Comments (13)

• Mike D

  Good article Lew.
  
  Canada has a mandatory 65 year retirement age, except for politicians!
  
  What I see happening here is that government, the Federal Government in particular, will become the employer of last resort for aging baby boomers. If the article published by Jeff Tucker a couple of weeks ago is any indication of how government "works?", there should be no problem with accommodation. However, since the government has no money of its own and has to raise the money to pay these people by taxing the private sector, the private sector gets saddled with these costs anyway.

  Published: June 23, 2008 11:17 AM

• Francisco Torres

  In Mexico, the average age for new hires in the Managerial levels is 30 years. A person as old as 40 is considered too old for a new post. The reason is not age discrimination, but the fact that free (or free-ish) education generates an oversupply of college graduates that easily outbid the older professionals, even if the younger generations are stupider - companies simply factor in the cost of hiring versus the cost of training and older professionals will be pushed out. There are many anti-discrimination laws in Mexico, all of them useless and vague, and only contribute to make older professionals, women and certain minorities even more expensive to hire. The culprit, as it is always the case, is the State and its good intentions.

  Published: June 23, 2008 2:12 PM

• Michael A. Clem

  When it comes to discrimination issues, age or otherwise, too many people have trouble separating society from government. Just because something is legal doesn't mean that the majority of people have to support it or be in favor of it. There are the basic economic incentives for avoiding irrational biases in order to achieve the best, most productive results, which any decent businessman or employer will recognize and respond to. If someone isn't a good businessman and lets his biases overcome his business sense, he will have a harder time achieving the best results and succeeding in business.
  
  Moreover, most people don't rely on government for their morals (what a disaster society would be if we did!). If government has any legitimate function, it is to protect individual rights, period. Many undesirable things may and should be legal (drug use, discrimination, etc.), but society can use peer pressure and ostracism to restrict such things, and it will be a more powerful and effective restriction than legal prohibition can ever be.

  Published: June 23, 2008 2:15 PM

• jeremy wuitschick

  "With this new court decision, the burden of proof is on you to show otherwise."

  How is an employer to do such a thing? The burden of proof should always rest on the shoulders of the accuser, as it is impossible to prove a negative.

  In some ways, modern courts are similar to "Judge Judy" in that they are little more than a place for a judge to exercise arbitrary power by expressing their opinion on a given topic through official, binding legal judgment.

  BTW Fantastic writing r. Rockwell. you express the "reverse discrimination" argument clearly and succinctly.

  Published: June 23, 2008 2:28 PM

• josh m

  Excellent article. Just a couple of points: Lew points out, A) that many instances that appear to be age discrimination are actually due to factors that have no direct bearing on age and, B) that it’s impossible to get into the mind of someone else.

  While those points are true, I would point out that I believe some employers do discriminate on the basis of age. An example: I was in my local Whole Foods recently and it suddenly struck me how the employees, especially the checkout people, were all young and hip-looking. I don’t think they would hire an older person—and not because of other factors that have no bearing on age, but because of age itself. Yes, I can’t get into the hiring manager’s mind to know for certain, but I think it’s blatant enough that the odds would be strongly in my favor of this type of discrimination having been the case.

  (I do not advocate any government laws to address this, nor do I think there is anything improper about this---so please don’t read any of that into what I’ve posted).
  

  Published: June 23, 2008 4:25 PM

• Skip Oliva

  A fine article, but the headline is a tad misleading. Age discrimination *is* legal in many contexts, such as the state's blanket prohibition of adults under the age of 21 from purchasing and consuming alcohol. Of course, when the state engages in age discrimination, it's always in the "public interest" (*cough*).

  Published: June 23, 2008 4:31 PM

• Scott D

  "I was in my local Whole Foods recently and it suddenly struck me how the employees, especially the checkout people, were all young and hip-looking."

  Most people like to look at and speak to young, attractive people when they shop.

  Published: June 23, 2008 5:01 PM

• josh m

  Scott, that was my point: such discrimination exists in and of itself, and it doesn't require mind-reading to know that it does.

  Published: June 23, 2008 5:39 PM

• Brent

  "I was in my local Whole Foods recently and it suddenly struck me how the employees, especially the checkout people, were all young and hip-looking."

  Working for many years in retail grocery, I know many managers won't hire people much older than 30 or 35 because the pay isn't very much and the job demands youthful energy. It comes down to managers believing that older people are "overqualified" for a position that is basically mind-numbing and just simplistic labor. For the most part, they are probably right... why waste training on someone (and lose out on some young kid who applied) and then end up losing them right away because they quit.

  Published: June 23, 2008 7:01 PM

• Ron

  I agree...a great article. It hadn't occurred to me before how anti-discrimination laws force people to consider attributes they normally wouldn't have thought about. So rather than minimize the focus on said attributes, the laws actually bring them to the fore. How counterproductive is that?

  Another thing that kills me is the arbitrary nature of the whole thing. The fact is that we all discriminate in myriad ways every single day. I discriminated against men when I married a woman. I discriminated against one company when I accepted a job offer from another. I discriminated against white wine when I chose red wine to go with my dinner the other night. Last time I was in a "gentleman's club" I noticed a complete lack of dancing dudes, and that all the women were attractive. For some strange reason, all of these types of discrimination are perfectly fine, and all it really takes to change that (at least legally) is for someone to complain because they don't like what they perceive to be someone else's sense of value.

  Published: June 26, 2008 10:18 AM

• An angry grandmother

  On June 25, 2008, Commissioner Scott Gordon of the Family Law section of the Los Angeles Superior Court Central District issued a Court Order baring a grandparent from watching her grandsons because she is "too old."
  
  In the case, mother of the children went to protest the grandmother from watching the twin boys while the father is out of town on a trip. Commissioner Gordon granted the motion based solely on the grandmother's age and the mother saying the grandmother is 88 years old and her stamina is not good.
  
  The grandmother lives an independent life, is healthy, drives, cooks and shops on her own, does her own banking and stock market transactions. She plays soccer with the boys and takes them swimming and to the park without assistance.
  
  This Court Order sets a dangerous percedent. One of the joys for a senior is spending quality time alone with your grandchildren. Another Court might decide that 70 years old is too old and bar another grandparent from his or her grandchildren.
  
  Please demand an explanation from Commissioner Gordon and his superiors on his decision. Write to Scott Gordon at LA Superior Court, Department 88, 11 North Hill Street, Los Angeles CA 90012
  

  Published: June 26, 2008 4:52 PM

• Robert Harris

  I would ask that you post a civil and intellegent article then, Lew, I have recently run head first into age discrimination at the age of 44.
  It was a subtile realization, but as I became aware that from speaking to excited recruiters and HR reps about my capabilities when I send a chronological resume the temperature drops dramatically. Sadly enough I look as if I might be in my early thirties and could easily run most 20 somethings into the ground.
  The dillema I face is honesty, it feels as if I am being less than forthright if I present a modified resume just targeting the position offered. I am very concerned with the attitude of some individuals who consider age discrimination acceptible, do they think they will be young forever? In a time when lifespans are ever increasing it must be of concern to everyone when persons in their 40's can be viewed as invaluable. What do you suppose will happen when vast numbers of energetic, creative and capable people aged 40 and up increasingly find themselves unable to gain employment? I guess we will have to see, perhaps all of the young people will enjoy the fortune of paying the cost of a whole new welfare class created of prejuduce and arrogance.

  Published: August 18, 2008 11:37 PM

• David Ch

  IN response to 'An Angry grandmother', can I mention a case that came up in SOuth Africa a year or 2 ago....

  Details are vague for me now, but in upshot, the court ordered a pair of grandparents to pay maintenance for a grandchild, on the grounds that their son ( the father, since divorced from the mother) could not himself afford to pay maintenance.

  Published: August 19, 2008 10:13 AM