Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Age Discrimination Laws Have Unintended Consequences (Not necessarily better for older workers)
Pajamas Media ^ | October 12, 2008 | Melissa Clouthier

Posted on 10/13/2008 8:02:56 PM PDT by SeekAndFind

Too often, laws have unintended consequences. [1] McCain-Feingold comes immediately to mind. A lot of good [2] that law did about getting money out of politics. Other laws are just confusing. Good luck staying in compliance with the ever-morphing IRS code. A layman can’t do it. The laws against hiring discrimination fit both these criteria for bad laws. They have had unintended consequences and employers can easily be out of compliance.

Any sort of discrimination laws have unintended consequences. A supremely qualified candidate can be doubted based on race and gender quotas. But the trend in anti-discrimination lawsuits isn’t race and gender. Right now, you’re in the money if you’re old and want to keep your job no matter how unqualified, lazy, unethical, stupid, or antisocial you may be.

Many companies make stupid — and smart — decisions hiring and firing. Lots of times, even when it’s legal, it’s not right. And lots of times, it’s more than right. In fact, there are many firings that don’t happen because of discrimination laws — especially now with the baby boomers creaking into retirement age. These people don’t like being old (who does?) and don’t want to look at the younger, fresher, harder-working co-workers poaching their jobs. And they certainly don’t want to be fired — even if they deserve it.

John Stossel has a great article and talks about [3] age discrimination. Guys like this are Exhibit A:

Discrimination lawsuits like theirs are common today. They create nasty, unintended consequences: Older workers find it more difficult to get hired since companies are reluctant to hire people who could become lawsuit age-discrimination bombs. I’m told some companies set aside $100,000 for legal fees and settlement money for every older worker who isn’t doing a good job. What a waste.

Lawyer Murray Schwartz has won millions suing companies for age discrimination. He told me, “A company shouldn’t be able to say, ‘A 36-year-old fellow would do it better than the 52-year-old fellow.’”

They just shouldn’t be allowed?

“Never. And that’s what the law says.”

The law does. But the law can be an ass, and American law contradicts itself. FBI agents must retire at 57, airline pilots by 65. But it’s illegal for ABC to fire me if my boss thinks I’m too old?

It irks me that some old guy makes money suing companies for hiring and then firing him. Pardon me, but he strikes me as a jerk and I don’t think it’s his age that got him fired. But that’s the problem.

These sorts of actions hurt worthy employees. Companies like GM offer elaborate buyouts for guys who have 25 or 30+ years in — they just want them off the payrolls. But here’s the problem: an employee might be great but everyone over a certain term of service has to receive the same offer. A stellar worker doesn’t really believe his boss when the boss says, “We really like you, stay.” Really? Does the boss really have the power to keep the good worker? Maybe, but the employee can’t be sure and might take the payout. So big companies end up losing good employees with marginal ones or just old and tired ones. You know what happens? The companies hire them back as consultants.

The whole thing just makes no sense. Companies should be able to hire and fire whomever they want for any reason. If a company wants to cut off its nose and hire only women or men or old people, fine. They, because of discrimination, will cut themselves off from good talent. It’s their right to be stupid.

If a football team can pick the best talent, any company should be able to create the most talented team for any reason. Imagine a football team being forced to hire petite women. It’s absurd. But is it any less arbitrary to say that an older, incompetent employee must be kept because to fire him would be discriminatory?

And reverse discrimination happens as well. For example, had Bill Gates been hired by IBM, would he have been put in the position of chief technology officer? No. He’d be discriminated against because of age and inexperience. Many, in fact most, entrepreneurial companies are started by someone who has been fired unfairly or not given a chance or was too young or too brash or too something. Author Harvey MacKay wrote the book [4] We Got Fired! … and It’s the Best Thing That Ever Happened to Us. Guys like Michael Bloomberg and Muhammad Ali share their stories of being fired and how their lives are better for it. While being fired is no fun, it has been the catalyst for many people to find the career or job they were meant to do.

No one is owed a job and life is not fair. Age discrimination seems particularly unjust because the employee is less mobile and less able to develop skills, and also has a more difficult time finding a job. Ironically, though, the difficulty with job hunting is that other potential employers won’t take a risk for fear the person won’t work out. The employer then has to worry about being sued or giving a big fat payout to make the person go away. So, the law that is meant to help actually hurts. A guy who loses his job at 55 or 60 knows he’ll have a tougher time finding a job. He may have supreme qualifications and great experience that could really help a company, but he also presents a big financial risk. Every smart employer thinks about the risks of hiring anyone and the possibility of litigation if the employment doesn’t work out.

Anti-discrimination laws have unintended consequences. Good people are let go and not hired due to potential legal risks. Bad people stay in jobs for far longer than they should, demoralizing their team and impeding production because of those potential legal risks.

If discrimination laws ceased to exist, the right people would be confident and the wrong people would worry. Which is as it should be. Now, the good and bad face the same risk and reward and it’s simply not right. It makes companies less competitive and rewards the underperformer who feels entitled to a job.

Without discrimination laws, the smart, talented cream would rise to the top. In a truly free market the smart and talented always succeed.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Editorial; Government
KEYWORDS: agediscrimination; ageism

1 posted on 10/13/2008 8:02:57 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I just wanted to be treated like the govt workers....


2 posted on 10/13/2008 8:16:21 PM PDT by cherry (WE ARE LEGION!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
There are so many "protected classes" under anti-discrimination laws, that if the premise of the article were true for age, it would be true for gender, race, religion, marital status, creed, etc. In other words, we'd see (according to this article) employers unwilling to hire hispanics, women, blacks, singles, etc. out of fear of being sued. In short, they simply wouldn't hire anyone!

Companies don't set aside funds to battle age discrimination cases from older workers. They set aside funds to hedge against all employment-related claims.

3 posted on 10/13/2008 8:16:49 PM PDT by anniegetyourgun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: anniegetyourgun

bumpforlater


4 posted on 10/13/2008 8:23:04 PM PDT by Gasshog (eyes open, mouth too - tough!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: anniegetyourgun
They're rarely completely unwilling, but often more hesitant. Which in turn makes then slower to expend even when the opportunity is available.

I know a guy in France who told me about how his company had the opportunity to take a large contract. It would have meant hiring 20 new employees for three years. But there was no guarantee the contract would be extended, and the cost of then laying off the employees if necessary was too high, so he wasn't able to take the contract and those 20 people were never hired in the first place. The US obviously isn't nearly as bad as France, but the more expensive we make it to fire people, the closer we get.

5 posted on 10/13/2008 8:30:38 PM PDT by Arguendo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Interesting article, had not thought of the lawsuit potential for older workers impeding job opportunities. But it makes sense.

I have been on both sides of this issue.

As a regional manager I had to inform a salesman who worked for me that he no longer had a job, after 15 years with the company. (he was the 8th salesman I had fired in 7 years- again, none of these were my call)

He was a decent guy, and I still regret being involved, even though the decision was not mine.

Later after over 30 years in the industry (15 years with 2 companies) my division was closed, and I thought— so what?

For a time I tried to do consulting, that did not work.

2 years later, I finally got a job with the company I started with in 1972, at less than I left them in 1988. It has taken 4 years for my salary to be where it was when I left in 1988 (still 25% lower than the last job).

Degreed, strong technical skills, no black marks, still new jobs are very tough when you are 55.

I am just thankful to have a job again, and with people who like what I do for them. The man I replaced is very little older than my son, and is very technically competent. However my approach is much different, because of 30 years in the field in outside sales. Perspective is everything.

Some old habits die slow, I still work 60+ hours per week. But recently they have allowed me to telecommute, and I like it. Had spent the past 4 years living away from my family, back home now.


6 posted on 10/13/2008 8:43:28 PM PDT by Texas Fossil
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
If all the companies in a town but one refuse to hire women, that company will be able to fulfill its staffing needs cheaper than its competitors. This will in turn offer it competitive advantages elsewhere in the marketplace. If other companies persist in discrimination, it's likely one of them will eventually go out of business. The new owners may then notice that there's an underutilized supply of female labor and take advantage of it, thus bidding up the price.

Discrimination on the basis of other than suitability for employment will cause the companies that practice it to lose money. Over time, the market will pressure companies to end such practices. Such changes won't happen instantly, but letting things change naturally will avoid the side-effects that come from forced change.

BTW, if many companies are willing to hire women for low-end positions, but only one is willing to hire them for higher-end positions, the latter company may be more likely to find itself the victim of a sex-discrimination lawsuit. The joys of statistics.

7 posted on 10/13/2008 9:00:04 PM PDT by supercat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Texas Fossil

Thanks for sharing your story. My sister was laid off from American (after almost 30 years with TWA then American after AA bought them out). She was 51 or 52 and had 3 kids at home and a husband who took the American buyout. She started at a new national store in St. Louis and has flourished. They pay so well, great benefits, bonuses and promotions. Many of the managers there, higher than she, comment that the best workers are the middle aged folks - they work hard, are grateful for a job and have a work ethic kids these days don’t. I just started a job after not working since 2005 (took care of elderly mom til she died) and I found the best place to work - a rehab/long term facility. Heck, everyone is old there and the place isn’t concerned about the ages of the employees - they range from young to old. I also found that the Midwest isn’t as age conscious as Los Angeles is, where I lived 18 years before returning to KC.


8 posted on 10/13/2008 9:09:19 PM PDT by peggybac (Tolerance is the virtue of believing in nothing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
...after President Reagan harped for eight years in favor of enforcing the law against age discrimination. I tell ya!

But go ahead. Scrap the old men like me, and keep that corporate preference for "affirmative action" for herding all of the wives and mothers into work. ...wouldn't want the few remaining families to stay together long enough to compete in business.

The following are Fortune 500s that filed briefs in favor of "affirmative action" in the Michigan "Grutter v. Bollinger" (Michigan University) case.

http://www.umich.edu/~urel/admissions/legal/gru_amicus/32_internatl.pdf

3M
Abbott Laboratories
American Airlines
Ashland
Bank One
Boeing
Coca-Cola
Dow Chemical
E.I. Du Pont De Nemours
Eastman Kodak
Eli Lilly
Ernst & Young
Exelon
Fannie Mae
General Dynamics
General Mills
Intel
Johnson & Johnson
Kellogg
KPMG
Lucent Technologies
Microsoft
Mitsubishi
Nationwide Mutual Insurance
Nationwide Financial
Pfizer
PPG
Proctor & Gamble
Sara Lee
Steelcase
Texaco
TRW
United Airlines
General Motors Corporation

http://www.umich.edu/~urel/admissions/legal/gru_amicus/gru_gm.html



9 posted on 10/13/2008 9:23:10 PM PDT by familyop (cbt. engr. (cbt), NG, '89-'96, Duncan Hunter or no-vote)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
"Guys like this are Exhibit A:...It irks me that some old guy makes money suing companies for hiring and then firing him. Pardon me, but he strikes me as a jerk and I don’t think it’s his age that got him fired. But that’s the problem...Companies like GM offer elaborate buyouts for guys who have 25 or 30+ years in...But is it any less arbitrary to say that an older, incompetent employee must be kept because to fire him would be discriminatory?...A guy who loses his job at 55 or 60 knows he’ll have a tougher time finding a job. He may have supreme qualifications and great experience that could really help a company, but he also presents a big financial risk."

by "Melissa Clouthier"

Go home and cook some dinner, little girl. Knit a sweater or something. The evil behind your writing is transparent.


10 posted on 10/13/2008 9:36:10 PM PDT by familyop (cbt. engr. (cbt), NG, '89-'96, Duncan Hunter or no-vote)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson