Dozens of Companies Are Using Facebook To Exclude Older Workers From Job Ads (propublica.org)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from ProPublica: Verizon is among dozens of the nation's leading employers -- including Amazon, Goldman Sachs, Target and Facebook itself -- that placed recruitment ads limited to particular age groups, an investigation by ProPublica and The New York Times has found. The ability of advertisers to deliver their message to the precise audience most likely to respond is the cornerstone of Facebook's business model. But using the system to expose job opportunities only to certain age groups has raised concerns about fairness to older workers. Several experts questioned whether the practice is in keeping with the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, which prohibits bias against people 40 or older in hiring or employment. Many jurisdictions make it a crime to "aid" or "abet" age discrimination, a provision that could apply to companies like Facebook that distribute job ads.

Facebook defended the practice. "Used responsibly, age-based targeting for employment purposes is an accepted industry practice and for good reason: it helps employers recruit and people of all ages find work," said Rob Goldman, a Facebook vice president. The revelations come at a time when the unregulated power of the tech companies is under increased scrutiny, and Congress is weighing whether to limit the immunity that it granted to tech companies in 1996 for third-party content on their platforms.

Comments

There is a fine line here

[Q-Hack!]

Age based ads targeting comic books to teenagers, ok. Age based ads targeting IT jobs to Millennials but excluding people aged 40 is a problem.

Re:There is a fine line here

[Anonymous Coward]

OK. How about instead we target IT jobs to people who read comic books? - Your friendly neighborhood HR department

You'd get a lot of good IT geeks respond.
The difference is here, anyone can CHOOSE to read a certain comic book or industry magazine.
You don't get to choose your age, despite what the cosmetics industry would have you think

Re:There is a fine line here

[Anonymous Coward]

Age based ads targeting comic books to teenagers, ok. Age based ads targeting IT jobs to Millennials but excluding people aged 40 is a problem.

If Facebook is helping exclude older workers from job offers then they should be hit with the full weight of the law. I don't care if it destroys them. I half think the world would be better off without that mess anyway. We certainly would. Without Facebook, Russia would have lacked a tool to help Von Clownstick get elected. People's private lives should be private, not posted on the Internet. I'd greatly prefer that such sites die and _NOT_ be resurrected with a new name.

That all being said, we do have guaranteed Freedoms including the freedom to be stupid, so the correct thing is just to apply the law and see where it goes. In the very unlikely event Facebook were to die, something likely even more evil will no doubt sprout up to replace it. People really need to remember or learn how important that right to privacy is that is implied in the constitution though and defend it, not give it away.

Re:There is a fine line here

[Kierthos]

Yes, but if a private company placed an advertisement where, in the advertisement, they said "No one over the age of 40 need apply.", they'd potentially be breaking the law.

Now, to be fair, there are some jobs where, if you're over a certain age, you're probably not going to be hired. I don't believe the major airlines are looking to fill the ranks of their pilots with people in their 70s, for instance.

But when it's not the advertisement explicitly stating it, but it's the algorithm behind showing the digital advertisement to selected groups, is that still discrimination? Well, yes. But you have a harder time proving it, because you never see the advertisement to begin with.

Anyone can pick up a newspaper and look in the Help Wanted section.

Re: There is a fine line here

[Oswald McWeany]

These aren't job offers, they're ads. Usually for shit positions at the bottom of the food chain.

Still wrong ethically, morally, and legally.

Re: There is a fine line here

[rickb928]

"must be born in the US to apply"

This is better expressed as "will not sponsor visa applications or visa transfers".

Which is pretty common language nowadays.

Re: There is a fine line here

[Holi]

But it also discriminates against naturalized citizens.

Re:There is a fine line here

[hey!]

The hiring manager cares. You go in and everybody you talk to is delighted to have someone with such great resume. Then you met the person you'd be reporting to and he's a lot younger than you. You get a very different vibe; he's cautious, because he's afraid what you're really after is his job. Or at the very least you think you know more than he does, which you probably do.

Re:There is a fine line here

[Anonymous Coward]

I've seen both ways. I have seen Scrum masters have 4-6 hour long standup meetings and demand an accounting from each team member (even having other divisions like IT attend) because of a permanent sprint. With an environment where each dev had to point the finger at someone, or actually risk being fired, it was an extremely hostile environment.

I have found it definitely the case for all but very few companies/organizations where if you want a raise or promotion, you jump ship. Especially for people starting out who are in the helpdesk/tech support jobs. There is such a "firewall" between that section and other places in companies, that the best thing, career-wise is to make that leap to somewhere else.

As for nasty plots, what I've seen were companies demanding Skype interviews as a filter, or pretending to hire and ask for ID "for making the badge". If over 40, the contract winds up just being terminated for no reason, or you get handed a project that is completely impossible to do, then get fired for "performance reasons." Or just simply disable the contractor's badge, and say that their ways are too fossilized to be a good fit.

Ironically the companies that do this crap are the ones that need experienced people, because they are doing absolutely stupid stuff (like forcing their whole dev process around a single DevOps tool because the tool is "fashionable".)

Re:There is a fine line here

[david_thornley]

The problem is not that Facebook allows companies to place ads that illegally discriminate, but that Facebook serves employment ads to younger people only. Facebook is taking action that results in illegal discrimination.

Re:There is a fine line here

[Archangel Michael]

I suspect there was some collusion

Nellie Ohr, wife of Obama Justice Dept official Bruce Ohr worked at Fusion GPS, the firm behind the fake dossier built on Russian counter intelligence and paid for by Clinton campaign and the DNC. That is more collusion than Mueller's been able to find. But then again, he isn't looking for collusion any more (there wasn't any), he's looking for spend Millions of dollars trying to find some other crime Trump or his associates committed.

So far, they have Flynn admitting to lying. And one indictment on stuff that happened LONG before Trump even announced.

The Fake Dossier is the poisoned tree that will free anyone who actually might be guilty, because without it, there is no FISA court warrant that started it all.

Lies, lies and statistics

[thsths]

The argument is really a very bold lie, with absolutely no evidence to support.

Very clear defense by Facebook

[MrMr]

I suppose they think I can 'responsibly apply' this accepted industry practice to other demographics like gender, race, religion etc.?

Companies do this all the time

[Anonymous Coward]

We posted an IT job opening in the local newspaper that clearly stated a minimum of 2 years experience and got dozens of responses from people who couldn't even spell IT, all eager to learn. Moved the ad to Craigslist and the quality of applicants improved dramatically, as you would expect. It's just smart to target your audience so that your recruiting time and dollars go as far as they can. Oh, and we ended up hiring a 63 year old guy who had moved to our area to be closer to his grandkids

Leading?

[coofercat]

Verizon is among dozens of the nation's leading employers

They can't be leading very much if they're only recruiting a subsection of the qualified populous. Why not just call them what they are - a big, shit employer.

It works both ways

[smooth wombat]

If the idea is to exclude older workers for one or more of the various reasons employers always cite, then similar reasons can be given to exclude people in their 20s.

Such as, irresponsibility, checking their phones rather than doing work, checking Facebook rather than doing work, more willing to request time off, raising a family, the list goes on.

It's always hilarious to hear employers whine they can't find people with experience, who then go out of their way to exclude people with experience.

Re:It works both ways

[sizzzzlerz]

What is left unsaid, however, is they're hiring experienced individuals who don't expect compensation commensurate with that experience.

OK Google, translate

[null etc.]

"Used responsibly, age-based targeting for employment purposes is an accepted industry practice and for good reason: it helps employers recruit and people of all ages find work"

Google translate (source: weaslese (PR dialect; not Lawyer dialect); destination: commoner's English) ->

"Used responsibly (theoretically, and at the discretion of whomever is paying us to target ads), age-based targeting for employment purposes is an accepted industry practice (but we won't tell you whom it's accepted by) and for good reason (at least for us): it helps employers who wish to discriminate based on age to recruit, and people of all ages except for the discriminated age ranges, find work."

Wow, I never knew that translation technology could make it so easy to understand executives!

LinkedIn promotes ageism as well

[Tora]

I don't know about advertising, but LinkedIn requires you to include a year on employment history--another way employers filter by age, since it is universal practice nowdays (at least in tech) to review somebody's linkedin profile as part of screening. It is an easy way to determine somebody's age.

Re:GOD YES - make someone responsible

[MrMr]

I see you practice what you preach Mr. Coward.

Re:Older workers don't want those jobs

[DaMattster]

Somehow young people have young people jobs and older people have older people jobs. I wonder what might it be that makes the difference?

Sorry AC but that is just crap. There is no such thing as young people jobs and old people jobs. There are just jobs. And in America, where we use money to barter for food, clothing, and shelter, jobs are necessary.

Re:Older workers don't want those jobs

[Oswald McWeany]

Somehow young people have young people jobs and older people have older people jobs. I wonder what might it be that makes the difference?

Over half the people I have worked with during my career have been over 40. I've always been "the young guy" at every place I've been (until my current job) - here I'm average age... and not too far off 40 myself. To be honest, I'm not sure why there is so much age discrimination against older IT staff. Younger staff know how to do things; older staff know how AND WHY to do things. Your 50 year old may make twice as much as your 25 year old IT worker- but they'll make far less than half the mistakes and cause far fewer project delays.

Re:Surprising? Not really...

[gillbates]

So here's a different perspective, which I hope you'll consider, rather than lumping all older workers into the same stereotype. I would like you to consider an alternative viewpoint to the points you raised:

1. Younger workers cost the company more, because even though they demand less in salary, they learn the lessons of experience on the company dime. Blowing deadlines costs the company more than just the staff time of the worker; it damages goodwill with the customer, and - in some cases I've observed - cost the company millions of dollars in penalties. A younger worker who makes a mistake in judgment ("Yeah, but that would never happen...") can cost the company a lifetime of salary.
2. Most people can relate to the saying, "You get what you pay for." With older workers, this is especially true. You aren't paying just for their productivity, you're paying for their expertise. The company doesn't care if you can code 10 times faster than the older worker, if the older worker knows how to do it with 100 times less code. A real world example of this: at one company, a team of younger workers proposed a code solution which would have cost the company 300k in salary, to which the older, more experienced worker replied, "Yes, but you can do that with a registry change."
3. An older worker can recognize when a project is in trouble before the younger workers, and can correct the situation early enough to mitigate disaster. I've never known an inexperienced engineer who recognized project failure before it happened, much less how to correct it.
4. Younger workers have to put in 40+ hour work weeks because they don't know what they're doing, or they aren't using their time effectively, etc...
5. Older workers know that time spent learning the language fad du jour is wasted time if the company doesn't actually commit to using it. Once you've learned a few languages, you understand that picking up a new language doesn't take much time at all; but more, you realize that the largest factors influencing the organization's ability to deliver often center not around the technology used, but inadequate processes, bad design, etc...
6. Younger workers represent a much greater hiring risk because they don't have a proven track record. It is much harder to assess the value of a younger worker because they just don't have the experience which demonstrates their ability to handle new and unknown challenges.
7. Experience demonstrates an older worker's ability to keep their skills current and maintain a positive contribution in the face of changing technology. An employer wants to know that when the technological winds shift, their workforce will keep up, and someone who knows just one language, or has little experience hasn't demonstrated this.

So, I'm not going to defend the points one by one, but thought you should know how such statements are perceived by those with more experience. It is these people - with more experience - who will be evaluating whether you would be a good fit for their company.