I’ve been pressed into research this week on the problem of discrimination in the workplace. Specifically, I’m studying ageism, and it’s very real.
Imagine for a minute that you’re 65 years old and unemployed. In the classified ads, you see a perfect job. Your education and experience make you well qualified, and you know you can handle the position well. You also know that your silver-haired age may go against you, despite The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967. That law was passed to protect workers age 40 and above from various forms of outright, clear age discrimination, but you’re not gullible enough to believe subtle forms of age discrimination don’t remain. You’ve seen advertisements for “entry-level positions” and for “fun-loving” people. You’ve seen other ads that seek “active, energetic” people – code words for “youth”.
So, granted an interview for this position, you dress carefully and arrive punctually. The interviewer shakes your hand briefly, and then runs her eyes from your polished shoes to your classic hair and back. She is obviously estimating more than your height!
She asks about your education and experience. She asks why you want to work in her company, and what you have to offer in the open position. Her first questions are fine, but within three minutes, she resorts to ageism.
“You have a wealth of experience, and stellar referrals,” she says, glancing again at your silvery head. “You’re very well qualified. In fact, you’re overqualified. I don’t think you would be happy working in this position. There would be no challenge, and I know we can’t afford to pay you what you’re worth.”
You translate: “If I’d known how old you were, you wouldn’t be here. We’d love to have your experience and referrals in a 35-year old, but you’re way over-aged for this position. At 65, you’d be an economic liability to us, not an asset. You have no economic profitability to offer us – no future!” She dares not put such thoughts into words, knowing you could sue for ageism. Nevertheless, she conveys it clearly with those glances and carefully chosen words that deny you employment. You are the victim of discrimination.
Equitableness is the answer to discrimination in hiring, whether that discrimination is ageism or some other “ism”. Equitableness has no favorite “age” it wants to hire. It has no favorite “national background” or “religion” or “gender” it wants to hire.
Equitableness, defined in the May issue of the Character Builder Newsletter, is the answer to discrimination in hiring because the interviewer begins by placing the balance scales of justice on the table. In the pan on the right side of the scale, he or she places job qualifications. In the pan on the left side of the scale, he or she places your qualifications. If the scale balances, you are hired.
Equitableness in hiring does not look at a person as an age, a color, a gender, etc. It does not look at a person as a sexual orientation or a religion. Equitableness looks at each person as a package of character, qualifications, personality, and temperament.
That’s the view from my chair. What’s your view?