Is Age Discrimination running rampant?

[tcaudilllg]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_864873.html


I think the rule is, based on the above testimony, NEVER EVER DISCLOSE YOUR AGE ON AN APP. Only say you are over 18 -- if they require more than that, tell others and contact your lawyer, and prepare to participate in a class action suit. But do not disclose your age because the law specifically states that you don't have to, and by doing so, you can make it more difficult for people to make hiring decisions without taking your age into account.

I just read in my HR text that the status of age discrimination legislation is "uncertain" because there are questions over how to apply it (GEEZ HOW ABOUT CONSCIOUSLY EXCLUDE AGE FROM THE LIST OF REASONS TO HIRE?). This is a sign that business professionals, as a group, are moving in direct defiance of the law.

[Skeptic]

Yeah, age discrimination is 10x worse than racism has ever been - just look at schools, at the laws regarding families, etc. for younger people. Older have it better off, but still experience both discrimination in the job market as you point out but also in other levels of life.

Tis a sad thing, because it's actually accepted to some extent - it is just assumed that the younger/older are less capable/competent, just like it was assumed that blacks were inferior back in the old days. I don't see progress on this issue until people overcome all the other shallow criteria like skin/race, religion, sex and so on - age would be the last of those things overcome.

[EyeSeeCold]

Thanks for the tip.

[Slacker]

Age discrimination is not like racism. Age discrimination is temporary, and doesn't affect your whole family their whole lives, generation after generation. Stop whining.

[Skeptic]

Age discrimination is not like racism. Age discrimination is temporary, and doesn't affect your whole family their whole lives, generation after generation. Stop whining.

It affects everyone, to say that it does not is absurd, for we were all at one time young. It will affect you again too; you're just not on the receiving end of it right now, so I can't say how impartial you are.

Since you appear to be one of those who would subject the innocent to your discriminatory tendencies, consider this; if I told you that you are not physically capable, mentally fit, morally/judgmentally sound and so on and that I happen to know that two arbitrarily different people are, and that you are henceforth subject to those two persons' wills as decreed by law for the next 18 years of your life, what would you say? That you should just take it and not 'whine'? Do you think that just because this subordinate/slave status is temporary that it would make any difference?

Do you not think that this is an obvious case of accusing another human being of being inferior? Do you think that it is so distinguishable from racism, sexism and the like that you are justified in perpetuating it? Doesn't this go against your moral code or something like that?

In this case, the job market, being younger or older does not necessarily distinguish you from the physically/mentally fit for the job; to discriminate based on it is the same as discrimination based on race.

[tcaudilllg]

What is really insane about age discrimination, is it often comes down to the young discriminating against their elders and vice versa. Infanticide, anyone?

The reason age discrimination exists, is because turnover is one of the means by which managers rank HR specialists against each other. You are responsible for the success of who you hire. There is apparently illegal pressure on HR people by their bosses to hire people who are younger, so that the total input by the worker will be maximized relative to the retirement package. Not at all surprising... what is surprising is that the FBI has been derelict in investigating it. This is why a class action suit is needed, so that the downtrodden can stand up to the evildoers without fear of retaliation by discrimination-sympathetic persons.

[Slacker]

It affects everyone, to say that it does not is absurd, for we were all at one time young. It will affect you again too; you're just not on the receiving end of it right now, so I can't say how impartial you are.

Since you appear to be one of those who would subject the innocent to your discriminatory tendencies, consider this; if I told you that you are not physically capable, mentally fit, morally/judgmentally sound and so on and that I happen to know that two arbitrarily different people are, and that you are henceforth subject to those two persons' wills as decreed by law for the next 18 years of your life, what would you say? That you should just take it and not 'whine'? Do you think that just because this subordinate/slave status is temporary that it would make any difference?

Do you not think that this is an obvious case of accusing another human being of being inferior? Do you think that it is so distinguishable from racism, sexism and the like that you are justified in perpetuating it? Doesn't this go against your moral code or something like that?

In this case, the job market, being younger or older does not necessarily distinguish you from the physically/mentally fit for the job; to discriminate based on it is the same as discrimination based on race.

First of all, you're making a lot of assumptions.

But as for children being under the control of their parents for 18 years, well there's a reason for that. There isnt' much difference between a 16-year-old and an 18-year-old, but there's some. But you certainly can't think it's age discrimination for a 3-year-old to be under the control of his/her parents. So the whole 18 years aren't fair to consider "age discrimination." Then, also, there's usually a difference in education and work experience between ages when you're young.

There is true age discrimination in the world, but even that isn't anything like racism, which is a part of someone's whole life, was a part of that person's parents' lives, and will be a part of their childrens' lives, and all decendents, forever. There is no comparison between those two situations, even if they're both wrong.

[NewBorn STAR]

I capitalism.
Sorry for how much that sucks, man. I can't wait to enter the work force.

I want to fondle with you. Lets be small puppies unleashed, Just wanting to spread our wings and let the love fly us away. Far away. Oh dear one how i adore you

[Korpsy Knievel]

Yay, schadenfreude. Pass the catfood and the hotsauce.

[marooned]

I've experienced age discrimination imo, but I feel that it is something that can be way more easily overcome than a lot of other types of discrimination, especially when it is just coming from one's appearance or behavior (you can look different ages and a lot of people are bad at telling what age someone really is). I have felt kind of annoyed though when certain individuals have assumed I am too young to have certain kinds of problems or that because I am/was young I didn't need much pay because I actually have these parents who are supporting me (who knew). I doubt we'll ever be able to just evaluate people on their individual merits... there just always has to be some association.

Age discrimination is interesting though in the sense that a lot of times it involves looking back at how one was in the past (where one has been) and then projecting this onto others who are assumed to be in the same place. (At least in the case of making assumptions about those who are younger than oneself.)

[Creepy-male]

Age discrimination is not like racism. Age discrimination is temporary, and doesn't affect your whole family their whole lives, generation after generation. Stop whining.

Why does this sound like "its better to discriminate based on age than on race", because it doesn't cause as much damage. Stop whining.

That's like me saying, its better to rape a woman and use a condom because it lessens the chance of impregnating her. Stop whining.

I'm sorry but the argument that X is not as bad as Y so its justifiable is piss poor reasoning. Then the whole stop whining thing, is a blatant discussion stopper. The only way problems get solved are with discussion. If you don't want to talk about it, that's fine, but why do you have to shut down debate for those that do? especially when you don't even have a good argument, other than.... its not as bad as racism.

This is the kind of disgusting political mentality that is too prevalent, its a game of king of the hill for who the biggest victim is or who is the most wronged, or what issue is really important.

It's rather stupid because what happens when the king claims his hill? He sits there like a big baby and bitches to everyone indignantly telling them how their issues aren't important as his? Bullshit...

[Slacker]

If you don't want it compared to racism, don't compare it to racism. I'm cool with that.

[Creepy-male]

First of all, you're making a lot of assumptions.

But as for children being under the control of their parents for 18 years, well there's a reason for that. There isnt' much difference between a 16-year-old and an 18-year-old, but there's some. But you certainly can't think it's age discrimination for a 3-year-old to be under the control of his/her parents. So the whole 18 years aren't fair to consider "age discrimination." Then, also, there's usually a difference in education and work experience between ages when you're young.

There is true age discrimination in the world, but even that isn't anything like racism, which is a part of someone's whole life, was a part of that person's parents' lives, and will be a part of their childrens' lives, and all decendents, forever. There is no comparison between those two situations, even if they're both wrong.

It's really not that complex, ideally people should be hired for a job they can do competently, and not because of prejudice or image-based things. Although its extremely common in all facets; from racism, age discrimination, favouritism, nepitism, and so forth. It happens and it serves one well to figure out how to deal with the situation in their lives while the long battle is fought for a more fair system, because the reality is, most people will probably die in an unfair society. I mean, in light of this grim fact, the least thing you can give people is the ability to feel/express indignation at injustice without having it become a big competition on who is the most victimy/indignate. Really in some ways the suffering of injustice should bind people together, maybe some old racists will have a bridge to understand how it feels to be discriminated against. Maybe something positive can come out of the shared suffering, rather than simply it being a dumb competition. Leave it to americans to make competition out of everything. MONSTER TRUCK RALLY, GET R' DONE!

[Creepy-male]

If you don't want it compared to racism, don't compare it to racism. I'm cool with that.

This isn't the issue, its not about what I want to compare it to, its about your argument.

I was especially offended by the "stop whining" its what's called a debate stopper, and not a particular elegant or devise one. Let alone realistic, making a topic on some issue you feel important is not literally whining, although the portrayal tends to overdramatize things as if tcaud were a little baby sucking his thumb and crying. Some people who complain may actually have intelligent arguments and discussion which are extinguished by such sloppy and liberal usage of debate stoppers. I don't see the intrinsic purpose in tcaud satisfying your request, what does anyone gain? If someone doesn't like his topic, they are free to leave it, but allowing it may in fact bring about something positive.

Also in this case, I feel age discrimination is an "injustice" of sort, although a tricky issue to tackle. So I don't really see it as whining, as much as a pertinent issue for further discussion.

[Slacker]

The "stop whining" wasn't directed at TCaud - it was directed at the comparison to racism. There is a level of reasonable complaint re age discrimination, which I would not call "whining", and then there is hyperbole, such as comparison to racism.

[Creepy-male]

The "stop whining" wasn't directed at TCaud - it was directed at the comparison to racism. There is a level of reasonable complaint re age discrimination, which I would not call "whining", and then there is hyperbole, such as comparison to racism.

ok whatever, you don't seem to want to stand solid on a position and debate things.

[FDG]

Age discrimination is present because, ceteris paribus, more experience means more knowledge and/or ability. Since humans can't deal well with a world where ceteris paribus conditions never (or rarely) hold, age is a simple and useful heuristic.

[Slacker]

ok whatever, you don't seem to want to stand solid on a position and debate things.

I don't debate, but I've felt the same way the whole time. I hate it when people assume I have a position I don't have, which is why the first thing I said is, "you're making a lot of assumptions."

[Creepy-Snaps]

tcaudilllg,

Just read the original article on your link.

I think age discrimination is a reality, as others have attested to by personal account. However, I think it's not something which can be done away with easily, I think there are macro-elements affecting employer's decision-making.

Unemployment is still very high. The economy favors employers. They have the advantage, getting to pick the 'right' candidate. Sometimes having 5-10 *qualified* people applying for one position, if not more. When this is the case, employers can be choosy: and can discriminate on almost any basis they want, be it age, gender, religion, the fact that you walked into the interview without your face completely shaven, etc. Why not pick the best candidate?

There are laws which try to reduce discrimination, but of course that's a formality. How can you really regulate something that's subjective? As subjective as making a decision? Sometimes no concrete proof of discrimination.

In better economies, employees have the edge. There may be 4-5 job offers for each person, where demand in the economy is so high, employers just need people to fill the jobs! In better times, people have the advantage, in being choosy of where they want to work, what type of work they want to do, how much to get paid, etc. etc. When unemployment is low.

Before this goes into a completely rant of how the government in Bush's administration didn't regulate the money supply well enough, or how too much money in the economy caused the subprime mortgage mess, or the good/bad things Obama has done in his administration to help/hurt the economy, I'll just give this practical advice:

STAY ACTIVE. Work part-time work if you must, but stay busy. That guy in the article is doing an amazing thing by at least being a barista. Pay sucks, but it's a LOT better than nothing. And it's more than just about pay, it's about mindset, experience, staying positive, etc. Don't sit for months doing nothing.

APPLY FOR HIGH-PAYING POSITIONS. Think big! It's amazing how little people actually want to *work* in this economy, but how quickly people are demoralized about financial news. There are lots of jobs out there! It's still pretty easy to get a job, if you look for one!

You control your activity. Wayne Gretzky once said, 'You miss 100% of the shots you don't take.' How many job offers do you think you'll get, if you apply to zero places? I'll say apply to 50-100 positions if you must, if not more, but it probably won't even take that many. I'd say it's still fairly easy to get an interview with 10-30 applications yet. Which, if you're focused, you could spend a few hours and do in just one night, tailoring your cover letter, etc. etc.

I feel very fortunate to have gotten a professional finance position in this economy. But part of me wishes someone had told me to just keep applying and not lose hope, sooner. I could have been working sooner too. Anyway, enough of my rant. This pep talk has been provided courtesy of Mountain Dew.

[Hitta]

I think it's thoroughly ridiculous that anyone can file lawsuits for discrimination in the workplace; be it sexual, racial, or age.

[tcaudilllg]

One high-profile case is all that's needed. A wave of fear and you'll see a new level of support by employers for academic research pointing out how to avoid age discrimination.

Mountain Dew I think what is required is for the national emotional atmosphere to become so antagonistic that it's just about to blow. That will permit the ESFJs to take control of the atmosphere and take it where they want it to be, where money doesn't necessarily reach. But yeah I think things are too placid and smoothed over when what people really need is an environment where employers are strongly questioning their safety at night.

[marooned]

I have a lot of issues with the age/experience correlation. First I think it's lame to assume that because someone is older they "have more experience" (although understandably they've had longer to gain work experience, but still some people have way more life experience at a younger age than others at an older age). Secondly the experience they do and don't have for jobs should be listed on their resumes/applications so it should then just be hiring based on who is most qualified by their experience/education (not their age). Thirdly I have experienced the issue of starting working and having problems getting started because of my "lack of experience" when I actually pick up things really quickly and imo do a better job than a lot of people with a lot more experience than me (I don't believe experience is necessarily a portent to how good of a job someone will do, although it can be). Also I find it amusing how for a lot of really crappy jobs that anyone can basically do they want to use experience as a significant criteria in hiring... I mean are they bored or something?

[Slacker]

It also happens where someone who is 22 and someone who is 32 both have the same amount of experience, but people assume the 32-year-old must be a slacker to only have the same amount of experience as the 22-year-old, so they choose the 22-year-old. Or they could assume the 22-year-old must be a go-getter to get so much experience so quickly and choose the 22-year-old. Or of course they could assume teh 32-year-old has more life experience and wisdom and choose the 32-year-old. Too many variables to assume it would always go one way though.

[Creepy-Snaps]

Mountain Dew I think what is required is for the national emotional atmosphere to become so antagonistic that it's just about to blow. That will permit the ESFJs to take control of the atmosphere and take it where they want it to be, where money doesn't necessarily reach. But yeah I think things are too placid and smoothed over when what people really need is an environment where employers are strongly questioning their safety at night.

True, but I think that environment is needed for politicians moreso than employers. The employers are just the pawns.

[marooned]

Too many variables to assume it would always go one way though.

If you're addressing me, I'm not really assuming it only goes one way. I just posted about the part of it that's more personal to me.

[Slacker]

If you're addressing me, I'm not really assuming it only goes one way. I just posted about the part of it that's more personal to me.

No, just speaking in general.

[Creepy-Snaps]

Also I find it amusing how for a lot of really crappy jobs that anyone can basically do they want to use experience as a significant criteria in hiring... I mean are they bored or something?

Showing the 'experience' you have is important to show you were busy and doing something, rather than doing nothing. Always trying to grow in a positive direction, to what you want to accomplish in life.

Too many variables to assume it would always go one way though.

Exactly, that's why it depends on the interview. For the person to explain their age, experience, and how the job fits in with their life goals.

[marooned]

Showing the 'experience' you have is important to show you were busy and doing something, rather than doing nothing. Always trying to grow in a positive direction, to what you want to accomplish in life.

I reject the idea that people have to show they were busy and doing something. And whether or not they're growing in a "positive direction" is their business. I mean the only thing that matters is can they do the job and (albeit speculation about) will they do it well enough... and if it's a crappy job with high turnover rates anyway then the criteria should be pretty low to match the job (mainly as long as they can perform simple tasks, aren't going to smoke pot in the bathroom, steal things or be a total behavioral problem, then fine).

Also it's horrible to assume people are lazy because there are gaps in their work experience or they have less work experience.

[Slacker]

The tricky thing is that, at least when looking at resumes, people have to make some assumptions when choosing whom they should call in for an interview. They don't have that much information to draw from and make inferences. So when do those assumptions become discrimination. It's at least a bit less muddled in cases people are talking about where it's a job promotion and one person is chosen over another among a pool of current employees, because those people are known and fewer assumptions need to be made. But even then, as with any kind of discrimination suit, you might not know all the decisions that were involved. I helped an employee sort resumes and I know of one case where he wanted to overlook someone specifically because she was black, but then on the other hand I know of a case where someone was not chosen for a really legitimate issue and the person assumed it was because he was black. It's a tricky thing, figuring out where job discrimination is and isn't.

[marooned]

It's a tricky thing, figuring out where job discrimination is and isn't.

I agree with that.

[Creepy-Snaps]

I reject the idea that people have to show they were busy and doing something.

... Of course you would reject it, that's because it's easier on you emotionally to justify it that way, because of your lack of experience:

Thirdly I have experienced the issue of starting working and having problems getting started because of my "lack of experience" when I actually pick up things really quickly and imo do a better job than a lot of people with a lot more experience than me

That's great you think you do a better job than others. If only you had to convince yourself in order to get hired.

And whether or not they're growing in a "positive direction" is their business.

It is the employer's business. To know if they're hiring someone who works hard and stays busy, versus someone who lazes about doing nothing, and then justifies how good they are without anything to back it up.

Also it's horrible to assume people are lazy because there are gaps in their work experience or they have less work experience.

I agree with you that it's horrible... to an extent. But it happens.

Look Loki, I'm not trying to preach at you or tell you what to do. I'm just trying to warn you. Many companies, employers, look at you or your resume objectively first, before even considering the quality of work you personally do. I just don't want to see you continue with that mindset, and end up not getting any work at all, or not being able to go where you want in life.

Believe me, stay busy. Get a crappy part-time job if you must. Getting a different job, once you already have one, is 10 times easier than getting a job if you're unemployed.

Or you can keep doing what you want. Believing performance is more important than experience. I used to believe that to, for years, and even months after I graduated university, and it got me nowhere. It helps to have experience to back up your claims. But hey, it didn't work for me, but I wish you the best of luck. Hopefully you'll get lucky and get a good job despite no experience. Let me know how that works out for you.

[cracka]

I think age discrimination is an excuse for a person who doesn't get a job to use because they didn't get hired. Since way too many people will take this literally, I mean this the way I said it, but with a little bit of sarcasm because I do know it exists, at least a little bit. Though, In the grand scheme of things, if you're not getting hired because of your age, think about what else you may not be getting hired for and work on that.

As far as Loki's posts here, I kind of agree with Mt Dew's last post.

[marooned]

... Of course you would reject it, that's because it's easier on you emotionally to justify it that way, because of your lack of experience:

I actually have a fair amount of experience now, but I remember what it was like in the past and I really don't appreciate your assumptions.

That's great you think you do a better job than others. If only you had to convince yourself in order to get hired.

I don't think I do better than all others at everything--I was just saying experience doesn't always predict who will do better at a particular job. But you can make all sorts of assumptions about me if you like. Perhaps I shouldn't have said "a lot of people" but rather "some people".

It is the employer's business. To know if they're hiring someone who works hard and stays busy, versus someone who lazes about doing nothing, and then justifies how good they are without anything to back it up.

I personally hate it when other people impose their ideas of a "positive direction" on me. Anyway obviously if you're an employer you want someone who will do the job, but I wouldn't assume that someone isn't going to because they have limited work exp for whatever reason. There's a lot of things to consider.

Look Loki, I'm not trying to preach at you or tell you what to do. I'm just trying to warn you. Many companies, employers, look at you or your resume objectively first, before even considering the quality of work you personally do. I just don't want to see you continue with that mindset, and end up not getting any work at all, or not being able to go where you want in life.

You can call it a bad attitude or whatever you like but I'm not going to just adopt a mindset just because others supposedly want to see it. My mind is my own.

Believe me, stay busy. Get a crappy part-time job if you must. Getting a different job, once you already have one, is 10 times easier than getting a job if you're unemployed.

I don't care about adopting your being busy is so positive and cool attitude, sorry.

[tcaudilllg]

More than likely, the more progressive the company you work for, the less likely you will be to experience age discrimination.

In all things, social progressives make the best bosses.