Age Discrimination

The elderly may be just as capable as the young. Since age is not necessarily an indication of inferior ability or potential, treating a person less favourably purely on the basis of their age is just as unreasonable and unfair as doing so on the basis of his race or religion. It would also be inconsistent with the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination, which are at the heart of the notion of individual rights.

If a particular elderly worker truly has, say, less concentration or manual strength than a younger worker, and this objectively and reasonably makes him less qualified for the particular job, then employers can still make their decisions based on his relative lack of suitability for the job – not on his age. Age by itself should not be a determinant.

Discriminatory practices in recruitment and promotion cause detriment to the economy. Age discrimination reduces productivity because job and advancement opportunities are inefficiently matched to workers and talent is wasted. The Cabinet Office study of older workers estimated that low employment among older people reduces GDP by £16 billion per annum. Higher participation rates among older workers lead to better matching of jobs to people, increased employment rates, and enhanced competition among workers that will stimulate the labour market in the longer run.

The belief that the economy has only a limited number of jobs, and if older workers remain in the labour market they will deny job opportunities to younger people, or push down wages, is the well-known ‘lump of labour’ fallacy. Wages are especially unlikely to drop in industries with existing or projected shortages, such as in teaching, and nursing.

Having few older workers also increases the amount the government needs to spend on unemployment and other benefits, and decreases tax revenues. This strain on public resources is increasingly critical in many developed countries given their ageing populations, the projected increases in the dependency ratio, and the pay-as-you go nature of state pension schemes.

Without age discrimination and a mandatory retirement age, employers benefit from lower turnover and thus lower recruitment costs and effort, because workers stay on at work longer than they would otherwise have done. The DTI estimates that this benefit to businesses will amount to £39m in the first year alone.

By contrast, discrimination discourages potentially talented job seekers from applying. Right from the recruitment stage, employers lose by having a smaller pool of workers to draw upon, and by failing to make the most of the existing skills potential of the population.

Ageism is the most prevalent form of discrimination in the workforce today. Legislation can help to change these prejudiced attitudes if it operates in conjunction with other policies to promote equal rights and educate employers and workers about their obligations and rights.

By protecting a group in society that is often left out and less advantaged, we are also raising the level of equality in society.