Age is Just a State of Mind: At Least I Think So Because Today Is My Birthday

Today is my birthday! (Not soliciting well wishes, but if  you must I will accept them, however, gifts and money would be preferred.) I am 59 today, an age that for a long time I would have considered old. But I don't feel old, at least not as old as I once thought 59 would feel. Granted physically I am not as fast as I used to be, though I was never really fast, just quick. I am not as strong as I used to be, though I think you might still think twice before picking a fight with me. I can ride a bicycle 50 miles in a sitting and will be returning to triathlons next year to celebrate my 60th birthday.

I am smarter than I used to be, primarily because I have learned I don't know it all. I have learned to listen better and ask better questions. I have a lot of knowledge but also realize being smart is not just about "knowing" things. I respect traditions but embrace "new". I am computer savvy, social media savvy, and device savvy (My daughter was blown away the first "text" she got from me).

I make these points because I am pretty certain that, if I were to leave my consulting position, I would be unable to find a position in HR. Even HR professionals, who should know better, look down on age. (See my series on AGEISM) I have several friends, excellent professionals all, who have similar capabilities who are having very difficult times finding HR positions. If gray hair is seen, or no hair is seen, or you have some wrinkles, or a decade is mentioned you get tagged as "old." Sure you hear "Well you look great for your age" (which not quite the compliment it is meant to be), but that statement is loaded with implications. Companies are making mistakes by not hiring those people. Some company would make a mistake by not making me a CHRO if I sought such a position. And as a result they miss out on tons of experience backed by great ideas, high work ethic, creativity and enough backbone to stand up to the most difficult of employees.

Now take a look around at candidates you are considering, for whatever position you have open. Do you have the same biases when you see a bald head, a gray pate, a wrinkled brow or crows feet around the eyes? Is this coloring your perception of their abilities? Are you really making a decision without consideration and hiding behind "overqualification'? For if you are then you may be cheating your company out of one of the best employees you may ever have.

Yes I realize some people who reach 50 or 60 or 70 act old, look old, think old. But I have met many 20 or 30 or 40 something who also think "old" and act "old." OLD is a state of mind. It is how you approach life. To me if you embrace new ideas, new ways of doing things, are open to possibilities then you are not "old" regardless of physical age. So look at those candidates again and reassess who is really the "old" one.

As a final word on the subject just remember someday you too will be in that position. How would you want someone to decide on you? Abilities or age?

Preconceived Notions: Do They Cause Us to Miss Things

I came across an interesting story. It concerns an experiment that involved one of today's premier muscians, violinist Joshua Bell. He is a virtuoso with the violin and sells out concerts around the world. This experiment involved Bell dressing in street clothes and playing his violin in a subway station. As detailed in this Washington Post article, entitled Pearls Before Breakfast, the question was whether or not anyone would pay attention to the man with the fiddle. Leonard Slatkin, music director of the National Symphony Orchestra, was asked this question. His response? "Let's assume," Slatkin said, "that he is not recognized and just taken for granted as a street musician . . . Still, I don't think that if he's really good, he's going to go unnoticed. He'd get a larger audience in Europe . . . but, okay, out of 1,000 people, my guess is there might be 35 or 40 who will recognize the quality for what it is. Maybe 75 to 100 will stop and spend some time listening."  When asked how much the musician would make his response was $150.

The reality of the situation was much different. Few people stopped, he only made $32, and as the following video shows only one person recognized him.



For the writers and commenters this raised the question "Are our lifes so rushed that we cannot slow down to appreciate the beauty in them?" To me it raises a question of preconceived notions. In this case we assume that if someone has to ply their musical trade in a subway they are not very good. We don't even bother to listen to see if our preconceived notions and assumptions are true or not. In this case they were not. Bell is superb, yet few bothered to even give him a glance.

How about you. Do you have preconceived notions that should be reconsidered? Do you look at someone because of their age, race, color, education, etc. and assume they could not/should not work for you?

THINK ABOUT IT.

Photo credit: Mike Haberman

Ageism Part 3: What HR Needs to Know

Age was not originally part of the protected catagories as defined by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It was added with the 1967 passage of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. And unlike the CRA where coverage starts at 15 employees, its coverage does not start until 20 employees. (This lack of consistency drives HR people nuts.) The law protects workers age 40 or over. It does not provide any protection to workers under 40. It allows employers to favor older workers, even if the "younger" workers are over 40 years of age. This was determined by the Supreme Court in the General Dynamic Land System v. Cline case.

The ADEA prohibits discrimination in all usual areas of employment, but also includes areas not generally considered, such as training and apprenticeship programs and time-off. Harassment based upon age, such as "old" jokes, "old" cartoons, "old" slurs, is also prohibited. So watch the "gray beard" or "old dog" remarks.

There are some areas where age can be a factor. These include:

• State and local governments may institute a mandatory retirement at age of 55 for firefighters and law enforcement officers.
• Employers may require a high-ranking employee to retire if:
• the employee is at least 65
• the employee has worked for at least the previous 2 years as a bona fide executive or is in a high policy making position, and
• the employee is entitled to an immediate, nonforfeitable annual retirement of at least $44,000 from the employer.
• In some cases an employer may reduce benefits paid to older workers if done so in accordance with a bona fide employee benefit plan.

And that leads us to the other law that protects older workers, The Older Worker Benefit Protection Act (OWBPA). This was passed in 1990 and says:

• Employers must offer older workers benefits that are equal to or, in some cases, cost the employer as much as, the benefits offered to younger workers. The rules for determining whether they are equal depend on the type of benefit offered.
• A waiver of the right to sue for age discrimination is valid is only if it meets certain standards to ensure the waiver is knowing and voluntary.

There are alot of exceptions to the rules on pensions and other benefit plans, so each HR professional needs to be aware of these, as there are too many for this post.

I do want to cover the waiver issues however, because in  today's world more HR managers are dealing with them. Waivers have to be knowing and voluntary and the rules for this are:

1. It is part of a written agreement between the employee and employer.
2. It is written in language that is understandable to the employee or the average of the group.
3. Specifically refers to the worker's rights under the ADEA.
4. Does not require the employee to waive any rights or claims that may arise after the agreement is signed.
5. Gives the employee something of value, over and above to what they may already be entitled. This is typically a severance.
6. The employee must be be advised, in writing, to consult an attorney before signing the agreement.
7. Must give the employee at least 21 days to consider the agreement, or 45 days in a group termination.
8. Give the employee at least 7 days after signing to revoke the agreement.
9. If the waiver is in connection with a group termination the employer must also provide the information on the demographics of the group(s) selected for the program.

So there are the rules. Here are a few comments.

• By 2010 it is predicted that half the workforce of the US will be over the age of 40.
• You can tell this law was passed by a group of people who used to think 30 was old. If we were doing this today 40 would not be OLD!
• As someone well past 40, I still rankle at the idea that someone thinks it takes me an extra 21 days to make a decision and that I have to have help to do it.
• Age discrimination is one of the fastest growing areas of EEOC suits, so it is going to get worse before it gets better. 
• The law allows disparate impact lawsuits, so make sure you are checking the impact of your layoffs. They may end up being more expensive than you think.

Finally, when I reached my 40th birthday I celebrated big time because I had finally reached a protected catagory. LOL

AgeISM Part 2: The Roots of the Bias

Just to get this out of the way... I am not a sociologist or a social anthropologist. So the statement I am about to make is pretty much my impression of social trends. Today, U.S. baby boomers, who are the most frequent complainers/targets of ageism, are suffering the results of their own making. Prior to that generation there was more respect for older workers, more respect for parents, more respect for the wisdom of experience that came with age. Of course there has always been displacement of the old, that is a course of nature. Young male lions drive off the older male pride leader. Younger stallions drive off older stallions. But I think the Baby Boomers were a different case with a more widespread disdain for all things "old." BTW, "OLD" was delineated by the age of 30. We spawned the Love Generation, Hippies, Painted Micro buses, free love, heavy drug use, Vietnam protests and more. All things that flew in the face of older generations and our parents in particular.

Wikipedia says about the Baby Boom generation "One of the unique features of Boomers was that they tended to think of themselves as a special generation, very different from those that had come before. In the 1960s, as the relatively large numbers of young people became teenagers and young adults, they, and those around them, created a very specific rhetoric around their cohort, and the change they were bringing about. This rhetoric had an important impact in the self perceptions of the boomers, as well as their tendency to define the world in terms of generations, which was a relatively new phenomenon." It goes on to further say "Boomers grew up at a time of dramatic social change. In the United States, that social change marked the generation with a strong cultural cleavage, between the proponents of social change and the more conservative." Additionally, "In general, baby boomers are associated with a rejection or redefinition of traditional values.... As a group, they were the healthiest, and wealthiest generation to that time, and amongst the first to grow up genuinely expecting the world to improve with time."

Now successive generations have picked up our distain of all things "old" and unfortunately we are now the object of that disdain. Rather than accepting our age we fight it with statements like "50 is the new 30" and book titles like Younger Next Year. So even though we (and I am one) dislike ageism, we continue to dislike all things old.

So we aging baby boomers are struggling with conflicted emotions. We dislike being "old" but still feel valuable and we turn to laws to provide us protection in the workplace in order to try to stay employed.

Next post will be about the laws that protect older workers and what HR departments need to be aware of. Stay tuned.

ISM Number Three: AgeISM

Did you know that Courtney Cox has been covered by the ADEA for 5 years now? It is hard to imagine her being the object of AGEISM. But she could be, and in fact she will be starring in a new role in the fall, were she plays a 40 year old woman re-entering the dating scene, in Cougar Town.

According to the dictionary ageism is defined as "Discrimination based on age, especially prejudice against the elderly."  And in the United States that is generally the way it is thought of, in fact there is a federal law that bans discrimination against anyone over the age of 40. (I remember that birthday. I did feel old then, if only I knew!) But ageism is actually a bit more complicated than that. Younger people are also discriminated against in many instances, generally under the guise of lack of experience. Both types of discrimination have consequences, but discrimination against older workers has some very real legal consequences for employers. Discrimination against younger workers has few legal consequences for companies.

Over at Punk Rock HR my fellow blogger, Laurie Ruettimann, had this observation in her post entitled Ageism, Sexism & Whatnot  "...no one cares about ageism until they’re old." And she is correct! At least on a personal level. HR departments and management teams need to care about it everyday.

So this week I am going to explore agesim in a bit more detail:

• What its roots may be
• What the law is regarding it
• What HR departments need to watch for.

In the meantime you can read something I wrote earlier this year after I witnessed some "ageism."
Ageism in the Workplace

I also want you to raise your awareness of ageism. Listen to what people say, especially in your workplace. Watch how people act. Look at commercials. I bet each of you will find at least 5 examples of ageism. And if you are an older job hunter you can probably cite many examples of personal situations.

So while I am writing this week give me some examples! How have you witnessed discrimination, be it because you are young or old?

Photo: From a promotion for the show Cougar Town

Ageism in the Workplace

As I was watching the reflection of my hair being cut the other day I thought out loud "Holy crap, look at all that gray hair." The woman cutting my hair consoled me with "At least that is better than loose." Not the greatest of consolation, but it got me to thinking. As many of you know, I had my birthday on July 7th, my 58th such day. Not a hallmark age by any means. But I guess it is better than not getting there.

Age is important to us, especially it seems in the US. And AGEISM exists everywhere. According to the WiseGeek, ageism is a term coined in 1969 by Robert Butler. Most of us think of it in terms of discrimination against older people, especially in the workplace. As The WiseGeek says "Many people use this term specifically to refer to discrimination against older people, but ageism can strike people of all ages." Teens can feel shut out of the workplace with "adultism", a preference for older workers, and older workers feel shut out by "jeunism", where workplaces prefer younger workers.

The legal protection in this country against discrimination based upon age is provided by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's (EEOC) enforcement of Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA)of 1967. The law states that it is illegal to discriminate against anyone over the age of 40 in all aspects of employment, unless age is a Bona Fide Occupational Qualification (BFOQ). There is no protection for workers under the age of 40. However, the fact that this law exists does not stop the discrimination from occuring, as you might have guessed. The EEOC reports that in 2008 it "...received 24,582 charges of age discrimination. EEOC resolved 21,415 age discrimination charges in FY 2008 and recovered $82.8 million in monetary benefits for charging parties and other aggrieved individuals (not including monetary benefits obtained through litigation)." This is almost 25% of the total number of discrimination claims of all types.

I witnessed an act of "ageism" personally the other day. I was not the target, but I was involved. I was at a local Starbucks (I name the company, but not the location, because hopefully someone in their HR department will read this and realize they have some further education to do. I am sure it is more widespread than this one spot) and I was ordering coffee and trying to pay with my coffee card. However, it needed more money put on it so I also gave the gentleman a credit card. I asked him to load money on my coffee card and to then pay for the drinks with my coffee card. Perhaps I was not clear, but he did not understand me. We went back and forth a couple of times and finally he had to ask for some help. Now the guy was probably about my age or within 5 years. But we were clearly not communicating. So a younger worker, who did pick up on what I wanted, helped him complete the transaction.

End of story? No, the next day I was sitting in the same store, with my under 30 adult daughter, and one of the baristas came over and apologized for "the confusion yesterday." In that apology she said "What can you expect, he is old." Now, being in HR and of similar age, I immediately bristled at this and gave her a mild rebuke. (I would have given her a lecture, but my daughter gave me a look that said "don't go there.")

All this leads to my musings on age. Age is important to us. It colors our perspective on everything. In the US we celebrate "youth" more than older age. Witness the statement "50 is the new 30", or whatever variation you use. I was reading an article as I was waiting to get my haircut about how women over 40 can avoid behaving old. (Text with your thumbs not your index fingers and never wear a watch, among other advice.) Magazines are knocking actresses who are not wearing "age appropriate" clothing. We curse at old people who are driving the car in front of us and we avoid going to Kroger on Wednesday. None of us are immune. I swear at AARP everytime I get their offers to join. At least there are signs that some aging is being accepted. December/May romances between older women and younger men is more acceptable and "Cougars" are being celebrated.

The important thing, however, from an HR perspective is that discrimination in the workplace on the base of age (albeit older age) is illegal and it will cost the company money. Workers need to be trained to be more aware of what they say, how they say and what they do. You need to focus on JOB PERFORMANCE. In my Starbucks example, if the "older" worker was let go due to his actual poor performance, the "innocent" statements of "what can you expect he is old" may cost the company alot of money. So be aware and train your employees.

Ageism, Sexism, Racism: Alive and Well

If you have been watching any of the coverage of the U.S. presidential election you realize that people can get pretty passionate about their choices for candidates. That is one of the things that makes the process interesting. People have differences in how they think taxes, energy, war, employment, unemployment, immigration, natural disasters, the economy and a hundred other issues should be dealt with. And discussion/debate on those issues is healthy. Perhaps better solutions are discovered during that process.

But if you have been paying attention you have also seen an ugly side of the process. Rather than healthy debate we have seen biases bared, biases based on race, sex, age, lifestyle and even disability. Biases, for or against a candidate, are, in my opinion not a healthy way to choose a leader. We have seen these biases early on in the Democrat Party process. People wanting Obama exclusively because he is "black" or wanting Clinton because she is a woman. On the Republican side there has been sexism in the critique in the hairstyle of Palin and in her drive and ambition. Who really cares what a leaders hair looks like? Or in asking whether she could care for her family and be a VP. Asked of any male candidates? Not that I have heard. The personal criticism of McCain hits both disability bias and ageism. I have heard people say he looks funny because of the way he holds his arms. Well that happens when they have been broken and not healed correctly. I have heard others call him that "sad, little old white man" and question whether someone his "age" can lead.

Preferring, or not preferring, a candidate based on color of skin, gender, age, or disability is not the way to select your leader. The thing that distresses me the most about this is all those things I have heard or read have been expressed by people in Human Resources. That line about color of skin, gender, age or disability should sound damn familiar!

In my opinion, if you are in HR and have expressed these points of view then I think you should consider a change of profession. If you are going to let these things sway you in your choice of leadership, then in all likelihood they will sway you in your choice of employees, trainees, promotees and demotees. And that has no place in our profession.

Age Discrimination: Even AARP Is Not Immune

AARP, the national association that advocates for older Americans, is being sued by an ex-employee, who claims she was discriminated against because of her age, so reports the New York Times. The woman, Bonita Brady, claims she lost her job in a reorganization and then was passed over 9 times for other positions, despite the fact that she had excellent performance reviews in the past. AARP has not responded to the claim.

There are several things that may be going in this case. But first, here is a primer on age discrimination. Age is covered by the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 and is administered by the EEOC. It has been amended by the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act and the Equal Employment Act of 1991. Basically the law protects workers over the age of 40 from discrimination in all aspects of employment. Employers have to make decisions about employees or candidates based upon factors other than age. If an employee is being terminated or laid off they can be asked to sign a letter waiving their rights to sue if: 1) they are given something of value in return (read severance here), 2) they are given 21 days in which to make the decision (45 days if it is a group layoff), 3) they are informed they have the right to consult an attorney, and 4) they have 7 days in which to rescind the agreement.

There are a couple of Supreme court cases that have major impact on age discrimination. The first was General Dynamics Land Systems, Inc. v. Cline in 2004 said that the law was meant to protect workers over the age of 40 from discrimination in favor of workers under the age of 40, not from workers over the age of 40 but of a different age. The case dealt with benefit favoritism for workers over 50 but not for workers ages 40-49. A couple more recent Supreme Court decisions allowed older workers to file disparate impact cases. As an example, any skills test requiring computer skills might have a disparate impact on older workers.

So in the AARP case we started with a few things may be going on. First, Ms. Brady may have been passed over several times, but if she was denied because AARP hired someone who was also over the age of 40 she may not have a case. She may not have had the skills they need to fill the position, despite the good performance reviews. Secondly, perhaps the decision-making here was based upon "nice" performance reviews rather than "accurate" performance reviews. It may be in reality that her boss(es) may have been wishy-washy in their evaluation of her performance and she was not really as good as they put down on paper. And then when it came down to having to make a decision on her to fill a spot they really did not think she was capable of doing it. So they passed her over. She got upset and filed a lawsuit claiming discrimination. Whether this is the case or not, it is a good reminder to be accurate in performance evaluation, because if you tell people they are good, when indeed they are not, when you let them go they are going to attribute it to discrimination in some form. After all, you have been telling them for years they are good employees.

Whatever the reason, pay attention to this one to develop. They may settle with her. She is only asking for $25,000 and the bad publicity may cost AARP more than that.

Discrimination in the Workplace: Double Digit Increases

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) published a News Release on March 5th detailing the bias claims from 2007 compared to 2006. With one exception, bias claims in all areas saw double digit increases. Here are some of the highlights:

• Race continues to be the largest number of claims, with 30,510 claims, an increase of 12%;
• Retaliation claims had the largest increase, up 18% to 26,663;
• Age discrimination has the second largest percentage increase, up 15%;
• Sex/Gender claims were the only area with a single digit increase of just 7%, however, during FY 2007, pregnancy charges surged to a record high level of 5,587, up 14% from the prior fiscal year’s record of 4,901. Sexual harassment filings increased for the first time since FY 2000, numbering 12,510 – up 4% from the prior fiscal year’s total of 12,025. Additionally, a record 16% of sexual harassment charges were filed by men, up from 9% in the early 1990s.
• Disability claims reached the highest level in 10 years.
• The EEOC recovered $345 million in monetary relief for the charging parties.

So why this increase in activity? Here is my take on some of them:

1. More sexual harassment charges by men- More women bosses?
2. Retaliation charges- Lack of training in companies to reinforce that retaliation is as illegal as the harassment and lack of follow up by HR to insure it is not occurring.
3. Slow down of sex/gender claims- better balance of male/female ratio in the workplace.
4. Disability claims- a greater willingness of the disabled to enter the labor force and a result of an aging workforce as baby boomers age;
5. Age claims- well.... I think everyone probably knows the answer to that one.

What is your take on this? You have any alternative explanations?

Is It Really Age? Why Older Workers May Not Get Work

Continuing with my theme of older workers, I have had a couple of people react to my quote about companies starting to hire older workers, by calling and saying they have been trying and have been unable to get work "BECAUSE OF MY AGE." My reaction to that is to be initially skeptical. If "because of my age" means:

• You have not kept your skills up to date
• You have not become Internet savy
• You are in the "rut" of "I have always done it that way"
• You have no idea what a blog or podcast or wiki is

Then yes you may not be getting a job because of your age. So my initial response has been "take a critical look at yourself" and lay the blame there. I have suggested that a job transition coach might be valuable. Have someone teach you how to interview, dress, and present yourself. Just as when you were younger, you have to have something "saleable" about you.

Now, does this mean that there is no age discrimination? No. It is there. And this is where good HR people come into play. A forward thinking, ethical HR professional does not let their organization succumb to age bias. They help hiring managers get beyond the surface and see the skill sets, the loyality, the work ethic and the energy that many "older" workers bring to the job. However, if you don't have anything worth "buying", all your skills are dusty and outdated, then even the best HR manager is not going to help you. Nor is a recruiter. So look in that mirror. If companies are not buying what your are presenting then do something about it.

HR managers, tell me what you think. Am I delusional?