Slashdot Mirror
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.
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.
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.
Some days I get the sinking feeling Orwell was an optimist.
The argument is really a very bold lie, with absolutely no evidence to support.
Verizon: We target younger people because older people won't take our shit.
I suppose they think I can 'responsibly apply' this accepted industry practice to other demographics like gender, race, religion etc.?
I would never see an ad on Facebook, since I'm security and privacy conscious and Facebook is a way to surrender both of those things.
I suppose the day may come when it's important enough I can't avoid it, in which case I will hire a PR company to produce a managed online presence for me, designed to appeal to the idiots in HR who think shit like this is a good idea.
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
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.
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.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
"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!
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.
tora
I see you practice what you preach Mr. Coward.
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.
I'm over 40, nearing 50 when I will be "dead", but please let them continue to age discriminate before I come for an interview.
Because the alternative is that I and the company waste a lot of time, and they will just hire someone younger anyway giving me some lame excuse which isn't true.
I'd rather focus on the companies which don't discriminate.
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.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
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:
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.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
You seem to be confused by the DMCA takedown process. If you run a site, and a user posts something, and you receive a DMCA takedown request, you are not legally required to take that thing down. However, if it is in violation of copyright, you then are liable along with the user posting it. If you know it's clearly not a copyright violation, leave it up. Companies that host a lot of third-party content normally don't pay careful attention to the copyrights, so they follow the DMCA safe harbor process.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
If you run a site, and a user posts something, and you receive a DMCA takedown request, you are not legally required to take that thing down.
To maintain your safe harbor, you must. If the user then still claims its not a violation, you can repost it and still maintain safe harbor.
In the case of this libel idea, it would need the same protection.