The article suggests that age based discrimination could be either positive or negative. Positive discrimination includes favourable treatment based on physical work activities of which older workers may be exempt from heavy lifting or could be favoured with managerial and supervisory roles. In contrast negative discrimination may block or restrict older workers from professional development opportunities as it could be seen as wasting resources. This could disadvantage their recruitment and selection to meaningful employment for non managerial posts.
The results of the research in the article clearly shows that older candidates were less preferred and seen as less suitable in the jobs with lower talent shortages. However there was no evidence of barriers to older workers in nursing as the candidates were seen as equivalent although preference was given to older workers because of their work experience. In the field study, older candidates who were either 40+ or 55+ years of age were rated far behind their younger counterparts with female applicants being disadvantaged in sales and HR roles. Over 40% of the variance in rating of the candidates was based on age, with employers favouring younger workers over older workers, assuming that younger workers are more flexible and adaptable. Older workers were described as resistant to change and technology while young workers were described as trainable and easy to get up to speed.
These findings were consistent with the literature on influence of age on selection decisions indicating the 55+ age group suffering hardship in jobs that are age stereotyped. The selection panel’s rate on suitability was biased on age schema rather than by objective differences in job or applicant’s characteristics. The literature review indicates that the implications from age discrimination can be wide-ranging with employers still harbouring preferences for younger workers even where there is a labour shortage. This suggests that employers are failing to tap and capitalise on the valuable talent that older workers bring to the labour market while managers are acting irrationally when they ignore or disadvantage older workers in their hiring. The article suggests that age biases in selection will also provide lower returns to job search, leading to an increasingly demoralised body of unemployed and under-employed older workers. It is also noted in the article that hiring or employing on age based discrimination has economic and social consequences which must be addressed by the policy because discrimination is illegal under the Human Rights Act (1993). In conclusion the article challenges the companies to focus their recruitment on skills required as opposed to being limited by the age of an applicant. Failure to overcome age biases will not only increase risk of legal challenges, but will compromise retention of quality staff as inability to acknowledge skills across all applicants is unsustainable.
Analysis and application
This article discloses some of the grey areas where we are complacent and ignorant of the legislation against Human Rights violation in New Zealand and the world at large. It is clearly articulated that older workers are prejudiced in employment industries because of age classification while employers fail to tap and capitalise on the valuable talent that older workers bring to the labour market. Grossman (2005) suggests that there is need to get serious about addressing the stereotypes and focus on reducing the alienation those older workers feel as this may hinder their production. According to the research report by Kan and Wilson (2006) age discrimination is slightly suppressed in New Zealand as we rely more on full participation in the labour force given scarce skills and critical labour shortages.
Given that no one is exempt from achieving the status of old age at some point in life unless death occurs at an early age, this makes us all vulnerable to the experience of ageism making it imperative that we do not discriminate and stereotype older employees. Grossman (2005) claims that age discrimination has become a fact of life in the workplace across ethnicities among Americans as older workers aged 45 to 74 see little evidence that they are competing on a level playing field. The article serves as a reminder that ageism along with every other prejudice should be addressed robustly in the employment industry. This includes finetuning the legislation on discrimination. Olson (2003) cited in Grossman (2005) argues that the law does not contemplate affirmative action, but only makes sure older people are not treated differently, it is about equal treatment not preferential treatment on hiring of labour force.
The Security industry in which I work uses a different ethos in terms of its human resourcing. Human resource managers in the organisation see age as an important element when recruiting candidates. This is not seen as discriminatory given that an integral part of security is having an employee who is physically capable of working in an area of high risk requiring the sometime use of force and restraining when necessary. An older employee who may be suffering age related problems is unlikely to do well in this environment. While the argument is that most people’s performance declines with age, this also depends on the individual’s lifestyle and may require clarification on an individual basis. For example do they smoke, do they abuse alcohol, do they suffer from health problems that will adversely affect their ability to do the work and so on. Therefore the requirement of physical fitness may legitimise discrimination against age based on the nature of the business. This approach comes with ethical dilemmas as pointed out in Bowditch and Buono (2005) that managers face tough choices in their daily job as ethical concerns fall in the realm of managing their firms’ human services. My organisation practices on the notion of assumed flexibility and adaptability of younger workers whom we also see as “trainable and go-getters” although we seek to retain our older workers.
As we endeavour to maintain the said principles, the organisation continuously experiences high turnover from the younger workers which is proving to be more expensive in the long run. The recruiting and training costs are not sustainable, due to the nature of our services in dealing with offenders and trying to keep communities safe, we are left with little room to manoeuvre. While we operate against the philosophy and views expressed by human resources in the organisation, I also understand that discrimination against older workers can affect both those still in employment and those seeking to change jobs or be re-employed. According to Grossman (2005) in a survey at a conference Board in 2002, out of 1,600 workers aged 50 and older, twenty five percent were contemplating leaving their jobs because of being held back or marginalised based on their age. This does not seem to be the case in New Zealand though. Foe example a report by the New Zealand Department of labour called “Older People in Work: Key Trends and Patterns 1991-1995, suggests that older New Zealand Workers are staying on the job with New Zealand recording one of the highest workforce participation rates in the OECD for the 50-64 year age group with 77% of 50-64 year olds working in 2005 as compared to 57% in 1991.
Kan and Wilson (2006) suggest that age-based discrimination undermines both personal and national productivity and limits the growth and productive capacity of firms as it is indefensible on moral, ethic-legal and socio-economic grounds. However I don’t think many employers including profit making organisations want to discriminate against older workers, but they do have to take into account their returns against the cost of short-term employees who are likely to retire in short period. This is also an ethical thought process in business decision making as it involves choosing between two things that appear right. (Bowditch and Buono, 2005)
Campanelli (1990) cited in Kan and Wilson (2006) suggests that the assumptions behind age-based discrimination are largely false because older workers are not less adaptable, they possess rare and complex intellectual capital and provide more reliable service to employers with fewer accidents and injuries as compared to the younger workers. This notion is supported by some of the operational managers within the organization,and to a certain extent by Human Resources, as they claim that older workers are easy to manage because of their skills, professional expertise, and accumulated knowledge.
The research carried out in the article shows that discrimination in the jobs with lower talent shortages dominated the overall model while no evidence of barriers to older workers in healthcare industry particularly in nursing. This is also articulated by Kan and Wilson (2006)’s findings that in fields where there are more applicants, they are more discriminatory than employers, favouring younger workers over older workers twice as often. It is therefore apparent that older workers or applicants were less preferred and seen as less suitable regardless of their essential skills. However, there is no sufficient evidence that older applicants are discriminated against in the employment interview or short-listing in New Zealand, although there is a probability that some of the employers may manipulate the discrimination legislation to gratify their needs.
Conclusion
I agree with the notion that business industry and the employment sector needs competent and motivated employees who will be committed to the work and to the business for a longer period as it is cost effective. Based on the article review, age shouldn’t be the most important criteria in short-listing or hiring work force although certain conditions may be considered for safety of the prospective employee and others with the work force. While the article gives a clear possible picture of age based discrimination, it lacks the voice of older workers and their experiences because one size does not fit all.
I therefore think that more rigorous researches should be conducted to further explore this issue from New Zealand older worker’s experiences on legal ramifications to better combat the intractable, subtle age-based discrimination that is so pervasive. Employers should be as sensitive to age-based discrimination as they are to the issues of sexism and racism because it is becoming a civil issue more than an economic issue.
References:
Bowditch, J.L. and Buono, A.F. (2005) 6th Ed, A primer on Organisational Behaviour, Leyh Publishing LLC, New Caledonia
Grossman, R.J, (2005) The under-reported impact of age discrimination and its threat to business vitality, Business Horizons, 48, 71 – 78.
Kan, J. and Wilson, M. (2006) Barriers to entry for the older worker, The University of Auckland Business School, New Zealand
Older People in Work: Key Trends and Patterns 1991-1995. February 2007, Department of Labour
