Slashdot Mirror
Online Job Sites May Block Older Workers (cnbc.com)
Joe_Dragon quotes a report from CNBC: Older Americans struggling to overcome age discrimination while looking for work face a new enemy: their computers. Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan recently opened a probe into allegations that ageism is built right into the online software tools that millions of Americans use to job hunt. Separate research published recently by the San Francisco Federal Reserve Bank found that in a widespread test using fabricated resumes, fictional older workers were 30 percent less likely to be contacted after applying for jobs. Fictional older women had it even worse, being 47 percent less likely to get a "callback." Several forces are conspiring to ensure that many Americans have to work well past the traditional retirement age of 65. People are living longer, their retirement savings are inadequate, and Social Security reforms are almost certainly going to require it. The San Francisco Fed says that the share of the older-65 working population is projected to rise sharply -- from about 19 percent now to 29 percent in the year 2060. Online job-hunting tools should be making things easier for older employment seekers, and it can. Indeed.com, which claims to list 16 million jobs worldwide, currently lists 158,000 openings under its "Part Time Jobs, Senior Citizen Jobs" category. Monster.com, which claims 5 million listings, has a special home page for "Careers at 50+." In other ways, however, online job sites can cut older workers out. Age bias is built right into their software, according to Madigan. Job seekers who try to build a profile or resume can find that it's impossible to complete some forms because drop-down menus needed to complete tasks don't go back far enough to let older applicants fill them out. For example, one site's menu options for "years attended college" stops abruptly at 1956. That could prevent someone in their late 70s from filling out the form. Madigan's office said it found one example that only accommodated those who had attended school after 1980, "barring anyone who is older than 52." Other sites used dates ranging from 1950 to 1970 as cutoffs, her office said. The Illinois' Civil Rights Bureau has opened a probe into potential violations of the Illinois Human Rights Act and the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act. Madigan's office has sent inquiry letters to six top jobs sites: Beyond.com, CareerBuilder, Indeed Inc., Ladders Inc., Monster Worldwide Inc. and Vault.
In the 1930's, there was 19 workers for every retiree. In 2030, when most of the baby boomers are retired, there will be two workers for every retiree. This problem has been well known since the Reagan Administration, but politicians found it easy to kick the can down the road.
I haven't put dates to my educational history in 20-+ years. I haven't included employment history further than 7 years for at least that long.
Since employers aren't really permitted to ask your age (AEDA), they shouldn't until it's time for as background check, and if they are big enough they should let HR/Personnel handle that information without revealing it to the hiring individual or team.
Wow. This is an anti-discrimination class-action suit waiting for a sponsor. Forcing dates out of you is forced age disclosure, and illegal.
Illegal. And it's not even new. Not surprising though.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Not coincidentally, during Reagan's first year in office, the IRS ruled that 401(k)s could be funded through payroll deductions. Also during his first term, the Tax Reform Act of 1984 ensured that if a company offered 401(k)s, they were available to all employees. Rather than "kicking it down the road," they created an incentive for people to take control of their destiny away from the government.
Not so coincidentally, companies were no longer obligated to provide pensions and Wall Street collected billions in fees from people who had no interest in playing at the casino. Unlike boring old pensions, 401(k) accounts goes up and down with the market. If the value of your 401(k) plummets 50% as it did during the Great Recession and you have to make mandatory withdrawals, tough shit. You should have saved more.
The real problem is not congress, but the common attitude of "I want it all, and I want it now" ingrained in our entitlement society, and the failure of individuals to save for the future.
Let's blame individuals for not saving enough for retirement at the casino when pensions could have easily provided for their retirement needs.