Age Discrimination: A Pervasive And Damaging Influence

AOA

An Harris survey, conducted in 1992, found that 5.4 million older Americans--one in seven of those 55 and older who were not working at that time--were willing to work but could not find a suitable job.

These discouraging statistics were cited in The Untapped Resource, a 1993 report on "The Americans Over 55 at Work Program," a 5-year research effort conducted by the Commonwealth Fund to examine the productive potential of older Americans.

Subtle Age Bias Does the Most Damage

Age discrimination can be obvious, such as a bank hiring a pretty, inexperienced young woman as a teller instead of an older woman with a strong background in similar jobs. But it's the subtler forms of age discrimination that may have the most powerful effect on cutting short the productive years of Americans--the law partner who is moved to a smaller office when he passes 60, the 50-year-old professional who knows hard work won't bring any more promotions, the vacancy filled by a younger staff member before older workers even know about it, and the new boss who makes life so miserable for the 60-year-old secretary, he inherits, that she quits.

Age discrimination is sometimes allowed to continue with surprisingly little protest because of long-held assumptions that it is right and proper for older workers to move aside to make room for younger workers who need to support families, that older workers are less competent, and that there’s no mileage in training them for new jobs.

In fact, for a variety of reasons, older workers have been leaving the labor force. The percentage of men 55 to 64 in the work force declined from 87 percent in 1950 to 67 percent in 1996, and for men 65 and older, from 46 percent to 16 percent. The percentage of women 55 and older in the work force hasn’t changed substantially because the dramatic rise in the number of women working has offset the increase in early retirements.

When age 62 arrives or earlier retirement is offered, what prompts the employee to leave--a negative work climate that sees older employees as less valuable, the desire to be free, or a belief that Social Security or a pension, plus some savings will provide a livable income? The answer is probably a combination of the three, but some employment experts think ageism plays a larger role than most people are willing to admit.

The Age Discrimination In Employment Act

The 1967 Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) protects most workers 40 and older from discrimination in recruitment, hiring, training, promotion, pay, benefits, firing, layoffs, retirement and other employment practices. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is responsible for receiving charges of age discrimination under the ADEA, investigating them, and working to remedy the causes. The EEOC files lawsuits in only a very small number of cases. Individuals, however, may sue on their own.

If you think you are a victim of age discrimination, find out how to file a charge at the federal or state levels by obtaining the publications in "Resources" or by calling the EEOC at 1-800-669-EEOC. The EEOC’s Internet address is: http://www.eeoc.gov

You may also call your state office of civil rights.

"It's a mistake to talk about voluntary versus involuntary retirement. When the pension plan doesn't reward further work and there's a general feeling that you're not valued, you leave. That could be considered voluntary but it's not what the person really wanted," says Joseph F. Quinn, a professor of economics at Boston University, quoted in the Commonwealth Fund report.

Job Hunting at 55-- A Daunting Prospect

Financial need and career interests send many early retirees back to work. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), half of men aged 55 to 61 and one-quarter aged 62 to 64, who had pension income in 1993, found new jobs--in most cases, part-time employment. Many older Americans, however, can't find a job or are too discouraged to try. About 667,000 people 55 and older were unemployed in 1993 and about half had been out of work for 15 weeks or more.

According to the BLS, a half million workers aged 55 to 64 and 140,000 65 and older lost jobs in 1993-94 because of company closings, insufficient work, or abolished positions or shifts. The BLS notes that the displacement rate was about the same in all age groups--around 3 percent--but that many more older workers than younger ones remain unemployed or out of the labor force. "Even if you are not discriminated against, you may think you will be and not go looking for a job," a BLS labor expert recently observed.

Cost-Cutting Measures Put Older Workers at Risk

In the last decade, downsizings, increased use of part-time and contract employees, greater reliance on automation, and less job security have created what some researchers call a "corporate culture of expendability." In such a climate, it is the older worker who is at particular risk of losing a job. Stressful conditions in the workplace are projected to continue during a time when the number of workers 55 and older will jump from 16 million in 1996 to 22 million in 2005, and rise even higher with the aging of the baby boomers.

Yet, a 1992 Harris survey of 400 companies found that only one in eight companies surveyed sees an urgent need to respond to the aging of the work force. Just one in three offers older workers the chance to transfer to jobs with less responsibility and only one in five offers phased retirement.

Another 1994 survey, also of 400 companies, interviewed "Human Resources Decisionmakers" and summarized the results in an American Association of Retired Persons’ (AARP) report, American Business and Older Workers: A Road Map to the 21st Century. According to the report, the personnel directors and company executives interviewed rate older workers very highly, but believe younger managers "do not really want older employees no matter how good their skills, ‘so what's the point of sending them an older worker to interview?’"

The report said many of the "Decisionmakers" believe younger managers see older workers as: "My mom and dad and do not want to boss them; knowing more than boomers do and making them look bad, less competent; hard to relate to, not part of ‘my generation,’ ‘my culture,’ and ‘inflexible, unwilling to change.’"

These attitudes were undoubtedly at work at the Monsanto Company, based in St. Louis, Missouri, in 1993, when executives in their 20's fired 66 sales managers, 59 of whom were 40 or older. Forty-three of the men fired sued Monsanto and, in June 1996, won the second largest per-person settlement in age discrimination case history, receiving $125,000 to $500,000 each. These and other court cases and the damages being awarded to victims are likely to make companies think twice about downsizing strategies that target older workers.

From 1991 to 1995, an average of 17,000 workers annually brought age discrimination complaints to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The Commonwealth Fund report notes, however, that the

EEOC has a constant backlog of charges to investigate and, due to limited resources, can pursue only a few strategically-targeted court cases. The report urges Congress to provide funds and establish statutory authority for the EEOC to conduct audits and reviews of company practices to test for age discrimination in the workplace.

The report’s general recommendations include more part-time work, training for career transitions, job sharing, jobs with shorter hours, and work from home--practices that the report says will not only make older workers, but all workers, more productive as the world of work continues to be transformed.