Age Discrimination In The Workplace Sample
Introduction
The labor market faces many dynamics in its operation and existence. The labor market serves a very important component of the economic environment and therefore an area that calls for many relevant legislations. The Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development definition of labor dynamics is “Changes in jobs that take place as well as entries into and departures out of an economic activity”. In the face of the Covid-19 pandemic, the labor market has had to undergo rapid changes in order to cater for the emerging needs of the players in this market. One of the dynamics issues in the labor market is age discrimination and this relates to the human component of this aspect.
Age discrimination in the work place has been on the rise in the recent times. According to Ngunyen (2021) age discrimination affect both the young and the elderly in age. This practice has altered the results of the various companies in terms of their performance with the bias against workers leading to lost wages and consequently the decrease in the Gross Domestic Product. This is because of the frustrations that age discrimination causes. The age discrimination is a labor market problem that involves many generations having been practiced over time. Olen (2014) highlights it as an ever growing problem with the so called young generation going grey and thus ushering a totally new generation that continue with the malpractice. It is interesting to note that few efforts have been advanced towards managing the effects that come with this practice. According to Carino (2019), the law is the solution to this issue.
The development of age discrimination as a problem is not something to be proud of. However, this practice may happen unknowingly and therefore difficult to address it as an emerging issue. In most job places for example, one is required to have experience in order to stir up the confidence that one can perform the role. The instance that young people sometimes, coupled with the curiosity to know and learn more, may perform better in these roles. This due to age discrimination never happens. For inferential basis therefore, the effect is a strain on the productivity of the firm.
The Hypothesis
The legal dictionary defines the hypothesis as an assumption or a theory that needs to be tested through legal research. In this paper, and as an Essay Professor, I seek to test the hypothesis that most work places across the globe prefer the older work force to the younger work force. This is for various reasons set to be discussed with reference to case laws in this paper.
Causes of Age Discrimination in the Work Place
Age discrimination is caused by employer preference for certain age group. Some employers for example prefer young people for technology related jobs and older people for advice related jobs. They strictly implement this and therefore uphold this therefore inconveniencing the willing people not in a certain age group. The other cause of age discrimination is job evaluation in that the employer tends to have bias towards a certain age group. These myths may cause discrimination to thrive or provide a basis for poor performance in the work place. Age discrimination in the work place may be caused by labor expense. According to economic theory, firms with an aim of optimization by minimizing cost. Employers in the various organizations therefore aim at minimizing the labor expenses as much as possible. They therefore have a tendency of preferring the young to the old on this matter because of less wages.
Age discrimination in the work place may also be caused by employee retention on the basis of the on-the-job experience. With the focus on on-the-job-experience, discrimination tends to thrive as employers may focus on retaining the ones with the experience other than those with no experience in the job. The other cause of age discrimination in the work place is the behavioral perception of the various people in positions. Some people have a mental image on who best can do a task and thus may tend to use this as a basis for discrimination.
Effects of Age Discrimination in the Work place
Age discrimination in the work place is an issue worth dealing with due to the effects that this has on the various parties in the labor market. According to the agency theory, there exists a relationship between the principal and the agent in that the agent ought to act to the best interest of the principal. In the company, shareholders are the principals and therefore the employers, being agents should work to the best interest of the shareholder. Age discrimination is an avenue for the practice and may lead to low morale among the workers. Psychologically, knowing you can do something very well but are turned down on the basis of age is demoralizing.
Age discrimination may also lead to the loss of the workforce and therefore less labor productivity. This may alter the quality of the output of the firm and their performance in the various industries or markets. Discrimination may scale up the expenses that the firms experience due to employee turnover and therefore a paradox to the overall aim of a firm in terms of minimizing the costs of operations. This practice may end up increasing the operating expenses instead of cutting them down as the firm could suppose.
Laws in line with the Hypothesis
In line with the hypothesis that employers prefer older workers to younger workers, in the various jurisdictions, this section discusses federal laws that are in line with this hypothesis. First is the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) which protects individuals aged 40 and above from age based employee discrimination. The ADEA came into effect in 1967 and is enforced by the Civil Rights Center. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act however protects workers of all ages against discrimination. Under Section 16, the Act states that it is unlawful for the employer to discriminate against the employee on the basis that this employee is 40 years and older. Further, all employees aged 40 and above are entitled to rights in the work place on the basis of their ability and not age. This is implemented by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
In Canada, the Ontario Human Right Commission, established in 1961 has a code that protects the rights of all the workers within this jurisdiction. This is the case for both young and older workers. The Code stipulates that discrimination on the basis of age in employment, services, goods, contracts, vocational associations and memberships is highly prohibited. The Code’s evaluation brings out the fact that discrimination in employment areas is the highest with most cases reported for this case. Further, the Code points out that there exists discrimination when job seeking but this is not reported. Age discrimination in the work place according to the Code further involves the services access such as healthcare and patient improvement.
The Vienna International Plan of Action on Ageing is another law protecting the older workers and prohibiting any manner of discrimination against workers of this age. The Act came in effect in 1982 and guides thinking and formulation of policies aligned in protecting the elderly. The Vienna International Plan of Action was endorsed by the United Nations General Assembly. Canada is a member country of the United Nations and is therefore bound by the provisions of this document. The Vienna Plan of Action therefore addresses data collection and analysis, training and education with the application being on the health, nutrition, protection of elderly consumers, housing and environment, family, social welfare, income security, employment and education. The Act warns against any form of discrimination against the elderly and demands that they be treated with utmost respect and consideration.
The Canada’s constitution through the charter of rights and freedom stipulates the right to access and work in the labor market. The constitution calls for legal protection of the older workers from any work place discrimination. It states their rights to being able to look for work anywhere based on the ability and work under this jurisdiction. Under the Code, the aged are a protected class and therefore violation of their rights may lead to prosecution and any other punishment stated in the Constitution of this country. In addition to this, the elderly has the freedom to report any violation that they may experience in the course of this execution.
The International Labor Organization, an international body tasked with the responsibility to protect the rights of workers also stipulates in the conditions and work series how the various workers ought to be treated. The International Labor Organization stipulates the components of the age discrimination legislation. These include; access to employment which calls for everyone to be able to access employment. According to this, prohibitions that impede or limit hiring of older workers are considered discriminatory, The other dimension in the components of age discrimination legislation is the principle of employment protection which prescribes the conditions against dismissal of older workers. For this dimension, the older worker should not be dismissed on the basis of age alone, there should be considerations of the impeding development of skills or any other avenue for career development.
Still under the International Labor Organization is the dimension, fourth in order about who should access the age discrimination. According to this dimension, the definition of the older worker should be based on the pension age so that this states a worker’s work life. The older worker age limits may be predefined by the guiding federal laws. The other dimension is clearly defined rights and responsibilities of the workers in the work place. The rights of the elderly workers should be stated in advance to them so that they work with the right knowledge and application of this is an effort to minimize discrimination.
Case Analysis in line with the Hypothesis
The hypothesis that employers prefer older workers to young workers is a very common phenomena and a reason for court proceedings and hence judgements. In the case of Hazen Paper Company et.al and Biggins 1973, the petitioner Hazen Paper Company hired Walter Biggins as their technical director. In 1986, the company fired Walter on the basis that he had attained 62 years old. The respondent claimed violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967. This act prohibited discrimination against age. After a hearing before the jury, violations were found in the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The jury found out that the petitioners willfully violated the statute and therefore were liable for liquidated damages. The judgement showed that the petitioners had fired the respondent to prevent his pension benefits from ensuing and therefore were liable for damages. This is in concurrence with the older workers are preferred to young workers because of the possibility to forfeit the pension benefits.
Still in line with the hypothesis is the case of Massachusetts Board of Retirement versus Murgia (1975) where the respondent Robert Murgia claimed unfair retirement by the Massachusetts Board of Retirement. According to him, the operation of Section 26 (3) (a) of the Mass General Laws denied him equal protection of the law. From the hearing and the consequent judgement at the high court, there was no civil authority in the case of Murgia versus Massachusetts Board of Retirement. The case was therefore dismissed. The respondent further appealed in the court of appeal and it was determined that the age classification in the Massachusetts police force could not stand a test of rationality. This therefore meant that compulsory retirement at the age of 50 was irrational and thus the respondent was unfairly treated. There was an agreement that rationality could be the appropriate and proper standard with which to ascertain that age 50 violated equal protection. The court of appeal therefore disagreed that the age 50 classification was not rationally related and hence furthered legitimate state interest. It is therefore clear to note that the rule of law aligns to the hypothesis that older workers are preferred to young workers.
The other case on the age discrimination in the work place issue is that of Barnes versus General Corp in 1990. This was a consolidated case for which the plaintiff challenged the District’s Court grant against their employers, in the age discrimination cases. The case arose out of a corporate restructuring where a number of employees were discharged. The plaintiffs were part of the employees who were discharged in this case. In passing the judgement, the court made reference to the McDonnel versus Green case whereby the District Court found no violation against the plaintiffs except for the claim that the case lacked a legal basis.
While referring to the Court of Appeal judgement, the defendants alleged non-discriminatory charges for the discharges. The judgement applied an analytical method to determine whether every intentional discrimination claim proceeds through an indirect method of proof or a direct, circumstantial or statistical evidence. The cause for the discharge was that the employees were above forty years and therefore deemed for a work force reduction. This therefore proved age discrimination in the work place. Relating this to the hypothesis showed that this was a contradiction, the work place did not prefer older workers to younger workers, they indeed were prioritized for workforce reduction when the activity was undertaken.
The hypothesis that older workers are preferred to young workers does not hold in some situations. There are employers who out rightly prefer the young to the older workers. An example is the case of O’Connor versus Consolidated Coin Caterers Corporation in 1996. The plaintiff claimed that he was discharged in violation of the Employment Discrimination Act of 1967 on the basis of age. The case was that the plaintiff was fired at the age of 56 and therefore had not attained the stipulated age of 62. The reason for the earlier retention before discharge was that he was performing his duties according to the rules and regulations of the organization. The discharge was therefore unfair according to the plaintiff. The court found this to be logical and demanded for compensation of the plaintiff against the damages that were caused by this decision.
Review of Literature on Age Discrimination on the Work Place
Various scholars have explored the age discrimination in the work place issue. Loughlin, Kendig, Hussain & Cannon (2017) analyzed age discrimination in the work place and how this has been changing over time. The authors aimed at evaluating the policy impact statement that age discrimination remains evident across all age groups and that the stereotypical images are subscribed to and experienced in work places. The paper was based in Australia and as part of the analysis, utilized the Australian Survey of Social Attitudes for the period 2015-2017. The sample included 5000 individuals aged 18 and older. The results of the analysis showed that across all genders and age groups, older workers that is above 55 years of age are more likely to be redundant. The results also showed that the younger age group reported being treated with disrespect more than the older age group.
The results of the paper by Loughlin et.al (2017) also revealed that in terms of gender, female workers reported that they had been ignored and treated with disrespect more than their male counterparts. The results of this paper supports the hypothesis that older workers are preferred to young workers for the respect part. Respect is a qualitative attribute but is very critical in assessing a qualitative phenomenon such as discrimination. The findings however contradict the hypothesis with the results that the older workers are the ones that are more susceptible for redundancy and therefore could not be that they are more preferred to younger workers. From this it is evident that on a work force reduction initiative, older workers may be first in being discharged.
Conclusion
In conclusion, age discrimination in the work place is an ongoing phenomenon that may have been caused by employer preference, cost reduction initiatives and job evaluations in terms of experience. The effects of this concept include loss of the workforce and the compromise of the quality of the output. In Canada, work places are guided by the Code administered by the Ontario Human Rights Commission among other acts. Cases in the past for age discrimination in the work place upheld the Age Discrimination Employment Act of 1967 in their rulings in favor of the older work force. The hypothesis that older workers are preferred to young workers depends with the prevailing circumstance in the work place.
Final Remarks
While you are aware that you can find help online, know that not all the help is worth. I offer the best services and paper samples to help you learn how to write MBA essays. I’m here to save your time. If you love it, go ahead and order. I will legit deliver.
