Readers Write (Sept. 5): The workforce, Hillary Clinton's e-mails, U.S. Rep. Tom Emmer's support of Donald Trump, Epi-Pen prices

In response to Kelly Swanson's Aug. 29 commentary on her difficulty finding employment because of her age, I would like to relate my experiences as a personnel director of a major retailer in the southeastern U.S. I worked at this job for 40 years.

When I first began my job as an employment interviewer, I was told to not hire anyone over 40. This was in 1949 when there was no law against age discrimination. As I started hiring, I was impressed with the older applicants and on my own decided to ignore the age limit and test my judgment in believing in the reliability and experience qualities I saw in the older applicants. I followed up on each person I had hired. I found the older people were accepted by co-workers and in many cases became mentors. I continued the practice throughout my career and demonstrated that a mix of age groups was productive.

Swanson did not say if she had been interviewed by any employer. The interview was always very crucial in determining whether the applicant was right for the job. I did not usually employ anyone who complained about their previous employer. A willing attitude was something I always looked for in a candidate.

• • •

I identify with all of Swanson's points to some extent: devastated by a layoff, depressed by rejection and numbed by the waste of time away from work. Remember when lack of experience was a detriment? Swanson and many of those commenting on her article at StarTribune.com point to misguided hiring managers and economic volatility, and there is justification for some of it, of course. Part of our society has started making a slow and fundamental change to employment. I'm speaking of the employee-ownership segment of the economy.

For people in Swanson's position, and some day my own, the option of joining other unattached employees to form an employee-owned co-op business ought to be available and approachable by networking and social media. Co-ops are only one option. Employee stock-ownership plans (ESOPs) have an enduring track record, particularly in the grocery field (Coburn's and Hy-Vee locally), the electrical service industry and others. Employee owners have bought their companies from previous owners, often families, are similar in organization to a pension plan and are useful for existing businesses desiring a smooth owner transition.

Co-ops may be an answer for people with skills and the ability to be creative in new ways. Swanson's skills in finance would be a necessary component to almost any venture you can think of. Is there risk? You bet. But after years of looking for work and being told that you're useless to society, wouldn't you like to prove them wrong?

"Regular" Americans who have destroyed evidence while legal proceedings are in prospect or ongoing have been sanctioned regularly by the courts, and they have had the legal issues to which that evidence would be relevant determined against them because of this destruction of evidence ("spoliation" in the law). Clinton has compounded this spoliation of evidence by asserting under penalty of perjury that she had provided all her work-related e-mails to the State Department.

Under the 1989 decision of the U.S. District Court for Minnesota in Capellupo vs. FMC Corp., Clinton should have all the issues concerning her conduct and statements related to Benghazi, her improper influence at the State Department on behalf of Clinton Foundation donors, her improper handling of confidential U.S. government information, all determined against her by the courts, by Congress and by the American people.

The writer is an attorney.

Congressional candidates have always worried about fallout from a defeat of their party's presidential candidate. I get that. Yet, the Aug. 28 article "Trump has a friend in Emmer" has prompted me to write.

It seems that part of Donald Trump's appeal to voters is generated from the unorthodox campaign he's run from the very beginning. His divisive remarks, seemingly-without-thought responses and backtracking on his statements just might be symptoms of his own frustrations with a government he sees as dysfunctional due to its strict party-line splits. The mentality seems to be "Well, this isn't working, so let's try something else."

Yet his statement also implies that, by choosing Hillary Clinton, we'd be choosing more of what we've gotten from President Obama, and that raises the question "What exactly is it that you don't like so much you'd be willing to take this chance?"

Elected officials wouldn't have to worry about presidential coattails if they would do what they've been elected to do — the work of all of the people. Instead of insisting on their party's predetermined course of action, thereby creating division regardless of the issue, candidates need to find common-ground solutions to shared problems. If they did that, instead of posturing for their respective parties, they'd likely get re-elected.

• • •

As a longtime Sixth District resident, count me in on supporting Emmer's bipartisan work with Rep. Keith Ellison and the lifting of the Cuban embargo. This is a welcome change from former U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann's lack of accomplishments. But count me out when it comes to Emmer's support of Donald Trump. How can Emmer simply dismiss Trump's rhetoric that serves to divide, demean and defer? Rather than burying his head in the sand, Emmer should publicly denounce this language. Trump's "softening" toward immigration should remind us a leopard doesn't change its spots. Trump's inconsistencies regarding Muslims and trade agreements should be openly discussed and of great concern to Emmer, not merely "shrugged off." Emmer appears to place party loyalty over principles.

The Sept. 2 newspaper is a good example of why Amy Klobuchar is called the "senator of small things." ("EpiPen makers being overpaid, Klobuchar says.") Meanwhile, "Big hikes in health insurance loom." Again. Along with the unbelievable increases we have all seen in our deductibles. We need freedom to purchase, or not purchase, the health insurance that fits our family's needs without government interference. How about working on that, Amy?

Regarding the EpiPen controversy: I'm just as concerned about the rising costs of insulin. For people with diabetes, insulin is a matter of life or death every day. The cost is too high. People have to make tough choices, and their quality of life is diminished because of the stress put upon them.

The cost of insulin has to come down; otherwise, people will die. I want lawmakers to look into this immediately.