By Sylvia Carr, 29 September 2006 16:55
NEWS
The intention of new employment laws which aim to eliminate ageism in the workplace is laudable, say silicon.com readers, however they question how effective the laws will be.
The legislation, which comes into effect on 1 October, makes it illegal for companies to discriminate against individuals based on their age during the hiring process or when considering promotion or providing on-the-job training.
Businesses will also not be allowed to force employees to retire before the age of 65 and must consider workers' requests to work beyond retirement age.
What do you think?
Take our latest two-second poll and tell us whether you think the new anti-ageism laws will decrease age discrimination in the workplace. Cast your vote here.
Readers took particular issue with the new regulation which will forbid employers from advertising for "young" or "enthusiastic" workers and from specifying a minimum number of years' experience.
One reader said: "Why is 'enthusiastic' considered to be a young adjective? I know plenty of keen older people, and lots of new graduates who really can't be bothered!"
Several readers questioned whether forbidding employers to ask for applicants' years of experience will eliminate age discrimination - and instead thought it would hinder employers and recruiters being able to find appropriate candidates.
A recruiter explained his dilemma: "By not allowing us to specify how much experience is required (and years of experience is a good benchmark) the number of applications will increase, as will the frustration of the applicants as we are having to be vague in our search criteria. Has this been thought through properly?"
Recruiters and head hunters received a fare bit of criticism from readers for perpetrating age discrimination - and readers had little hope the legislation would change this.
"From the experience of friends and family the problem lies squarely with the recruitment agencies and will thus be very hard to root out or monitor. Direct application seems to be the only way for an older candidate to get an interview, let alone a job but how many companies advertise directly these days?... Can't see how the legislation will help... just one more reason not to take on an older candidate."
But in-house HR departments did not get off without blame. One anonymous reader said: "Legislation will protect those in work - but will not improve the ability of those seeking employment to get onto short lists. We simply will not meet criteria often because many of the 'older generation' of IT professionals have an eclectic mix of lifelong learning, so don't fit neatly into some HR skill set box."
A reader from Wales suggested that sidestepping recruitment agencies and using the web to facilitate direct communication between employers and job applicants could help the situation.
He said: "A note to all employers - use web 2.0 sites to advertise your recruitment requirements and ignore the middleman. You can make your own mind up about candidates' experience, enthusiasm and appropriateness for the role then."
Like the laws or not, several readers pointed out how difficult it would to enforce them - and to prove that employers are doing anything wrong.
Reader Bob Gear said: "Like so many other regulations, they are completely useless unless they are enforced and monitored. How do we know that an employer is discriminating on age when the rejection letter includes euphemistic phrases such as 'there has been a huge response to our advert' and 'we have many other candidates who match our requirements more closely'."
An IT pro expressed a healthy dose of pessimism based on his experiences in Ireland: "Ageist legislation has been in force in Ireland for a number of years and it is not at all effective and does not hinder employers continuing to discriminate against older people. Age legislation is just a waste of time and gives the impression that action is being taken to prevent employers from discriminating against older people. Employers will always have the upper hand and no legislation can force employers to change their attitude and recruit older people."
Reader Gary Thompson echoed this sentiment: "Changing the law won't stop ageism in the same way that speed limits don't stop drivers speeding."
Comments
There are 14 comments. Join the discussion
1. anonymous
I can understand what the government are trying to do with this law, but as with so many they have got it wrong! Ok I shouldn't be allowed to say 'Looking someone in the range 25-30', but to also ban us from saying 'looking for someone with 5 years experiance', that is just wrong. It is just going to mean that more unsuitable people apply for jobs.
In our office everyone is between the ages of 25 and 35. There are just cultural reasons why we do not want to employ someone who is 65. We do not advertise this way, but that is always in the back of peoples minds, 'would they fit in here'.
I guess we now need to look for a woman, with a disability, on some ethnic minority or other who is over 60. She would be able to come late, go early, do nothing, but be a valuable member of the team filling all our government set quoters!
2. anonymous
Initially, only those already in jobs will benefit. Eventually, as organisations become more used to a higher percentage of older people around, things may change, as with sex discrimination. But, if you are 50 and applying for jobs, don't hold your breath.
3. Phil Shipperlee
No one needs to force me to employ older people - I do from preference anyway as they are all round better and more valuable employees. But I am not going to be forced to employ the lazy feckles young just because they are young - if they cannot cut it, they do not get the job!
4. anonymous
Poll is too simplistic. I voted 'No' but I believe the laws will make SOME difference. Good companies will have a higher awareness of the issue, and people in those companies who are against discrimination will have their arguments strengthened. But the law will not eliminate discrimination, it's too easy to hide.
That said, once a few cases come to court, things may change. If a company consistently employs under 30s when better qualified older people apply for jobs, there may be a basis for action against them.
5. anonymous
The law will not work.
Recruiters/agencies (Call them what you like, I prefer the word Pimp and shark), and Direct employers will simply use the words "Somebody more suited to the position who matched our requirements more was chosen".
This is the get out, as there is no proof a person was not discriminated against.
What should happen is where an applicant feels he has been discriminated against by virtue of age, but given that statement, they should have the right to appeal, and for the employer to prove that was the case.
That way, they can see that when two people, one 10 years younger than the other, with less experience, was rejected because the RIGHT candidate was chosen, as opposed to the youngest.
But where the person 10 years younger was chosen over the older person more suited to the job, then compensation should be payable to the rejected applicant, because the employer has broken the law.
6. anonymous
Perhaps we should be thinking not in terms of writing "X years experience", on an advert: which let's be honest, is a lazy short hand, and poor mangement technique
Instead, think about the outputs that you are looking for - what is it that you expect someone with 5 years experience to be able to do that someone with 1 years experience cannot? - THAT's what you put on the job advert. And maybe you'll get better responses, without discriminating between a 60 yr old and a 30 yr old.
Having said that, cultural fit (as above - which often can legitimately be used as a contributing factor determining the "best" person for the role) , the fact that anyone who puts length of service of their former positions on their CV is automatically enabling a rough and ready age calculation to be done, and the monitoring and enforcement difficulties does mean that it will take time for the benefits to be realised.
Doesn't mean we shouldn't do something tho'.
7. Simon Allen
Whilst I support the view of employers cutting out agencies and recruiting direct - please do not imagine that ageism only exists in the agencies!
The problem is very simple: The people doingthe hiring are mostly in their 20s and 30s. They do not hire people who are old enough to be their father/mother.
End of story.
8. anonymous
Poll is too simplistic. I voted 'No' but I believe the laws will make SOME difference. Good companies will have a higher awareness of the issue, and people in those companies who are against discrimination will have their arguments strengthened. But the law will not eliminate discrimination, it's too easy to hide.
That said, once a few cases come to court, things may change. If a company consistently employs under 30s when better qualified older people apply for jobs, there may be a basis for action against them.
9. Andrew Robb
I suspect that the law has started on the wrong tack. Rather than discounting age, legislation must enforce a demographic distribution of age in large employers and agencies.
Also, no more enforced early retirement for police, fire brigades or the armed forces. (Running the forces with 'indentured slaves' is outdated.)
10. anonymous
I am an employer, and we do not have any ageist policies here, and we value expertise, ability and attitude in any form or age.
However, I think employers should always be allowed to freely chose approriate staff, and one way or another will inevitable contrive to do so. Why push water uphill?
I voted to say it won't work. After all, did the rate of disabled employees rise since DDA legislation? (I think not!)
11. Jones the Curry
as long as employers contiune to be able to ask for date of birth the whole thing is a joke. And as IT recruitment agencies are staffed by individuals who were unable to make the grade in IT it's hardly surprising they act as road blocks in the recruitment process.
12. anonymous
The way it works over here (US) is not that it eliminates ageism, but it makes them more cautious and gives more older workers a chance to stay on the job. Getting hired over 50 is still hard, though. Age discrimination lawsuits are difficult to win, but the most expensive when they are won, and this puts the 'fear of God' into at least some employers. What they can still try: making you feel like you somehow deserve it. Since no worker is perfect, you have to document and keep your spirits up.
13. Aleck Buchanan
Dont give up, keep going - This is how it was with racialism and sexism when the laws first changed. New laws need time to take effect in the workplace.
14. Chris Phillips
Online recruitment technology can play a major part in helping businesses implement appropriate new procedures, when it comes to the new Age Discrimination legislation.
By using online applications and back office support systems, businesses can control and record the recruitment process, to help ensure that hiring decisions are based on skills and capabilities rather than age related information.
By switching off fields in the online application process such as date of birth and de-selecting fields such as graduation dates and start dates, businesses can help ensure that pre-screening or dis-qualification based on age is eliminated, thereby strengthening full compliance.
Organisations need to change the way they advertise for, assess and select employees, as well as how they record recruitment processes. As we start to see test cases coming out, organisations will be required to show that they have been compliant. This is very hard to do if it’s just an HR manager selecting CVs from a pile, with no evidence on why decisions have been made.