Many, many companies recruit at colleges and universities. They hold meet and greets, provide free food (a guaranteed method of attracting college students), and conduct interviews that only students at that particular university are eligible for. We don’t call this age discrimination because, theoretically, old people (defined legally as over 40) are allowed to attend college and would be eligible to apply for such job. But, let’s be honest here: We know darn well most college seniors will be under the age of 25.
Is that significantly different than running a help wanted ad on Facebook and limiting it to people ages 18 to 24, as UPS recently did for a part-time package handler job?
Debra Katz, a Washington employment lawyer, says “It’s blatantly unlawful,” in the Daily Mail.
Facebook, of course, says it’s not. It’s just good business sense. Who are the people most likely to want a part-time package handling job?
To keep reading, click here: Does Facebook Facilitate Age Discrimination in Job Ads?
3 thoughts on “Does Facebook Facilitate Age Discrimination in Job Ads?”
Certainly anyone 17 to 70 years old can feel “entitled” to pay without work. The primary difference is the mode of social escape: 17 via cellphone ‘social media’, 70 via ‘water-cooler gossip’. The best workers are probably debt-ridden with families and high-living expectations.
Laws against kinds of discrimination that are impossible to enforce are not just futile but actively harmful, because they encourage members of supposedly-protected groups to go around with the same chips on their shoulders that the other protected groups have been carrying for decades (seeing any decision adverse to them as automatic proof of bias, which not only isn’t true but is likely to turn potential employers off hiring you).
If we actually want to put a stop to age discrimination, we’ll need to enact German employment law. Otherwise it will simply keep happening.
It is hard for me to drum up sympathy for this issue.
As a millennial I have had the repeated experience of coming into a role, quickly being asked to take on more and more responsibilities, and hear from leadership how great my work is. Meanwhile I am making half of what my Boomer colleague who has maybe 1/3 of the work I do. Plus Boomer is grandfathered into a pension plan plus they are on a legacy pto accrual and grandfathered into higher 401k matching rates… It’s not lost on millennials when your company intranet page says “employees hired after 2009” on the benefits page.
These are my personal experiences which impact how I see the issue of not hiring a 55 yo worker with 15 years experience in one position over a younger person with 2 years for a role asking for 2-5 years.
I think a big part of the issue is that back when boomers entered the work force planning to be a career accountant and stay in one role at one company was not only viable but seen as a positive. Now the workforce sees this history as a sign of stagnation or settling. This is why Boomer managers who progressed their career don’t face the same issues. Almost all the VP and Presidents and Chief Officers at each org I have worked for are 55 and older. Clearly their is no she discrimination there.
Finally I always find these articles focus on entry level or part time work. If you have two employees with similar accomplishments even if they are the same age. If one has 5 years and the other has 10 years the company will always pick the 5 year. It’s not because the other person is older. It’s because it’s always preferred to hire someone near the bottom of the pay range all else being equal. The experiment cited in this article is a no brainier. Of course they hired the ones with fewer years in the industry all things equal.
Comments are closed.