The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
This act prohibits employment discrimination for individuals 40 years of age or older. So it says. In fact Section 623 (Section 4) states that:
- It is unlawful for employers to discriminate by withholding employment or relieving (firing, ask to resign, let go, discharge) any person (individual, employee) male or female; with respect to his or her age.
- It is also unlawful for the employer to set a boundary; (set apart, separate, or withhold) any individual employment opportunities and/or to reduce his/her current employment status because of age. *bah humbug!
- The law states that any individual’s rate of pay cannot be reduced for reason of age.
- The law does not apply to contractor personnel, elected officers, or the military personnel.
- The law does apply to 20 or more employees, employment agencies, the federal government, state and local government, and labor organizations with at least 25 people.
The Truth of the Matter: Age discrimination in the workplace does exit.
The above is the law but is the law enforced? From talking with older individuals; no, it really is not.
You read the law and you wonder why it is not enforced by the ADEA (Age Discrimination Employment Act). They are the regulators for this issue; so why state the law if it is not going to be enforced?
Why would I say this? Facts are that according to articles in the AARP and others; there have been numerous women (some men), that has either been offered retirement at certain ages (especially 55+ and over), and with a severance pay to make it more acceptable. Some have been demoted and a salary reduction. One man sued, and won.
I personally know several individuals who were offered retirement with incentive such as an offer of severance pay, and in some instances suggest that if they decided not to take retirement, there was a possibility of layoffs. This has been since the financial meltdown within this Country. (AARP article confirms). Employment became a real issue for those individuals who worked for companies that were either downsized or taken over by other parties; during this time. Most of these individuals, found it hard to regain employment at their current salary, and position, or employment at all; due to age.
Now, why is this allowed when an individual needs to work after 65? Why does it make a 50+ individual’s search more complicated to gain new employment after losing a job. The law goes with the age 40 and above. Who is qualified to change the law for age discrimination in the workplace?
If we were to make some excuses for employers for the over 65; we might could come up with a few, but if an employee is capable of performing their duties; it is still under the law.
These age discrimination in the workplace issues were acknowledged by AARP several years ago; with comments from different ladies to back it up. This article indicated that some women in their 50s; mind you, were denied employment due to age. One lady commented that before going to the office for the interview; they were very interested per her experience and qualification. When the interview was conducted; it was another story. Several ladies also commented on similar issues; some even acknowledged having facial surgery after being denied employment several times to promote the possibility of employment.
This is not a joke, and the advice here is that you make sure your profession, career, or employer does not allow for age discrimination for any reasons; especially after 60.
Not everyone can retire at 62 or 65 for various reasons. It should not be acceptable for employers to say: “It is time for your retirement, and here is what we will give you.”
Reasons that are evident for employers to “suggest” retirement:
- Benefits (insurance etc.)increase excessively with age; nothing can change that. Having worked in operations I know this is a fact, but is still not a justifiable reason.
- Employers (some) think that older individuals do not think as quickly and lose their productivity.
- Some older employees are not up-to-date with technology, policies and procedures.
- Younger employees require less salary than those who have tons of experience.
- They simply want the younger, more vibrant, and more skillful people they “think” they can get, while paying less salary, and lower benefits to pay.
You can check on this article on age bias to confirm these statements. According to Debbie Chalfie, AARP expert; article here on age discrimination, older workers are concerned about keeping their jobs, and hiring bias has been a top issue during the economic slump. “Everyone has taken it on the chin during this recession, but older workers are the ones who don’t have the time to recover if they have lost their jobs, or used up their savings.”
On one happy note; I also know of an individual who worked at a bank until she was in her late 80’s. This is not a joke either and I commend the bank who did not ask for her resignation or suggest retirement. Yes, she was still doing her job. She may have changed it to some extent, but all in all her performance was acceptable to the bank president. I have to admit; this subject gets me a little fired up!!!
Thank you for joining us,
NOTE: If the aforementioned is true and it is; then Hillary Clinton is too old to become the President of the United States of America. Or she should make it her legacy to prevent these issues from occurring in the future for all the women and men in America.