Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think objectivity should be removed. Aptitude tests by simulating the work entailed should determine employability, and you should be given a number rather than something linking to bein physically identifiable. That way employers can't go "we'll he's too young" or "she's too old" or "they're homeless so no."
Remember when Josh Bell did his violin experiment in public? A rich man's performance for free, and nobody cared. Barely received money panhandling in the subway but gets TONS at a venue for the same thing.
Its a double edged sword. How many posts here talk about issues that has nothing to do with one's skills (working with jerks, brown nosers, smelly people, etc.)? I understand the concern that someone may be passed over for a job based on a trait that has no bearing on skill. But skills aren't the only qualification. There are subjective traits that come into play - attitude, motivation, personality etc.
So what you'll end up doing is basically pushing the issue to another area. You get the job, but then realize you're working with a bunch of people that can't get along (since all "subjective" traits were removed during the job search), and nothing gets done. How great of a place will that be to work at?
The issue here is that you are not dealing with "employers" or "corporate" as we like to call it. They're still people. And people discriminate. Its an unfortunate issue, but often the solution .... isn't one. It simply hides, or shifts the problem or causes others.
If the over 40s are protected, so should the under 30s.
I look a lot younger than I am and was passed over for promotions due to not appearing to be experienced enough. No gray hairs, no wrinkles, no promotion in lots of government entities. I also used to run a program to employ disabled vets. I sent a super smart Naval Academy grad to meet a potential employer who said "we were all discussing you before you got here and we don't feel you are old enough to be able to do this job." BS!
Then why are employers allowed to actually advertise jobs as "2013 graduates wanted as applicants" for a position? The exact wording in an ad I saw posted today is "seeks recent college graduates (2013) for full time openings." That's certainly not an employer looking to fairly include the 40 and older crowd as candidates for employment.
Just because someone graduated in 2013 doesn't mean they are a certain age. Also, could it have been for the military since they run a LOT of ads.
Its a double edged sword. How many posts here talk about issues that has nothing to do with one's skills (working with jerks, brown nosers, smelly people, etc.)? I understand the concern that someone may be passed over for a job based on a trait that has no bearing on skill. But skills aren't the only qualification. There are subjective traits that come into play - attitude, motivation, personality etc.
So what you'll end up doing is basically pushing the issue to another area. You get the job, but then realize you're working with a bunch of people that can't get along (since all "subjective" traits were removed during the job search), and nothing gets done. How great of a place will that be to work at?
The issue here is that you are not dealing with "employers" or "corporate" as we like to call it. They're still people. And people discriminate. Its an unfortunate issue, but often the solution .... isn't one. It simply hides, or shifts the problem or causes others.
Whoops!
I forgot to add, I meant for that thought to be how you apply to a job and get to an interview, not how you get hired. Interviews can be the subjective part for company culture, etc. I have fantastic interviewing skills but on paper I'm questionable (performing arts major, most jobs lasted 3-10 months before I'd voluntarily resign, etc.) Computers usually weed me out before I can sit and explain my history.
Then why are employers allowed to actually advertise jobs as "2013 graduates wanted as applicants" for a position? The exact wording in an ad I saw posted today is "seeks recent college graduates (2013) for full time openings." That's certainly not an employer looking to fairly include the 40 and older crowd as candidates for employment.
I find it funny, the grad jobs are limited. I rarely see grad specific jobs and I am still considered a recent grad in some places (1 to 2 years after graduating.) I have not seen many jobs that are stuck open to everyone which in turn many employers seem to go with workers with experience and typically that is older workers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnywhereElse
Just because someone graduated in 2013 doesn't mean they are a certain age. Also, could it have been for the military since they run a LOT of ads.
That is also true. A large bulk would be 22-23 if they are graduating with a bachelors.
Seriously, does that not smack of age discrimination? All young people in the ad and recent grads only.
And many college grads are stuck fighting it out with retirees and high school graduates for jobs at retail and fast food joints. They went to college, graduated and did everything right from what they were told by politicians, teachers, parents and guidance counselors. However the jobs that were supposed to get them into the middle class aren't there. Why because people are working longer either holding positions into the 70's or having to look at the same entry level jobs college students are. So either we age discriminate against the elderly or turn the youth into soylent green.
I'm sure if a company produced Soylent Green you would need a college degree and 5-7 years experience in becoming food produce for to make it to the interviews.
"We're sorry, but you don't have the qualifications to be turned into food. While we were impressed with your attributes we decided to pursue more qualified applicants at this time. We cannot provide feedback right now on our decisions. Try again in 6 months."
Just because someone graduated in 2013 doesn't mean they are a certain age. Also, could it have been for the military since they run a LOT of ads.
That IS true technically.
But however, IN REALITY:
Well what percent of grads in 2013 are over 40 would you gather there are? 1%? 2%?
What percent are "young?" I would say overwhelming.
Also it was not military. Looked like employment agency representing private sector firm.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
They went to college, graduated and did everything right from what they were told by politicians, teachers, parents and guidance counselors. However the jobs that were supposed to get them into the middle class aren't there. Why because people are working longer either holding positions into the 70's or having to look at the same entry level jobs college students are. So either we age discriminate against the elderly or turn the youth into soylent green.
