up the bulk of the 23 million alleged contraventions of the AML/CTF Act – we have closed the relevant Australasian Cash Management (ACM) product enabling these transactions with foreign banks and reported 99.99 per cent of all the relevant transactions to AUSTRAC with the remaining to follow shortly.

For context, the vast majority of the IFTIs we failed to report related to two overseas “correspondent” banks. These are relationships that we have with foreign banks and include them using our infrastructure to process payments, in this case predominantly foreign government pension payments to people living in Australia. 

Again, we accept this problem, while unintended, should not have occurred and dates back to a series of human and technical errors in 2010-11. 

In terms of the second area of our response, lifting our standards, we are establishing a dedicated Board sub-committee for financial crime, which will commission an external expert to independently review our financial crime program. We are also investing $25m to improve cross industry data sharing analysis capabilities, including via potential partnerships with industry and government partners. 

But we understand banking affects real people, which goes to the heart of our belief that banking is a service business rather than a product business. 

As such, we will convene an expert advisory roundtable and provide up to $10 million per year for three years on the subsequent recommended actions to support the prevention of online child exploitation. We will also match the Australian government’s funding for its SaferKidsPH partnership with Save the Children, UNICEF and The Asia Foundation, investing $6m over six years. 

These initiatives and actions are just the start and the board will continue to provide updates, including on accountability, while working constructively with AUSTRAC and other agencies.

As the board of Australia’s oldest company dating back more than 200 years, we are committed to showing all our stakeholders we can – and will – address these issues so we can continue playing our critical role for the economy into the future. 

This seems to me, too little too late, and an attempt to “manage” the PR aspects of the issue. Frankly, senior heads need to roll. They do not get how much their brand has been trashed, and this stems from a basic set of cultural norms which are not aligned to community expectations. Behaviours, which are unfortunately widespread across the sector.

Auction Results 23 Nov 2019

Domain released their preliminary results for today.

The listing volume is reported as higher than last year, though its not clear whether this includes properties sold beforehand.

Canberra listed 59, reported 53 and sold 37, with 2 withdrawn and 16 passed in. Domain reports a 67% clearance rate.

Brisbane listed 94, reported 50 and sold 31, with 3 withdrawn and 19 passed in. Domain reports a 58% clearance rate.

Adelaide listed 91, reported 45 and sold 30, with 12 withdrawn and 15 passed in. Domain reports a 53% clearance rate.

We calculate the current ratio of listed to sold, giving lower results (which may change as more results come in).

Engineering A Boom – Or Not – The Property Imperative Weekly 23rd November 2019

The latest edition of our weekly finance and property news digest with a distinctively Australian flavour.

Contents:

00:22 Introduction
01:20 US Trade War
02:30 US Data and Markets
03:40 US Debt Growing Too Fast Says Fed
05:30 Repo and QE
07:40 Europe
08:20 Germany Financial Stability
10:50 China Another Bank Bailed Out
11:50 OECD Growth Lower

14:55 Australian Segment
14:55 OECD On Australia
19:10 Westpac MI Index
20:30 Inflation Expectations
21:10 NAB Household Debt
21:30 Housing Affordability
25:10 Home Prices and Auctions
26:32 Markets
26:50 Westpac and AUSTRAC
28:00 RBA. Unconventional Monetary Policy, and Negative Rates

APRA consults on further amendments to the ADI leverage ratio

The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) has released for consultation a response letter and draft prudential standard on the leverage ratio requirement for authorised deposit-taking institutions (ADIs).

This consultation sets out APRA’s response to industry’s previous submissions and also incorporates changes by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision to the international standard.

The consultation letter and draft prudential standard are available on the APRA website at https://www.apra.gov.au/leverage-ratio-requirement-for-authorised-deposit-taking-institutions

The proposals outlined in this letter relate solely to the leverage ratio requirement for ADIs that apply the internal ratings-based (IRB) approach to credit risk. 

Subsequent to APRA’s November 2018 consultation, the Basel Committee released a revised leverage ratio standard that amended the treatment of client cleared derivatives. The revised treatment allows banks to apply the standardised approach to measuring counterparty credit risk (SA-CCR) to its client exposures. This amendment seeks to ensure that the leverage ratio does not discourage banks from providing client clearing services. 

APRA is proposing to adopt the Basel Committee’s revised treatment for client cleared derivatives. The amendments that would give effect to this proposal are marked-up in the accompanying draft revised APS 110. 

The calculation of the leverage ratio as a minimum capital requirement requires IRB ADIs to calculate counterparty credit risk for derivative exposures using a modified version of SA-CCR. This approach is different to the current calculation of the leverage ratio for public disclosure, which requires the use of the current exposure method (CEM). 

APRA will allow IRB ADIs to adopt modified SA-CCR early for the purpose of their leverage ratio disclosures under Prudential Standard APS 330 Public Disclosure. IRB ADIs that intend to adopt modified SA-CCR early will need to seek APRA’s prior approval. For this purpose, an ADI must provide APRA with an outline of the implementation process and testing conducted to ensure that the early adoption of modified SA-CCR has been implemented correctly. The ADI must also provide a waterfall of its leverage ratio exposure measure calculation using modified SA-CCR that can be reconciled against its SA-CCR calculations under the risk-based capital framework. Where APRA is satisfied with the ADI’s implementation, it will provide the ADI with written approval to adopt modified SA-CCR early. 

Those IRB ADIs that adopt early will be required to state that they are using modified SA-CCR in their public disclosures. This is a transitional issue that will be resolved from 1 January 2022, at which time all IRB ADIs will be required to use modified SA-CCR to meet both the minimum capital and public disclosure leverage ratio requirements. 

Banking Code Changes to Assist Low Income Customers and Farmers in Drought

The ACCC has authorised changes to the Australian Banking Association’s (ABA) Banking Code of Practice, after imposing several conditions aimed at improving the code’s benefits to low-income customers. 

The ABA, on behalf of its 23 members, sought ACCC authorisation for changes to update its Banking Code in response to recommendations of the Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry (Hayne Royal Commission).

“The new Banking Code, with the ACCC’s conditions, will help ensure that the harms to low income consumers so vividly identified by the Hayne Royal Commission are addressed,” ACCC Deputy Chair Delia Rickard said.

As authorised by the ACCC, the updated Banking Code now prohibits informal overdrafts on low or no fee basic accounts held by eligible customers, unless agreed to by the customer, and it prohibits overdrawn fees and dishonour fees.

It also sets out the features of a basic bank account product, including that it will have no minimum deposits; and will provide free direct debit facilities, access to a debit card at no extra cost and free unlimited domestic transactions for eligible customers.

In addition, the updated Banking Code will prevent default interest and fees being charged on agricultural loans in areas affected by drought and other natural disasters.

“The new Banking Code will address a significant source of harm to farmers experiencing drought,” Ms Rickard said.

The ACCC foreshadowed in September it would seek to impose conditions to the proposed Banking Code and sought further feedback.

“Our new conditions aim to address concerns that the ABA’s original proposed Banking Code needed to be stronger,” Ms Rickard said.

“We had concerns that the original proposed code did not fully reflect the spirit of the Hayne Royal Commission’s recommendations about basic accounts. For example, low income customers could have been charged interest rates of up to 20 per cent on overdrawn amounts despite not having agreed to take on an overdraft facility.”

Under the conditions, ABA member banks must either not charge interest, or refund any interest charged, on informal overdrafts on basic accounts held by eligible low income customers if the customer has not agreed to an overdraft facility. Banks must also proactively identify customers who may be eligible for basic accounts.  

The ABA must report to the ACCC on several matters; including any changes to the number of banks offering basic bank accounts, how often informal overdrafts are occurring without the customer’s agreement, and the steps that banks have taken to contact existing customers who might be eligible for a basic account. These reports will be made publicly available.

“The ACCC wants to see improved outcomes for low-income customers and farmers, and we also want the new Banking Code to deliver public benefits and address the Hayne Royal Commission’s recommendations,” Ms Rickard said.

The final determination and more information about the application for authorisation is available at The Australian Banking Association

DFA Live Property And Finance Q&A 20 Nov 2019 And Updated Scenarios

We ran our regular live event last night. This is the high quality edited edition, including some behind the scenes footage.

We discussed our scenarios on property prices and other economic metrics over the next couple of years as well as a range of other important questions from the community.

The original recording of the pre-show, show and live chat is also available here. The formal show begins at 32:30.