Age Discrimination, Social Closure and Employment - Case Study Example

Table of Contents Table of Contents 0 Introduction Conclusion 6 References 7 Introduction Age discrimination at workplace is the organized and regular typecasting and favoritism against individuals or age groups because of their age, either too old or too young. Research reveals that the workplace is an area where various kinds of discriminations take place, including age discrimination (Rothenberg & Gardner 2011). The age discriminations include the young age, which ranges from 16 to 24 years, the mid-age comprising of individuals aged between 25 years to 49 years, the older age of between 50 years and state pension age (SPA) as well as the senior age discrimination of over the SPA (Sargeant 2006). Legislation in the United States does not safeguard young employees from discrimination. Most employers are reluctant to employ young employees because they do not have necessary experience and expertise they desire. The type of discrimination that youths face in the workplace tends to differ from those older people face. Youths and young employees have inadequate experience and expertise required by the employers. Older employees have the necessary skills and expertise, yet they are denied employment opportunities just like young employees. The number of people employed above the youth age bracket remains higher. This may be attributable to high turnover rates among young employees. Consequently, organizations have come to view young employees as untrustworthy, and hence unwilling to invest in them in the long-term. The ‘stereotypical filtering’ of evaluations and decisions by employers embody the ageist attitude. Employers tend to regard older employers as expensive, and prefer hiring younger employees to fill their positions. Employers often use discretionary tactics, and attribute such decisions to nonconformance to the needs, and image of the organization by older employees. Older workers’ perception of discrimination may underlie their change in attitude toward the organization as well as their attachment to the organization. Unfair treatment can also cause scheming reactions and negative attachment to organizations. Dissatisfied employees eventually leave the organization. Discrimination against older employees tends to be more profound as one shift toward top end of 25-49 age discs. Age tend to impede job application by potential employees. Recruiters often consider age of potential employees. The fact that companies refuse to hire ‘long-term unemployed’ people aged over forty years has aroused a new form of discrimination. In this paper, it will be written the independence of age discrimination and use the case of various age groups to analyze the issue of age discrimination in modern workplace. Youth Discrimination Youths have varied experiences of employment discrimination as opposed to older employees (Armour 2003). As mentioned earlier, the youth age group lies between 16 years and 24 years. Like all the other age groups, the youth employees also suffer from direct or indirect favoritism or harassment in their workplace because of their age (Sargeant 2006). Legislations in the United States do not protect the young employees within the youth age disc from discrimination like employees above the age of 40. This is a clear indication that the young employees face discrimination and have no way of making the employers to face the liabilities arising from such acts. The discrimination problems that the youths face in their places of work are different from those that the older people encounter but they still amount to discrimination and harassment. The results of biasness for the older people are varied from those of the youths (Sargeant 2006). According to Snape and Redman (2003), the workplace discrimination issues that the youths and younger employees encounter include the preconceptions that the young employees are disloyal to their employees. The young employees are often denied employment opportunities, discharged from their duties, given less pay, or even deprived of promotions, and other benefits, such as trainings because of their age. Young individuals face the challenge of inadequate experience and expertise required by the employers. The discrimination of youths based on skills and experience inadequacy add up to employment discrimination. Subsequently, the young people looking for employment opportunities have remained underemployed and unemployed (Snape & Redman 2003). Snape and Redman (2003) state that younger undergraduates seeking employment were regarded as untrustworthy; hence, assigned less responsibilities by their employers. Young employees deserve opportunities that enable them acquire skills and develop professionally, yet several are employed in occupations in which such opportunities are few. In such employments, the employers deny the young employees the access to promotions because they lack the required experience and expertise. The employees within the youth disc age holding lower employment terms are more vulnerable because of reduced expenses the employer incur in making them redundant. It is obvious that the young employees cannot acquire experience before employment. However, no organizations want to invest in youths without the necessary experience and expertise they desire. Some service sectors, such as the hotel and hospitality industry, are willing to employ the youths because of the flexible as well as part-time career opportunities. A survey presented in Sargeant (2006) indicates that 17 % of the employees between the age of 16 and 19 years are employed in hotel and restaurant industry, which is greater than the national average rate (NAV) of 4 %. In addition, 39 % of youths are employed in retail and wholesale industry, which outweighs the 16 % NAV. The number of people employed above the youth age bracket was approximately five times higher than the youths. Furthermore, not only does the age issue affects the youth at the workplace but also the sex discrimination challenges. According to Sargeant (2006), 69.3 % of males were employed compared to 63.2 % of females. The majority of the youths working as part-timers are female, 5,525,000, compared to the male counterparts at 1,589,000. Following critical observations, the sex discrimination issue also reflects in age discrimination. The young people being discriminated at their workplace may also be because of social closure reasons. The older employees use unfair means to restrict the younger employees from accessing employment privileges they enjoy via dominating the job opportunities and excluding the youths (Roscigno, Mong, Byron, & Tester 2007). The young employees often have been denied promotion opportunities because they are considered to be young and that they still have more time to enjoy such privileges. Such unfair treatment at workplace amounts to age discrimination. Ageist Attitude According to Roscigno et al. (2007), ageist attitude is manifested in ‘stereotypical filtering’ of evaluations and decisions by employers. Such stereotyping causes discrimination against older workforce. This illustrates that age can make one subject to social exclusion and stratification. Such stereotypical ageist criterion is pervasive, and tends to be correlated with job skills. Judy Phelps for instance, a machine operator had her chance of multiple promotion usurped by employer’s decision to hire two young women employees with similar profile. This was tacit admission that older employees are not fit for specific job roles. In this regard, employers tend to employ discretionary tactics, and impute such decisions to nonconformance to the needs and image of the organization by older employees. Perception of unfair treatment by older workers may underlie their shift in attitude towards the organization and their connection (Snape & Redman 2003). Older workers may feel ‘under-rewarded in terms of pay and status’ (Snape & Redman 2003). They tend to feel that their organization undermines their sense of being. Such discrimination may underlie feelings of ‘individual relative deprivation’ (Snape & Redman 2003). In addition, perception of discrimination may cause scheming reactions and negative attachment to organizations. Job dissatisfaction can lead to employee’s determination to emotional and physical exit from the organization. Nevertheless, perceived discriminatory treatment may lead to feelings of incarceration. Older Age Discrimination Old people fall within 50-59 years age bracket on average. This accounts for differences in the State Pension Age (SPA) age between men and women. Men’s SPA age is 65, whereas women’s is 60 year. Compared to middle-aged people, 11.8 % of older people are unemployed. Discrimination against older employees tend to be more profound as one shifts towards top end of 25-49 age width (Sargeant 2006), whereas discrimination of young become less significant at the bottom end of the bracket. Discrimination negatively affects job performance. Employers give older employees more job responsibilities without additional support. The employee may be shifted to superfluous department. According to Roscigno et al. (2007), justification with regard to costs and liabilities by employers tend to demean older workers. This is despite older workers possessing more qualifications, experience, and competencies than younger employees. Employers have been willing to trade off skills and experiences of older workers since younger workers are less experienced and cheaper. Employers tend to base their financial future on strategies that encompass promoting and retaining workers who share their aspirations and motivations. In view of productivity and profitability of the organization, hiring younger and less qualified workers by organizations represents economic irrationality (Roscigno et al. 2007). Perceived discrimination causes feelings of disloyalty and greater levels of dis-identification with the organization. The affective commitment and identification of staff with their organization tend to be related to interplay between collaboration and equitable exchange (Meyer & Allen 1997; Shore & Wayne 1993, cited in Snape & Redman 2003). Decline in organizational commitment and identification by older workers tend to have ripple effects on younger workers. The discriminatory treatment of older workers tends to raise worries about the future by younger employees. Age tend to hinder job application. Employers tend to consider age during recruitment (Sargeant 2006), with most employers preferring to hire younger workers. This may be attributable to declining skills of older workers because of ‘lack of motivation, resistance to change and inflexibility’ (Sargeant ,2006). Younger workers tend to be promoted more than older workers are, with older managers preferring to recruit younger managers. A study (Butler & Berret, 2011) of ‘long-term unemployed’ has aroused new form of age discrimination. Companies tend to deny hiring people aged over forty years. The perception of age problem by both employers and public is tacit admission of reality of the situation. It acknowledges the existence of preconception that older people are hindrance with regard to employment. Older people are marginalized in organizations. In spite of their expertise and experience, older workers may be discharged based on the premise of poor performance or disloyalty. It is paradoxical that employers do not use cost/benefit analysis as yardstick for terminating older workers. This can come during restructuring or corporate downsizing. Jim Terry for instance, was discharged and his position replaced with a younger employee. This came some few days prior to attaining 33 years of service to his organization. This was despite him being all-rounded. Terry was terminated based on the accusation that he breached company’s regulations through hiring extra employees and allowing early break for his subordinates. Consequently, Terry’s pension benefits were retrenched by nearly $ 300 per month, while his life and medical insurance were terminated (Roscigno et al. 2007). Conclusion To sum up, perception of discriminatory treatment by older workers tend to be correlated with lowered affective commitment. Older workers have been discriminated by organizations when it comes to hiring and promotion. Organizations regard skillful and experienced older workers as expensive, and prefer hiring multiple numbers of younger employees in their position. Stereotypical evaluations of decisions and employers are manifestations of ageist attitude. Older workers have also been viewed as insurance liabilities.             To help resolve the issues of age discrimination in employment, the government authorities should legislate laws and policies that promote the employment of aged workers by offering these workers more protection during hiring processes. The employers should also embrace a recruitment policy that is not associated with age but the goals and objectives of the organization. Moreover, to avoid the problems of employee layoffs hinged on  the age factor, organizations can use statistical analysis to assess the statistical importance of the disparities in the layoffs between the older and the younger workers. The evidence and influence of age related discrimination can, therefore, be determined and the bias corrected. These statistical analyses must be carried out by experts and they would help mitigate the claims and lawsuits arising from age related discriminations at workplace.       References Armour, S. (2003). Young workers say their age holds them back. USA Today. Viewed 16th,July,2012. At http://www.usatoday.com/money/workplace/2003-10-07-reverseage_x.htm Bjelland, M,J. Bruye`re, S,M. Schrader, S,V. Houtenville, A,J. Ruiz-Quintanilla, A, & Webber, D,A (2010). ‘Age and disability employment discrimination: occupational rehabilitation implications’, Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation,vol. 20, pp. 456–471. Butler, T,H & Berret, B,A (2011), ‘A generation lost: the reality of age discrimination in today’s hiring practices’, Journal of Management and Marketing Research, vol. 9, pp. 1-11. Roscigno, VJ, Mong, S, Byron, R & Tester, G (2007), ‘Age discrimination, social closure and employment’, Social Forces, vol. 86, no. 1, pp. 313-324. Rothenberg, J. Z., & Gardner, D. S. (2011). ‘Protecting older workers: the failure of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967’, Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 9-30. Santora, J C, & Seaton, WJ (2008), ‘Age discrimination: alive and well in the workplace?’, Academy of Management Perspectives, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 103-104. Sargeant, M (2006), ‘Age discrimination in employment’, Ashgate, Aldershot, Hampshire, Burlington, VT. Snape, E & Redman, T (2003), ‘Too old or too young? The impact of perceived age discrimination’, Human Resource Management Journal, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 78-89. Read More