Age Discrimination Laws.

[The Bacon Guy]

BBC News | Business | Age Discrimination

Laws banning age discrimination in the workplace come into effect on 1 October 2006. It is the latest type of discrimination to be tackled after race and sex discrimination. The government wants people to have the right to work longer, particularly as we are living longer, healthier lives. But it is worried that the ageist attitudes of some employers are stopping people from doing this. Defining age discrimination: This is when an employee is discriminated against by an employer on the grounds of age. Discrimination takes different forms. There is overt discrimination - for example, someone being made redundant because they are considered too old for the job. And there is indirect discrimination, such as making ageist comments.

Personally I think this is yet another case of the UK government interfering where it has no business to be. A private business should be free to hire whoever they want for whatever reason. There are three main issues I have with this, other than that it impinges upon the freedom of companies to choose who they employ.

• I can't see how it would work in practice. Companies are not obligated to give reasons for turning down job applicants and it is therefore impossible to prove whether the motivation for rejection was ageism. I can't see it doing much to curb ageist hiring policies.
• It is hypocritical. The government's soundbites about ending discrimination and giving equal opportunities completely fail to mention that there is blatant age discrimination in the government's minimum wage laws. These state that workers under the age of 21 are not entitled to receive the minimum wage. Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, Alistair Darling stated today on BBC Radio 4 that the government had no plans to change this law, despite the fact it is clearly in conflict with their policies on age discrimination in the workplace.
• It is unfair on companies for which the age of the employees could affect their business. For example, a clothes shop with a young customer base could easily fall foul of this law and be forced to hire old people to sell their products. This, in an industry where image is so important, could be very damaging.

So anyway, rant over. What are your thoughts?

[JohnMK]

I agree with all your points. Unquestionably.

[G. Adams]

Strip joints are sure gonna be pretty from now on....

[Fonceai]

@Bacon

Something to remember about your third point... there are some jobs where age discrimination is legal.

Or it's illegal but they can easily require certain physical abilities to hold the job.

Firemen and Policemen, for example, have physical standards.

In your example of the store, they can establish a dress code requiring employees to wear clothes from the store and it will eliminate the type of old person who wouldn't work there.

There are ways around all the different discrimination types, this is just one of the easier ones.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Fonceai Something to remember about your third point... there are some jobs where age discrimination is legal. Or it's illegal but they can easily require certain physical abilities to hold the job. Firemen and Policemen, for example, have physical standards.

Apparently, age discrimination will be legal if the employer can provide "objective justification". However, I haven't heard a definition of objective justification and my guess is that it will lead to a lot of unnecessary lawsuits. I chose the example of the clothes shop because it was specifically mentioned by Alastair Darling as something which would not be exempt from the new guidelines.

Quote by: Fonceai In your example of the store, they can establish a dress code requiring employees to wear clothes from the store and it will eliminate the type of old person who wouldn't work there.

There's no guarantee that this would stop people who are not suitable from applying. The only way to be sure would be to have an age limit on the job application form, so the unsuitable candidates can be eliminated with minimum inconvenience. However, having age limits on application forms is now illegal. So instead of rejecting them outright, they now must inerveiw them, think of a false reason to not to hire them, then reject them. In short, a waste of everyone's time.

There are ways around all the different discrimination types, this is just one of the easier ones.

Hence my first point. At best, these new guidelines will be a mild inconvenience and an enormous waste of time.

[Fonceai]

@Bacon

I agree. It's being added to the discriminatory items as a courtesy, but until people can read minds, it is always possible to make up a very convincing and usually legitimate reason why someone isn't retainable for a job.

[kalel29]

This is socialism at it's finest. It's another example of what happens when the federal government is too big.

[underbear1]

Age discrimination is a difficult discrimination to prove, and other forms of discrimination are usually easy to bypass, with another excuse. That doesn't mean there shouldn't be laws prohibiting this discrimination, it is a fact all workers age, and it is out of anyone's control what age they are.

[Fonceai]

The problem with making age discrimination illegal is that now other ways need to be found to eliminate those incapable of performing a job because of their age.

Consider... do you want to have an 80 year old bus driver when, statistically, his vision and reaction times are less than perfect? When he is in the age range where he could suddenly just die behind the wheel?

Think of the probabilities of someone of age 20, 40, 60, and 80 having strokes and dying instantly. Which age group would you rather have flying a plane? Driving a car?

Same age ranges, but chances of memory loss or slips. Want someone like that counting your money?

The point is that age-related tests to verify and maintain employment qualification are very fair, but if someone cries, "Age discrimination!!" what are we supposed to do then?

[G. Adams]

Quote by: kalel29 This is socialism at it's finest. It's another example of what happens when the federal government is too big.

This isn't happening in the US, or at least this article only deals with the UK. I know it's a surprise to some, as this happens fairly regularly, but this board does actually host none Yanks and foreign topics.

[leftcider]

Quote by: Fonceai The problem with making age discrimination illegal is that now other ways need to be found to eliminate those incapable of performing a job because of their age. Consider... do you want to have an 80 year old bus driver when, statistically, his vision and reaction times are less than perfect? When he is in the age range where he could suddenly just die behind the wheel? Think of the probabilities of someone of age 20, 40, 60, and 80 having strokes and dying instantly. Which age group would you rather have flying a plane? Driving a car? Same age ranges, but chances of memory loss or slips. Want someone like that counting your money? The point is that age-related tests to verify and maintain employment qualification are very fair, but if someone cries, "Age discrimination!!" what are we supposed to do then?

Drivers will still be tested for vision, reflexes, health, etc. This doesn't change that, or outlaw discriminating based on factors directly related to work performance.

I for one would be fine with an old bus driver, provided they meet qualifications. I think people here are overreacting. This only bans discrimination based on age alone, not on performance criteria that can deteroriate with age.

To the allegation that it is difficult to enforce: yes, just like bans on discriminating based on race, gender, etc., this is difficult to enforce. It is possible to enforce if there is a clear and distinct pattern of the discrimination occuring, however. It might create some misplaced lawsuits, but I think it's a good law to at least have on the books for symbolic value, if nothing more.

[Fonceai]

Quote by: leftcider I think it's a good law to at least have on the books for symbolic value, if nothing more.

I agree.

[G. Adams]

Quote by: leftcider I think it's a good law to at least have on the books for symbolic value, if nothing more.

Law shouldn't be wastefully placed on the books for symbolic value. Law should be purposeful, clear, direct and in line with our principles, or else legislation makes a mockery of Law. We have far, far too many laws as it is, we need no more.

[Fonceai]

In the sense of nobility, we shouldn't need a law like this one.

And for the most part, we don't.

Yes, it's on the books for propriety's sake, but I'm sure that once in a blue moon it's good it's there.