I defintely agree with the author about ageism being rampant through the workforce. I've now spent two periods of time recently applying for government and private jobs with upward of 40+ applications. I have always made a point of contacting the company and speaking to someone about the position before applying, even if the add doesn't give a contact name. At the start of discussions they are always interested and yes your background/experience sounds a good fit etc for the position. But when the talk about experience starts to indicate that one may be a "mature" age worker, I am 58 and therefore 35+ years of experience, the interest evaporates. At least I am in the position that I don't financialy need to work.

Trying to prove that this is age descrimination would be the problem. When the likes of the ACCC can't prove collusion on things like petrol prices, what hope does the ordinary mug punter in the street have?

On a slightly more positive note, does anyone have any suggestions for agencies that actually treat people on merit rather than age? I'd be interested especially for any in the Melbourne area.

Dkit

I notice that you do not mention discrimination against younger people, which is just as prevalent in our society. The article focuses on discrimination during job applications, perhaps a wider scope would reveal that young people are discriminated against when it comes to issues of finance, democracy (there is no upper age limit to voting rights), and treatment by law enforcement. 43% of British youth reported experiencing discrimination based on their age, compared to other categories such as sex (27%), race (11%), or sexual orientation (6%).

Willow, C., Franklin, A. and Shaw, C. (2007). Meeting the obligations of the Convention on the Rights of the Child in England. Children and young people's messages to Government. DCSF.

alas ageism is alive and well in HR. If you ever wondered why older people get knock backs its usually because the client has told the HR agency that they're after new blood, which means young people. It's the default mindset in a lot of agencies. They want to place the applicant so they're not going to take risks with an 'oldie'.

Even if that older person has 15 years experience, excellent contacts, is reliable, intelligent, highly motivated, etc.

I'd say that's almost criminal - wouldn't you?

What comes around, goes around.

I would imagine that there is also an undercurrent of "they've had their turn, now it's ours" that is in play here. They (the young recruiters and hirers) would be considering the financial legacy left by us boomers, and coming to the conclusion that they owe us nothing. Especially not the leg up that they could give instead to a thirty-year-old with a young family.

They would also look at, say, Dkit, and think "they probably don't need the money".

Oh, yes...

>>I am 58 and therefore 35+ years of experience, the interest evaporates. At least I am in the position that I don't financialy need to work<<

It's also possible you might remind them of their parents, and visualise how their parents might behave in a managerial position.

Or, just as bad, as a peon.

Yes, there is age discrimination. Yes, it is just as bad as any other form of discrimination - race, colour, religion, gender, national origin, whatever. But "affirmative action" is not the answer, since it simply shifts the unfairness in another direction. Education is clearly not the answer - even well-educated people can remain bigots all their lives, they just manage to hide it more cleverly.

And we all know what a "Consultative Forum" will achieve, don't we?

So suck it up, people.

*All* human action consists of discrimination, of preferring A to B, of picking and choosing, of preferring and setting aside.

On what ground do we consider some discrimination unethical? That it adversely affects the interest of some other person? But *all* action adversely affects the interest of some other person? That it affects the right of some other person? But other persons don't have a *right* to associate with others against their will.

There is apparent agreement that discrimination on the ground of sex is bad. What about separate public toilets? Bad? What about when we choose sexual partners of the opposite sex? Bad, because it discriminates against prospective sexual partners of the same sex?

Discrimination doesn't have to be correct in each case for it to be rational. There is case probability and there is class probability. Let's say there are two races of people. One race has a rate of unprovoked aggressive violence of 1 percent. The other has a rate of unprovoked aggressive violence of 10 percent. A taxi driver can rationally decide not to pick up a person of the second race because there's a class probability of 10 percent that his prejudice is well-founded, even though there's a case probability of 90 percent that it's wrong.

This is no more than using the information available to us, which we do all the time, and which we cannot avoid doing all the time. It is no argument to say the information might be wrong: it might be wrong in any case. Perfection is not an option.

Give Aussie Battlers a go

Fellow Aussies give the lower income battler a bloody go
Cease paying labourers, truck drivers and non-tertiary
qualified people wages well below

Some of us never given the opportunity to be well paid
permanent public servants, sitting in an airconditioned or heated
office, sipping on coffee working, the luxury of stability, long
service and hefty pay out super you know

The rest of us Aussies slogging it out in the elements
treated like dirt half the time, no rights, stagnant union power
come rain, hail, sleet, heat and snow

Laid off constantly over the years when companies cut their costs
Long term contractors, casuals and full timers; a manager looks across.
Up goes a hand, he points to the door, no thanks, little notice, “cutting costs” he says, “You know how it is Ross”.

“Oh c’mon man, its just a week away from Christmas; my kids, what’ll I do”, despairs Ross.
“Mate, its not my problem, don’t shoot the sender, just doing my job for the Boss”.
“Will I get a reference at least, to secure another position after Christmas”, asked tired 40’s something Ross.
“Sorry mate”, laughs the Manager, shifting from foot to foot, “The boss doesn’t give ‘em for contractors and part-timers, his hours of the essence, the company can’t afford this type of ‘friggin’ reference writing time loss.

Over the next day, Ross rings around companies, feeling defeated.
After all, he’s already trodden this private enterprise non-tertiary qualified path before uphill.
Trying to ward off depression, low self esteem, anxiety and tempted not to pop a pill,
Ross uses the job seeker internet site spruiking his experience UNTIL….

(cont)

“Why did you leave your previous employer”, was yet another’s company’s query.
“Well, company policy is to lay off contractors, casuals and part-timers before the holiday period starts”, Ross explains for the hundredth time most weary.
“Oh how dreadful to do that this time of year, Sir, I am so sorry, they booted you out on your ear. However, do come along to an interview, join the other 20 young candidates, do not be disillusioned and do not fear”.

A phone call comes through after Ross hangs up the phone
“Darling, how did you go all day”, asked his loving wife Joan.
“No, Sweetheart, age is against me, now how the heck are we to pay off our loan?”.
“Ross, we’ve weathered hard times before, when you were injured and sore,
And plenty of times with selfish, thoughtless uncaring employers, who showed you and others the door”.
“I’ll just have to take something different and lower in pay,
Seems these days are no different to twenty years ago, stuff our taxes going to workplace reforms, an employee never did have any rights not now nor any time before”.

[Correct thread this time!]

Everyone opposed to age discrimination in this thread has assumed that mature people represent *extra* value for money as employees. You don't think it's a trifle arrogant to assume that everyone else in the world is wrong? That you know what's more beneficial for them, without knowing the circumstances, than they do for themselves?

If what you are saying is right, the solution is simple, and there's no need for any more laws. Graham, dkit, Stezza, Cheryl, just start up a business or businesses and employ the aged and mature people that *you* say are undervalued. If you are right, then the aged will gain employment, and you will gain the profit that comes from your entrepreneurial insight.

And if you are wrong, then you will suffer losses commensurate with your error in assuming that the aged and mature workers are actually under-appreciated and great value for money, and that is as it should be.

I support Peter Hume - great remarks!

What's disturbing is that so many are complaining about their loss of right to slavery. An older person should have enough savings to stand on their own two feet without begging, as well as the maturity to consume less. Too bad if one chose to dance all summer, then find in autumn that they are left with nothing.

It is not even true that there are no jobs for middle-aged people, just not the same jobs. As a rule of thumb, older people have better chances of getting work that is truly needed and less chances of getting an artificial job which the world could do without. Less money, but more feeling of being useful.

Hi-Tech for example, as mentioned in the article, is an area for the young anyway: regardless of your initial age, 5 years later into it you will be considered geriatric (but note that middle-aged people can still get a decent job in electronics, away from hi-tech's cutting-edge, for example programming a washing-machine). A middle-aged person should hardly expect to be a go-go dancer or movie-star either, but we could live just as well without hi-tech and without entertainment.

On the other extreme, there is an increasing demand for working with the elderly and a steady demand for working with children. Not as glamorous or paying, but something truly needed, as opposed to many vain jobs that contribute nothing real.

In another area mentioned, hospitality, it is true that older people will find it hard to work in shiny top-class restaurants, but they should have no problem finding a job where what's important is the decent food and service rather than the show.

People should appreciate and be proud of their age, rather than compare themselves to the young. As we grow older, we understand that it is no use for us to conquer the world, which we shall eventually leave anyway. We should gradually and peacefully start disengaging from it rather than knock desperately on its ephemeral doors. If employers remind us of this, they should be thanked.

There are are many forms of discrimination in the workforce but having been in the position of seeking work recently, for the first time I could see my age was a factor for some roles even though I am not quite fifty. Thankfully I am now gainfully employed part-time in the private sector, albeit at a lower pay than previously.

In some departments within the public service if you are older and not already in a senior role, older workers are seen as less malleable, less likely to accept the BS, more resistant to change and more likely to speak out against unethical or unfair behaviours. Probably because older workers, particularly if closer to retirement, are not seeking to climb the corporate ladder, so less likely to accept unethical practices. For some employers I think there is a perception because someone may not be ambitious that their work will be sub-standard, which is a furphy given work standard is more about one's work ethics.

The latter was feedback I used to get from some clients a few years ago, and often had to persuade them to at least interview an outstanding older candidate.

A mix of younger and older workers is a good thing, and usually works well for an astute employer with a mix of experience and maturity and the zeal and career aspirations of the younger set.

Unfortunately as we age we have no choice I guess but to suck it up and do our best to convince would-be employers that we 'oldies' are a good employment choice

One of the main problems for older people wanting a lower status, [or any] job is being tagged as over qualified.

The manager, doing the hiring can't imagine stepping down to a lower job, & has trouble seeing that some might want to. I have done it myself. I found it hard to believe the ex manager would be happy as a storeman, even if it did mean he could go home 3 hours earlier each day.

No one wants to put months into training someone up to useful, only to have them leave, shortly after.

When I wanted to step back a bit, I had to start a little home business. I then had to kick myself in the butt, regularly, to stop myself expanding it into something more time consuming, every time I saw an opportunity. Even after doing it myself, I would have had trouble hiring an ex bank manager as a roustabout, or delivery driver.

Hasbeen
Good point. I found that being overqualified was part of the problem. It is difficult to convince an employer that a work life balance becomes more important to some as they get older. I can see why an employer might hesitate to invest when there is that doubt - will the person be bored, will they move on, how will they cope with loss of status or lower income? All valid questions.

A with most things, it is sometimes about taking a punt, which is often an intuitive decision about the personal merits and claims of the applicant.

pelican,

"In some departments within the public service if you are older and not already in a senior role, older workers are seen as less malleable, less likely to accept the BS, more resistant to change and more likely to speak out against unethical or unfair behaviours."

I will go along with the no BS and oldies are less threanteed by line/middle managers whom may now be at a level that once reported to them. In my long experience Resistence to Change factors are age independent. When bank room computing moved to the user comunity in the 1980s, it was the 20 to 30 somethings that screamed the loudest.

If you look at job adds for the Public Service, it is often the case that SES positions appear to require to have less qualifications than lower managerships; perhaps, to allow political and "favour and grace" appointmentments. Senior people from industry appear to find it hard to switch to the APS, because I suspect, often, the job is already filled.

It might prove interesting to have a practical test, like playing a computer simulation game, to see, who really is the better and more flexible thinker.

*Unfortunately as we age we have no choice I guess but to suck it up and do our best to convince would-be employers that we 'oldies' are a good employment choice*

Not so Pelican. The first time I felt really free, was when I
was self employed and finally had no debts.

Its purely your choice.

Reading some of the replies here reminded me of a program on ageism on Radio National's All in the Mind. Present was Todd Nelson, Associate Professor of Social Psychology at California State University, Stanislaus, who edited a book entitled Ageism: Stereotyping and Prejudice Against Older Persons. Anyhow here are a few thinkers:

"David Rutledge: Todd, people will readily say that ageism is bad, but that it’s not as bad as sexism or racism or homophobia. Which is strange, when you consider that the elderly are just as vulnerable to marginalisation and exploitation as any other social group. Why do you think that people are less concerned about ageism than they are about other -isms?

Todd Nelson: I think the simple answer to that is that ageism is one of the most socially condoned and institutionalised forms of prejudice today..."

and

"David Rutledge: One of the contributors to your book, Todd Nelson, points out that one of the salient differences between ageism and other forms of discrimination is that all the ageists will one day join the outcast group. The white supremacist will never become black, but the ageist will grow old – barring some sort of accident.

Todd Nelson: Yeah, and I think that’s one of the most interesting things. It doesn’t make sense for someone to have and promote negative attitudes toward a group which he or she will eventually join. Most people don’t think about that, maybe they’re living for the moment. But I think also there’s an element of people maybe accepting the stereotypes."

Don't Tell the Kids: An Anatomy of Ageism
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/mind/s575028.htm

Yuyusuta,

In IT, high tech is being able to write in machine language, JCL or ADA or write calculus using Fortran. HTML annd Java offer little challange by comparison. Modern software is so very easy to use for someone, who ran a major Commerical Bank or a major Government department on 4 to 16 Meg of memory.

How many twenty olds proficient an Corel draw, could unstring a packed decimal using a base-16 protocol or write a gateway bit protocol between EBCDIC and ASCII or, could write a BASIC A programme to change a font size for a printer output, rather than press a button?

To a 45-50+ year old modern technology is a breeze. After-all they invented it!

Peter Hume,

Not everyone wants to be a big fish in a tiny pound. Between Banking and Academia, I considered buying a Dymocks franchise or a paper shop. Friends said I would go mad. For me, they were right. I thought, "who would to live the mundane existence of the SME entrepreneur"?

More likely older CBD types would still prefer the big league, even if in a lower ranked position. From theer they can still make a worthwhile contribution, while being amused by the crawlers who invited their bosses home for dinner and the thirty year olds who burn the midnight oil, without realising that they will be expendable in the next big downtown.

It's ridiculous when people in their 40s are considered to be past their use by date. In most dealings, as a customer, I would much rather confer with a knowledgeable, patient, mature person than many inexperienced, hard bitten youngsters who often deal the brush off because the enquiry is beyond their expertise.

As a coworker, my best, most helpful and productive team mates have usually been older people. They act as mentors and generally keep the work place calm. I haven't found them to be less progressive than younger workers. If anything it seems to me that their experience means that they adapt faster. In my observation, older people are definitely suffering pointless discrimination.

We do need to make good use of the older person workforce as well as innovative ways of adapting work practices - like greater use of current technology; flexible hours, job sharing and the like. Great service has been sacrificed for bigger profits in so many ways - shop service; telephone call centres; food service; garages and so on - we have automated and self-serve provision and it's much less satisfying than person to person contact.

We not only have an undervalued and useful pool of labour that has the capacity to induct younger workers and mentor them through to give some stability and continuity to service provision; but as a community we will need to provide less for people who can earn their own income. The unemployed worker pool is going to be around for an increasingly long time too - since health conditions obtain better treatment and the life span has increased something like 10 years just in the last 1/2 century.

Where are the bloody unions when we need them?

Yes I think grey power should make it's strength felt in a collective way. Maybe by forming a union. Or as someone suggested, by pooling to create competing businesses

While living in Brisbane a few years ago, I sent an expression of interest to a Sydney university department and was interviewed by phone. Afterwards a representative rang me and said they were extremely impressed by my CV and my interview. They had been looking for ages for someone with my special combination of qualifications and experience – unusual and exactly what they needed. So they wanted to meet me in person & were funding a ticket. In Sydney I walked in to a panel of people all 20 years younger than me; their faces fell as soon as they saw me. They went through the motions but it was obviously a waste of time, and afterwards they told me they could not appoint me because of budget cuts.

Yabby
Not everybody can be self-employed but I take your point. Strangely I have been researching some options along those lines but will take up a short-term casual role shortly which will keep me out of trouble in the meantime.

There are a lot of good business courses and mentoring programs around that weren't there 20 years ago.

Pelican, just remember Jessica Watson, you can do anything! :)

Carter,

At 39, between working at a Bank, where I was the senior manager of a $40 billion portfolio (twice the size od George Soros at the time) and having sign-off on a $14 million advertising budget and becoming an academic, job hunting with post-graduate qualifications and several commerical and university awards, I applied for a position with a building society, requiring visits to their branches to basically check-out posters and importantly (according to the interview panel) ensure the mobiles hanging from the ceilings were okay. I was deemed unqualified. I suspect, even today, yeards later, my PhD would not carry suffient weight.

I totally agree (I think I was the example of the APS 'Scribe'). Since completing my last project-based position in April 2007 (a position I did not apply for but was asked to do), I have been unable to find work. The result for me has been cataclysmic, as I have now lost my house. The work I am best qualified for is policy-research and have heaps experience at high levels in the public and private sectors, incl overseas work for the UNDP. I am currently looking for the temp positions in the APS which pop up constantly as people go on extended leave etc.

I am not seeking positions at or even near my former level - preferring jobs I can 'walk into, undertake and leave' - without supervision hassles and staying well away from 'office politics': I am generally seeking APS 4 to 6 positions. On the 'rare' occasion I receive any acknowledgment of my application, I usually get the 'standard "Dear John"' saying that I did not meet the standard. This was a call for people to form a pool for possible APS 4 to 6 jobs. (Always one to challenge humbug, I relied saying: 'Thanks for that, I did not think there were so many ex senior APS officers looking for APS jobs’ ..... response? Silence.) I have been told by one of Canberra's 'head hunters' that he considers me highly capable and has submitted my name for ‘dozens of jobs’ but the response was always a blank ‘no’. I agree that young people should not be permitted to vet and interview staff ….

The rules which were introduced some 20 years ago for women, when it was assumed that men could not be trusted to hire women, viz, that women’s applications had to be read by women and at least one woman must sit on any interview panel where women were applicants, should be applied to ‘age over 50 or 55’.

Bob9000,

Younger people are often better networked and have friends in different compaies across the same industry. I know the example of a (then) thirty year old, who was changing jobs between two Finance Companies. He was given the draft job application before the position was advertised, by a insider friend. He was told "cross-out what you haven't done and add-in any thing you feel you should".

in 1994 my brother in Quebec lost his middle managerial with an engineering firm, told he was just too old, his age then: 45! After nearly losing his house and his children missing out on uni, he finally got the job of his dreams: working at home from his garage with his own tools, working on orders for individuals and companies; he turned what was a wrenching traumatic experience into an opportunity to find his true value.

For myself, I'm retired and living the life of reilly here in northern Mindanao, but when I applied to be a blood donor volunteer with the Red
Cross, I was told the cut-off age is 60, so I missed out by 5 years! (In Oz, I've heard of donors in their 80s!)

I applied to be a reader at my local church but was initially rejected because I was - you guessed it, too old! Cut off age was 55, but I appealed to the parish priest and he allowed me in, as an exception. But their life expectancy for men here is 69, so I think they're wondering when I'll be dropping off the perch...

Ageism has been around for a while, but as I get older, I find the elderly are a damn sight more interesting conversationalists, wheras when I was younger I used to wish they'd hurry up and stop their gasbagging! How things have changed! But I enjoy old age, and would only go back to the work force if I really had to, which is not anytime soon.