Journal of American Society on Aging

GENERATIONS – Journal of the American Society on Aging

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on

Just from $13/Page

Ageism in America: Reframing the Issues and Impacts

Pages 34–38

Copyright © 2015 American Society on Aging; all rights reserved. This article may not be duplicated, reprinted or distributed in any form without written permission from the publisher: American Society on Aging, 575 Market St., Suite 2100, San Francisco, CA 94105-2869; e-mail: [email protected]. For information about ASA’s publications visit www.asaging.org/publications. For information about ASA membership visit www.asaging.org/join.

34 | Fall 2015 • Vol. 39 .No. 3

Fall 2015 • Vol. 39 .No. 3 | 35

Ageism and Bias in

the American Workplace

By Linda Barrington

In some workplaces, ageism shows no sign of abating—but there are bright spots in the data, and a new path forward.

n June 2015, I happened to receive a promotion for a

high-end business seminar, aimed at a market audience of corporate managers. The

seminar offered a short course in retirement readiness, and promised to educate employers on best practices in how to prepare employees for a “secure” retirement.

Ageist thinking is far too prevalent across workplaces in the United States.

The brochure’s pitch to employers included the prem- ise that employees’ delayed retirement times were serving to slow down productivity levels and interfere with workforce and leadership pipelines. This messaging is regrettable for the bias it prop- agates—that older workers are

unproductive and seen as bar- riers to using more profitable talent. Unfortunately, such ageist thinking is far too prev- alent across workplaces in the United States.

Ageist Bias: Hiring, Performance, Unemployment Study after study has shown how employers or hiring managers may not objectively evaluate job candidates’ po- tential productivity and are thus biased about demographic characteristics in recruiting and performance reviews (Posthuma and Campion, 2009). For example, in a matched-resumé field study, Lahey (2008) finds that em- ployers were over 40 per-

cent more likely to call a female job candidate for an interview if the high school graduation date on the resumé signaled the applicant was younger rather than older. (For similar research based on race and

gender, see Bertrand and Mullainathan, 2004; Goldin and Rouse, 2000). North and Fiske (2013) find that assertive- ness appears to be interpreted more negatively when the assertive person is older. (For similar research on “agreeable- ness” in men versus women, see Judge, Livingston, and Hurst, 2012).

Combine rapid technologi- cal change with the Great Recession of 2007–2009 and, once unemployed, older work- ers face a higher likelihood of remaining unemployed long term. In 2014, 45 percent of unemployed 55- to 64-year-olds were reported as unemployed long term (i.e., twenty-seven weeks or longer), versus 33 percent of 25- to 34-year-olds (see Figure 1, page 35). And over the past thirty-five years, the share of unemployed people (for any length of time) who are ages 55 years or older has grown steadily from well below to on

Figure 1.

Source: Author’s calculations from the Bureau of Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey (www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat03.htm) historical data series LNU03008649 and LNU03008643. Retrieved April 13, 2015.

Figure 2.

Source: Author’s computation from the Bureau of Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey (www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat03.htm ) historica l dat a series LNS13000012, LNS13000036, LNS13000089, LNS13000091, LNS13000093,

LNS13024230. Retrieved April 13, 2015.

from a case study of employees working overtime at Navistar, Inc., a manufacturer of heavy trucks and diesel engines, that “adverse outcomes [from overtime]—and indirect costs—do not increase with advancing age in any kind of wholesale fashion.”

A case study of a Days Inn call center reveals that con- sidering just one measure of productivity—time per call— resulted in older workers appear- ing less productive, as they took longer on average to complete each call received. However, measuring productivity as revenue generated revealed a positive association between age and productivity because older workers in the call center brought in more “revenue by booking more reservations than younger workers” (Barth and McNaught, 1991).

Older workers in the call center brought in more ‘revenue by booking more reservations than younger workers.’

par with that of 35- to 44-year- olds and 45- to 54-year-olds (see Figure 2, above).

The Research Versus Ageist Workplace Myths

The research exists, however, to challenge ageist myths in the workplace. In a study of productivity and workplace

diversity, Troske and Barrington (2001) found that after factor- ing out machinery age in man- ufacturing establishments, productivity is no different in establishments with older ver- sus younger workforces (as measured by the percent of workers older than age 50).

Allen et al. (2008) conclude

And there are examples of companies who leverage older workers’ abilities and experi- ence to strategic advantage in the marketplace. Mary Young’s Gray Skies, Silver Linings: How Companies Are Forecasting, Managing and Recruiting a Mature Workforce (2007) presents several synopses of

GENERATIONS – Journal of the American Society on Aging

Pages 34–38

Ageism in America: Reframing the Issues and Impacts

Pages 34–38

38 | Fall 2015 • Vol. 39 .No. 2

Fall 2015 • Vol. 39 .No. 3 | 39

companies, ranging from CVS/ caremark pharmacy to the lock maker Abloy Oy, that have de- veloped practices to engage and retain key talent found in older workers.

The ADEA and Its Impact on Ageism

Many older workers, however, don’t find themselves in fair, let alone progressive and strategi- cally thinking, workplaces.

Ageist behavior in the work- place—“treating someone (an applicant or employee) less favorably” because he or she is older than age 40—is discrimi- nation and illegal under federal law, as outlined in the Age Dis- crimination in Employment Act (ADEA) of 1967: “[The]

ADEA applies to employers with 20 or more employees, including state and local governments. It also applies to employment agencies and labor organizations, as well as to the federal government” (ADEA, 1967).

The ADEA applies not only to hiring and firing, but also to “pay, job assignments, promo- tions, layoff, training, fringe benefits, and any other term or condition of employment” (U.S. Equal Employment Opportu- nity Commission [EEOC], 2015a). Employers are also responsible under the ADEA for a hostile or offensive work environment created by ha- rassing someone because of their age (telling age-related jokes, making negative remarks

about a person’s age, etc.), whether the harasser is a manager, fellow employee, client, or customer. And while it is not illegal to ask age or birthdate during the job application process, the U.S. EEOC states that “requests for age information will be closely scrutinized to make sure that the inquiry was made for a lawful purpose, rather than for a purpose prohibited by the ADEA. If the information is needed for a lawful purpose,

it can be obtained after the employee is hired” (U.S. EEOC, 2015b). Most job opportunities, including apprenticeships, cannot be age-restricted.

Despite the ADEA’s out- lawing of age discrimination almost fifty years ago, the trend of age-related workplace dis- crimination charges filed with the EEOC is discouraging, but not unexpected. According to new analysis of EEOC discri- mination charge data, there is an upward trend in the number of age-related discrimination charges (von Schrader and Nazarov, 2015). Specifically, von Schrader and Nazarov find

that the number of charges filed under the ADEA by those old- er than age 55 has climbed steadily since 2000, roughly in sync with the growing size and longer careers of this popula- tion. Among the ADEA charges analyzed, those citing issues relating to workplace “rela- tions” (e.g., harassment, dis- cipline, intimidation) have

grown from 10 percent of char- ges in 1993 to almost 30 percent in 2010.

The number of charges filed under the ADEA by those older than age 55 has climbed steadily since 2000.

The smallest and largest of employers were equally likely to have charges filed against them—employers with 100 or fewer employees and employ- ers with more than 500 em- ployees each received 32 percent of charges filed. More charges were filed against employers in the service industry than those in the manual work, transport, sales, professional, or health sectors and industries, although the likelihood of employees filing specific types of charges varies notably by industry. Whether these trends are the result of worsening ageism, heighten- ed sensitivities, or growing employee awareness of their rights under ADEA is not known. What is apparent is that employers have myriad op- portunities, through culture change and engagement strategies, to improve older workers’ sense of inclusion.

Conclusion

So what is the path forward? What job placement strategies could benefit older workers

who are looking for successful re-employment? There is possibility, not just pessimism. Research has documented that apprenticeships and intern- ships create positive employ- ment outcomes for many under-represented groups. For example, Sterling and Fernan- dez (2014) show that trial employment through intern- ships can reduce the pay gap in starting salaries for women, which, as the authors state,

disabilities are correlated with greater likelihood of hiring a person with a disability (more than a five-fold increase).

Building from the existing literature, expanding internship or apprenticeship programs for older workers is an approach worthy of greater consider- ation. Though these types of programs need more systema- tic development and testing, designing them for older workers could offer promise in

“returnship” programs (Fish- man Cohen, 2012) and The Workplace, Inc.’s recently founded Platforms to Employ- ment (www.platformtoemploy ment.com) are breaking new ground for trial employment that could simultaneously benefit older workers and employers. This type of proac- tive and creative work is the advocacy that will help forge more supportive and inclusive workplaces for the future.

“aligns with prior research to expectation-setting on the part

suggest that when employers are able to learn more about prospective candidates in advance, the result is better employer−employee matching.” Erickson et al. (2014) report that internships for people with

of employers and employees, allowing employers to chal- lenge and break down myths and biases by creating a low- risk employment scenario, and successfully matching candi- dates to positions. Innovative

Linda Barrington, Ph.D., is execu- tive director of the Institute for Compensation Studies and associate dean for Outreach, ILR School at Cornell University, New York. She can be contacted at [email protected].

References

Age Discrimination and Employ- ment Act (ADEA) of 1967. 1967. U.S.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. http://www.eeoc.gov/ eeoc/publications/age.cfm.

Retrieved June 8, 2015.

Allen, H., et al. 2008. “Age, Overtime, and Employee Health, Safety and Productivity Outcomes: A Case Study.” Journal of Occupa- tional Environmental Medicine 50(8): 873–94.

Barth, M., and McNaught, W. 1991. “The Impact of Future Demograph- ic Shifts on the Employment of Older Workers.” Human Resource Management 30(1): 31–44.

Bertrand, M., and Mullainathan, S. 2004. “Are Emily and Brendan More Employable than Lakisha and Jamal? A Field Experiment on Labor Market Discrimination.” American Economic Review 94(4): 991–1014.

Erickson, W., et al. 2014. “Disability- inclusive Employer Practices and Hiring of Individuals with Disabilities.” Rehabilitation Research, Policy, and Education 28(4): 309–28.

Fishman Cohen, C. 2012. “The 40-Year-Old Intern.” Harvard Business Review. https://hbr. org/2012/11/the-40-year-old- intern/. Retrieved April 13, 2015.

Goldin, C., and Rouse, C. 2000. “Orchestrating Impartiality: The Impact Of ‘Blind’ Auditions on Female Musicians.” American Economic Review 90(4): 715–41.

Judge, T., Livingston, B., and Hurst,

C. 2012. “Do Nice Guys—and Gals—Really Finish Last? The Joint Effects of Sex and Agreeableness on Earnings.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 102(2): 390–407.

Lahey, J. 2008. “Age, Women and Hiring: An Experimental Study.” The Journal of Human Resources 43(1): 30–56.

North, M., and Fiske, S. 2013. “Act Your (Old) Age: Prescriptive, Ageist Biases over Succession, Identity, and Consumption.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 39(6): 720–34.

Posthuma, R., and Campion, M. 2009. “Age Stereotypes in the Workplace: Common Stereotypes, Moderators, and Future Research Directions.” Journal of Manage- ment 35(1): 158–88.

Sterling, A., and Fernandez, R. 2014. “Gender, Trial Employment, and Initial Salaries.” MIT Sloan Research Paper No. 5118-14. http:// papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers. cfm?abstract_id=2456817. Re- trieved April 13, 2015.

Troske, K., and Barrington, L. 2001. “Workforce Diversity and Productivity: An Analysis of Employer−Employee Match Data.” Economics Program Working Papers, The Conference Board, EPWP #01-02. www.conference- board.org/pdf_free/workingpapers

/E-0007-01-WP.pdf. Retrieved April 4, 2015.

von Schrader, S., and Nazarov, Z. E. 2014. “Trends and Patterns in Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) Charges.” Ithaca, NY: Employment and Disabilities Institute. (Photocopy; submitted for publication.)

U.S. Equal Employment Opportu- nity Commission (EEOC). 2015a. “Laws, Regulations & Guidance: Types of Discrimination. ‘Age Discrimination.’ ” www.eeoc.gov/ laws/types/age.cfm. Retrieved June 8, 2015.

EEOC. 2015b. Publications. “Facts About Age Discrimination.” www. eeoc.gov/eeoc/publications/age. cfm. Retrieved June 8, 2015.

Young, M. 2007. Gray Skies, Silver Linings: How Companies Are Fore- casting, Managing and Recruiting a Mature Workforce. New York: The Conference Board, Inc.

Acknowledgement

Esta Bigler, director of the Labor and Employment Law Program at the ILR School of Cornell Univer- sity, provided valuable edits and comments. Elise Mordos provided research assistance. The author’s previous research cited in this article benefited from funding from The Atlantic Philanthropies (grant #13972) and the support

of The Conference Board, Inc., in New York City.

Still stressed from student homework?

Get quality assistance from academic writers!

Order now