Hate to say it but IMO go back to work ASAP. Most companies are desperate for engineers now in particular those with good experience and a strong track record of accomplishment. Call your old boss about coming back as a contractor or possibly even being rehired. I'm an engineering manager and I'd bring you back in a heartbeat, we are …
Hate to say it but IMO go back to work ASAP. Most companies are desperate for engineers now in particular those with good experience and a strong track record of accomplishment. Call your old boss about coming back as a contractor or possibly even being rehired. I'm an engineering manager and I'd bring you back in a heartbeat, we are that short-handed (I'm about your age also).
Things may not be the same in a year of two as the economy is seriously cratering. The opportunity to return at a big salary just might not be there.
I know you are enjoying yourself now but the last thing you want is to outlive your money. The idea that people retire early and then enjoy twenty years of driving around in a Winnebago is a new phenomena and frankly a bit crazy when you think about it. People used to pretty much always retire at 65 and unless they had really good genes die not too long afterwards. No one felt entitled to twenty "golden years". Work now while you are able to. Again, just my opinion.
Adding to this that when investment advisors talk about things like 8% return they don't mention that those are averages over the last hundred years. There are stretches where the return is zero or negative for prolonged stretches. Bad timing on one of those stretches can cripple you financially. Many forecaster are predicting that we are heading into one right now and the market may be flat for ten years. After the phenomenal growth we saw from 2008 to 2021, this seems right to me.
Plus assuming you have kids it's going to be rough for those getting started for the next decade (or longer). It would be nice to be able to help them out (buying a home for example) without threatening your own financial security. Plus you may want to leave them a nice chunk of change when you go.
Right now you are the most marketable and have the highest earning potential. Five or ten years down the road that very well might not be the case based on both the economy and perceptions that your knowledge is obsolete. Something to think about.
BTW, I'm in almost your exact same position (age, occupation, financial status, vax exemption). These are the reasons I'm still working.
Yes indeed! I have to agree - I just retired a year ago from the fed - 31 and done - ducked out the very day Sloppy Joe said he would jab every fed. DOUBLED my top end Fed salary! EVERYONE, needs engineers right now.....and as the jabbed die off or become disabled, it will become a golden career all a new. Many remote opportunities - I get several offers a month.
He said he got approved for a religious exemption but that people who refused to file for one got fired. Got tired of the BS and took early retirement.
Not talking about the original commenter here, but it's really strange that people refuse to exercise a constitutional and legislatively-protected right (under the CRA of 1964) and demand an exemption. How is it caving in to say, "my religion forbids this and I demand you accommodate that as required by law"? I found it empowering (to use a favorite word of the left).
A religious exemption IS a state grant, not a Right of Liberty. Strictly speaking, a religious exemption is 'a privilege' granted by the state 'to do what otherwise one cannot do.'
Liberty is dominion, sovereignty over the self which is obedient to God and His Laws ... and against which the state cannot infringe for lack of standing. If the state infringes upon the any of the Rights of Liberty, the state commits a trespass (infringes), an injury or harm against the one who exercised a Right or Rights of Liberty.
American Rights of Liberty ARE NOT civil rights. American Rights of Liberty (God-conferred) can only be recognized, affirmed and upheld by the state. Nor can a public or private corporation (artificial person and an appendage of the state) infringe upon Rights of Liberty. Thus outsourcing enforcement (mandates) by the state to private and/or so-called public companies is a ruse, and violators of the Rights of Liberty who bend to the states' illegal decrees are open to prosecution in Common Law. This is how it used to work before the state captured the entire justice system and made it is own.
Not true. Virtually all the case law that upheld religious accommodations in regard to employment draw directly from the Civil Rights Act of 1964, specifically it's prohibition on employment discrimination based on religious beliefs. The EEOC itself quotes this case law at length in it's advice to employers.
I think you are confusing state requirements on public health grounds (like vaxxes for school) with employer-based requirements. It's not the same thing and different laws apply.
Look you can make all kinds of fancy sounding speeches regarding liberty that sound great and get you no where. Bottom line is that employers fear losing lawsuits. The case law on the CRA is crystal clear and goes back decades, that's why it's effective. Companies know they will lose if they deny good-faith exemption requests. It may take years but it will happen.
Dave, you and I probably agree on about 98% of things politically. But there's philosophy that sounds great (but is ineffective) and there's legal strategy that works. They are not necessarily the same thing. Lofty speeches didn't get me my exemption, it was my company knowing I would sue them under the CRA if they denied it.
Not sure about that, since we have constitutional basic rights (the right to travel, the right to free speech, the right to religious expression, etc.). With regard to C19, an employee only has to notify their employer that he/she is invoking or exercising their religious exemption. There is no need to ask for it like a permission slip. Of consequence, any refusal to accept a religious exemption (RE) is a direct violation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and sets up an employer for a lawsuit. Many of us have been very successful in communicating this legal trap to employers via religious exemptions, but you need to research exactly how it needs to be articulated. An employer may/can refuse to accommodate your RE, but again, that is at their legal peril if an employee has established their RE properly.
Exactly, this is why exemption requests under the CRA were and remain very effective. Employers are *required* to accommodate religious beliefs unless they impose an undue hardship on the employer. Period, end of story.
You don't need a note from Pope, to pass some sort of logic test, prove consistency in your beliefs, or even belong to an organized religion. If the employer thinks your request is in bad faith the burden is on them to prove it. In addition, the bar for "undue hardship" on the employer is quite high. There is decades of case law on this.
The problem as Seaquinn notes is that you need to know the law and make your request clearly within the bounds of the law. Quoting Patrick Henry and "don't tread on me" to HR won't work.
Just so! That is why I made sure that the three Religious Exemption requests for my RN spouse *all* cited the EEOC / Civil Rights Act of 1964, specifically, and demanded they honor her religious beliefs.
All three were granted - even though the first hospital's supervisor later told my wife, "I thought we weren't granting *any* REs." The last one was kinda funny - they first indicated they didn't grant REs, then said OK we do - but you'll have to submit it to our committee that reviews RE requests.
RE granted within 30 minutes of submission. I guess those committee members read fast.
Nice to read that it worked. My employer requested a letter of support from a "religious leader" and I told them to go pound sand based on both the law and scripture (citing references from both). My request was granted.
We really need to keep our emotions in check and do solid research before going off all half-cocked. So many on our side immediately jump to "how dare they!" and shoot themselves in the foot. The key to fighting mini-tyrants is to accept nothing they say at face value and to know the law better than them. We win with knowledge, not emotion.
It's not enough to cite "Muh freedumb." You have to let them know that you know your legal rights and will enforce them if necessary. (I used to practice employment law, way back in the day so I know the law and the references to cite.)
In one of the REs we wrote, we attached a religious exemption from our priest who attested to the fact that we belonged to the parish, that we had the right as Catholics and indeed as American citizens, to be free from religious discrimination in the practice of our religion, and that as Catholics, we could not be forced to violate those principles.
BUT, you are absolutely correct that under CRA, you do not need to belong to any church or specific religion. Your say-so and genuine belief is enough to enforce your right.
Similar story except no letter from a priest. I specifically cited my religious objections (primarily, but not only, the use of fetal stem cells derived from abortion) with supporting scriptural references. I told them where we attend church and that the bible is the basis of all of our decisions. I rejected the request for a letter of support on the doctrine of "priesthood of believers" and "soul competency" with scriptural references. I'm accountable to God for this decision not another man.
What they were trying to do with the letter of support request was to turn this into the theological equivalent of a doctor's note. However the CRA of 1964 and the ADA of 1990 are not interchangeable (despite their efforts to conflate them). I don't need an "expert" to attest that I actually believe what I claim like proving a medical condition. The case law is clear on this but they count on people's ignorance when making these requests (a common bureaucratic tactic). People will give up as it's too much trouble rather than rejecting the request outright as not required under the law.
We went with the religious exemption, but my spouse's coworker believed the shots were dangerous, but that as a lapsed Catholic he couldn't claim a religious reason. So he caved and got the shots. Basically, the argument we wondered about was if we should be standing for people like him and saying, religious or otherwise, no one should be coerced to inject something harmful into their body. Again, we did decide on religious exemption, but we also felt we shouldn't even need to. So I get having different perspectives on this.
Hate to say it but IMO go back to work ASAP. Most companies are desperate for engineers now in particular those with good experience and a strong track record of accomplishment. Call your old boss about coming back as a contractor or possibly even being rehired. I'm an engineering manager and I'd bring you back in a heartbeat, we are that short-handed (I'm about your age also).
Things may not be the same in a year of two as the economy is seriously cratering. The opportunity to return at a big salary just might not be there.
I know you are enjoying yourself now but the last thing you want is to outlive your money. The idea that people retire early and then enjoy twenty years of driving around in a Winnebago is a new phenomena and frankly a bit crazy when you think about it. People used to pretty much always retire at 65 and unless they had really good genes die not too long afterwards. No one felt entitled to twenty "golden years". Work now while you are able to. Again, just my opinion.
Adding to this that when investment advisors talk about things like 8% return they don't mention that those are averages over the last hundred years. There are stretches where the return is zero or negative for prolonged stretches. Bad timing on one of those stretches can cripple you financially. Many forecaster are predicting that we are heading into one right now and the market may be flat for ten years. After the phenomenal growth we saw from 2008 to 2021, this seems right to me.
Plus assuming you have kids it's going to be rough for those getting started for the next decade (or longer). It would be nice to be able to help them out (buying a home for example) without threatening your own financial security. Plus you may want to leave them a nice chunk of change when you go.
Right now you are the most marketable and have the highest earning potential. Five or ten years down the road that very well might not be the case based on both the economy and perceptions that your knowledge is obsolete. Something to think about.
BTW, I'm in almost your exact same position (age, occupation, financial status, vax exemption). These are the reasons I'm still working.
Good for you! This is awesome. And smart
Yes indeed! I have to agree - I just retired a year ago from the fed - 31 and done - ducked out the very day Sloppy Joe said he would jab every fed. DOUBLED my top end Fed salary! EVERYONE, needs engineers right now.....and as the jabbed die off or become disabled, it will become a golden career all a new. Many remote opportunities - I get several offers a month.
I thought it was get the shot or hit the road in his case.
He said he got approved for a religious exemption but that people who refused to file for one got fired. Got tired of the BS and took early retirement.
Not talking about the original commenter here, but it's really strange that people refuse to exercise a constitutional and legislatively-protected right (under the CRA of 1964) and demand an exemption. How is it caving in to say, "my religion forbids this and I demand you accommodate that as required by law"? I found it empowering (to use a favorite word of the left).
A religious exemption IS a state grant, not a Right of Liberty. Strictly speaking, a religious exemption is 'a privilege' granted by the state 'to do what otherwise one cannot do.'
Liberty is dominion, sovereignty over the self which is obedient to God and His Laws ... and against which the state cannot infringe for lack of standing. If the state infringes upon the any of the Rights of Liberty, the state commits a trespass (infringes), an injury or harm against the one who exercised a Right or Rights of Liberty.
American Rights of Liberty ARE NOT civil rights. American Rights of Liberty (God-conferred) can only be recognized, affirmed and upheld by the state. Nor can a public or private corporation (artificial person and an appendage of the state) infringe upon Rights of Liberty. Thus outsourcing enforcement (mandates) by the state to private and/or so-called public companies is a ruse, and violators of the Rights of Liberty who bend to the states' illegal decrees are open to prosecution in Common Law. This is how it used to work before the state captured the entire justice system and made it is own.
Not true. Virtually all the case law that upheld religious accommodations in regard to employment draw directly from the Civil Rights Act of 1964, specifically it's prohibition on employment discrimination based on religious beliefs. The EEOC itself quotes this case law at length in it's advice to employers.
I think you are confusing state requirements on public health grounds (like vaxxes for school) with employer-based requirements. It's not the same thing and different laws apply.
Look you can make all kinds of fancy sounding speeches regarding liberty that sound great and get you no where. Bottom line is that employers fear losing lawsuits. The case law on the CRA is crystal clear and goes back decades, that's why it's effective. Companies know they will lose if they deny good-faith exemption requests. It may take years but it will happen.
Dave, you and I probably agree on about 98% of things politically. But there's philosophy that sounds great (but is ineffective) and there's legal strategy that works. They are not necessarily the same thing. Lofty speeches didn't get me my exemption, it was my company knowing I would sue them under the CRA if they denied it.
Not sure about that, since we have constitutional basic rights (the right to travel, the right to free speech, the right to religious expression, etc.). With regard to C19, an employee only has to notify their employer that he/she is invoking or exercising their religious exemption. There is no need to ask for it like a permission slip. Of consequence, any refusal to accept a religious exemption (RE) is a direct violation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and sets up an employer for a lawsuit. Many of us have been very successful in communicating this legal trap to employers via religious exemptions, but you need to research exactly how it needs to be articulated. An employer may/can refuse to accommodate your RE, but again, that is at their legal peril if an employee has established their RE properly.
Exactly, this is why exemption requests under the CRA were and remain very effective. Employers are *required* to accommodate religious beliefs unless they impose an undue hardship on the employer. Period, end of story.
You don't need a note from Pope, to pass some sort of logic test, prove consistency in your beliefs, or even belong to an organized religion. If the employer thinks your request is in bad faith the burden is on them to prove it. In addition, the bar for "undue hardship" on the employer is quite high. There is decades of case law on this.
The problem as Seaquinn notes is that you need to know the law and make your request clearly within the bounds of the law. Quoting Patrick Henry and "don't tread on me" to HR won't work.
Just so! That is why I made sure that the three Religious Exemption requests for my RN spouse *all* cited the EEOC / Civil Rights Act of 1964, specifically, and demanded they honor her religious beliefs.
All three were granted - even though the first hospital's supervisor later told my wife, "I thought we weren't granting *any* REs." The last one was kinda funny - they first indicated they didn't grant REs, then said OK we do - but you'll have to submit it to our committee that reviews RE requests.
RE granted within 30 minutes of submission. I guess those committee members read fast.
Nice to read that it worked. My employer requested a letter of support from a "religious leader" and I told them to go pound sand based on both the law and scripture (citing references from both). My request was granted.
We really need to keep our emotions in check and do solid research before going off all half-cocked. So many on our side immediately jump to "how dare they!" and shoot themselves in the foot. The key to fighting mini-tyrants is to accept nothing they say at face value and to know the law better than them. We win with knowledge, not emotion.
Good for you, Jeff. You are exactly right.
It's not enough to cite "Muh freedumb." You have to let them know that you know your legal rights and will enforce them if necessary. (I used to practice employment law, way back in the day so I know the law and the references to cite.)
In one of the REs we wrote, we attached a religious exemption from our priest who attested to the fact that we belonged to the parish, that we had the right as Catholics and indeed as American citizens, to be free from religious discrimination in the practice of our religion, and that as Catholics, we could not be forced to violate those principles.
BUT, you are absolutely correct that under CRA, you do not need to belong to any church or specific religion. Your say-so and genuine belief is enough to enforce your right.
Similar story except no letter from a priest. I specifically cited my religious objections (primarily, but not only, the use of fetal stem cells derived from abortion) with supporting scriptural references. I told them where we attend church and that the bible is the basis of all of our decisions. I rejected the request for a letter of support on the doctrine of "priesthood of believers" and "soul competency" with scriptural references. I'm accountable to God for this decision not another man.
What they were trying to do with the letter of support request was to turn this into the theological equivalent of a doctor's note. However the CRA of 1964 and the ADA of 1990 are not interchangeable (despite their efforts to conflate them). I don't need an "expert" to attest that I actually believe what I claim like proving a medical condition. The case law is clear on this but they count on people's ignorance when making these requests (a common bureaucratic tactic). People will give up as it's too much trouble rather than rejecting the request outright as not required under the law.
Like I said, knowledge not emotion is the key.
We went with the religious exemption, but my spouse's coworker believed the shots were dangerous, but that as a lapsed Catholic he couldn't claim a religious reason. So he caved and got the shots. Basically, the argument we wondered about was if we should be standing for people like him and saying, religious or otherwise, no one should be coerced to inject something harmful into their body. Again, we did decide on religious exemption, but we also felt we shouldn't even need to. So I get having different perspectives on this.