why age discrimination for enployment?
117502
Employers tend to have some stereotypes of the "older worker" (which, by-the-way, starts at 40!):\n\nOld = set in their ways and less able to learn new skills or tasks\n\nOld = has more sense of their true worth (cost more money) and may be more likely to move on to a better offer\n\nOld = something wrong with you. This is especially true when applying for lower level positions - if you were any good, you should have moved beyond this by now.\n\nOld = less dependable. May retire in a few years, more prone to medical problems\n\nOld = less physically capable (read-> slow and weaker)\n\nOld = less mentally capable (remember all those great jokes about getting older and more forgetful)\n\nEven though it is illegal for an employer to discriminate based on age, as an older worked looking for work these are the things you have to prove do NOT apply to you. Give examples that disprove each of these myths in your resume or application as well as the interview.
273722
Competency, not age, should always be the standard.  Do not suppose that just because a person has reached a certain age that they are no longer able to do a thing.  There are millions of older people with a lifetime of knowledge and experience who can provide the kind of perspective someone younger simply cannot.
444053
EEO was created in the mid 60's and has to do with employers not discriminating on the basis of ,race, religion,sex,age, etc. It was part of President Johnson's' Great Society program. It is still in operation and you can find more at www.loc.gov
366577
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; \nthe Equal Pay Act of 1963 (EPA), which protects men and women who perform substantially equal work in the same establishment from sex-based wage discrimination; \nthe Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), which protects individuals who are 40 years of age or older; \nTitle I and Title V of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), which prohibit employment discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities in the private sector, and in state and local governments; \nSections 501 and 505 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which prohibit discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities who work in the federal government; and \nthe Civil Rights Act of 1991, which, among other things, provides monetary damages in cases of intentional employment discrimination. \nThe U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) enforces all of these laws. EEOC also provides oversight and coordination of all federal equal employment opportunity regulations, practices, and policies.\nAbbercrombie & Fitch, Cracker Barrel, and Fed Ex have all had lawsuits for discrimination.
810573
It implies that they are incapable of succeeding without given a booster seat. If I were a minority, I would be offended. I want to be hired because I'm the most efficient, qualified person for the job, and because the boss thinks I can contribute to the company. If they don't want to hire me because I'm a woman, then I don't want to work for them.
303686
PASSION! First you must find an area that your passionate about and then use that to your benifit. Employers are always looking for good people at any age, they are hard to find. Employers want talent to benifit the bottom line of the company first, and when they can't find that, they look for a young pretty face, only because of the lack of good prospects.
46611
When you hire a person to work for you in America, you have certain responsibilites, as they are not a piece of equipement or a machine.  The benefit you get from expanding your business by hiring people to work for you requires comes with certain responsibilities on your part.\n\nThe systems were set up to ensure that your employees would have some sort of safety net when they retired, so that no matter what happened or how cheap you were, if they worked for you their whole life, they would not be in complete poverty when they hit a point where they could not work any more.  \n\n\nThe lawmakers at the time decided that both the employer and employee should pay into this system, as they both had an interest in keeping a stable workforce with a promising future.\n\nOne of the alternatives suggested at the time was to require employers to provide pay and benefits to the employee at retirement.  That was scrapped in a compromise in favor of this proposal, as it is much more practical.
659196
i think there is a difference between discriminating and being selective. of course there is always going to be prejudice. but putting that aside.. a company may be searching for a particular type of person. i know companies that insist that u know how to play golf.. because that is where a lot of contracts.. are negotiated and settled on the green.  also suspose you need someone to do a lot of traveling in a fast pace business with a host of luncheons.. dinners and late night negotiations.. and a person applies that appears to have health issues.. not in shape..  then what? is the ceo wrong to hire a slimmer more fit person.  so there r many variables.  yes .. tall .. handsome.. and white.. fit the profile for a lot.. but in a alot of cases..your presentation in an interview is everything.
897976
Why not? age is just a number
670443
If you are in the US it is illegal to refuse to hire someone based on age.\n\nYour friend needs to just go out and try. Any company in compliance with the law should be fine. If she is denied due to age, turn them over to the Equal Opportunity Commission nearest to you.
715322
Statutory laws must be adjusted to have the proper penalties between ages both for men and women.  Older people victimizing younger people should be more castigated than those whose victims are already on the age of majority.
688780
2 pages would be the max, but be careful, if you are "getting older" you don't want to plant that in the reviewer's mind either.  Some people have an age bias and even though it's illegal to discriminate in hiring, who's to say the resumes of those perceived to be over a certain age won't just get dumped before it ever reaches the interview stage?
957227
Yes. The only basis that they are not allowed to use in making a hiring decision are: race, color, national or ethnic origin, sex, disability, veteran status or age.
130354
A newly hired employee has the enthusiasm that may be missing in later years. The company took on a specific individual with expectations in mind.  They may have a focus on that persons potential and therefore give more attention to them.  The future of our world is held by the children, the future of a company is held by those thought of as the up and comer.
150204
federal law governs unemployment insurance.  if you are old enough to LEGALLY work and the employer paid its contribution to the UI fund, you are eligible regardless of age.
256601
The new work law states that employers have the right to sack any worker under the age of 26, in the first two years of their employment. This discriminates against both the young workers - no job security and no tribunal if they are sacked for no other reason than the emplyer wants rid - and also older workers insamuch as why emply an older worker if you can get someone young ( and cheap & sackable)??
920888
It is a racist policy that enables someone to benefit off the color of their skin.\n2. It benefits minorities and women.\n3. We have lost fair hiring practices to it.\n4. It effects everyone because one day you could be passed over for a job simply because they have a quota of ethnicity to hire. It basically promotes racism and in equality. It is just another pathetic way to keep racism alive. People are not inferior based on the color of their skin or their sexual gender. Affirmative action reinforces centuries old beliefs that here in America, the white skin of the male is praised by all.