4 ms·

It is, but parent comment stated it as fact--not a prejudgment. If you are avoiding older candidates because of presumptions about them in terms of work ethic

It is, but parent comment stated it as fact--not a prejudgment. If you are avoiding older candidates because of presumptions about them in terms of work ethic or compensation expectations, you are wrong. If you are advertising below-market salaries and expecting >40 hr work weeks and only attract younger people, there is nothing wrong with that. Older candidates are not entitled to employment in the positions they want at the rates they want. They need to compete in the labor market with the rest of us.

sidlls 9y ago
> If you are avoiding older candidates because of presumptions about them in terms of work ethic or compensation expectations, you are wrong. If you are advertising below-market salaries and expecting >40 hr work weeks and only attract younger people, there is nothing wrong with that. You don't seem to understand how discrimination works: the advertisement you describe discriminates against older workers because of how lives typically evolve with age (e.g. ability to sustain long hours, family or other obligations, etc.). The two scenarios you describe aren't objectively independent or even clearly separable.
- moduspol 9y ago
  We're just getting into a pointless gray area when that argument is made. Doesn't having work hours that don't match with school hours discriminate against parents? Isn't a position with on-call responsibilities inherently discriminating against people with more familial commitments? I don't think it's the employer's responsibility to tailor the job to match a candidate's chosen lifestyle, or that not doing so means you're discriminating. I think people need to be responsible for their own decisions, and if that means you're less competitive relative to another candidate, that is not the employer or the other candidate's fault.
  - user5994461 9y ago
    Funny you'd mention on call. It's a major hassle for the allegedly hot positions of devops/SRE/sysadmin, anyone who got a clue leaves the domain pretty quickly.
- PeterisP 9y ago
  You don't seem to understand how discrimination works - any separation of people according to some criteria is literally discrimination, however, illegal discrimination is one done according to certain protected characteristics (including age) without a legitimate business need (e.g. actors for a particular commercial). Offering below-market salaries for 80 hour work weeks isn't illegal age discrimination even if this highly correlates with age, those are legitimate criteria that affect work performance, and thus are valid; just as criteria that require workers to be able to lift a certain weight is a legitimate criteria if appropriate to that job role, even if it would disqualify almost all women for applying. Disqualifying an old man because you think that people of his age won't work 80 hour weeks for a poor wage or can't carry the required goods is prejudice and illegal discrimination. However, disqualifying an old man because you know that this particular man won't work 80 hour weeks for a poor wage and can't carry the required goods is fair game, it's a reasonable evaluation of a potential employee.
  - sidlls 9y ago
    Legal discrimination can occur in explicit, discrete instances, such as your example about this particular man. Illegal discrimination can, too. But illegal discrimination can also occur in a systemic, implicit way. Systemic bias exists. One manifestation of that in this industry is the signaling in certain job descriptions and hiring practices. We needn't point to explicit, specific examples (e.g. "hiring manager told me point-blank 'sorry, we do not hire people over 30'") to see a broader effect.

sidlls 9y ago

> If you are avoiding older candidates because of presumptions about them in terms of work ethic or compensation expectations, you are wrong. If you are advertising below-market salaries and expecting >40 hr work weeks and only attract younger people, there is nothing wrong with that. You don't seem to understand how discrimination works: the advertisement you describe discriminates against older workers because of how lives typically evolve with age (e.g. ability to sustain long hours, family or other obligations, etc.). The two scenarios you describe aren't objectively independent or even clearly separable.

moduspol 9y ago
We're just getting into a pointless gray area when that argument is made. Doesn't having work hours that don't match with school hours discriminate against parents? Isn't a position with on-call responsibilities inherently discriminating against people with more familial commitments? I don't think it's the employer's responsibility to tailor the job to match a candidate's chosen lifestyle, or that not doing so means you're discriminating. I think people need to be responsible for their own decisions, and if that means you're less competitive relative to another candidate, that is not the employer or the other candidate's fault.
- user5994461 9y ago
  Funny you'd mention on call. It's a major hassle for the allegedly hot positions of devops/SRE/sysadmin, anyone who got a clue leaves the domain pretty quickly.
PeterisP 9y ago
You don't seem to understand how discrimination works - any separation of people according to some criteria is literally discrimination, however, illegal discrimination is one done according to certain protected characteristics (including age) without a legitimate business need (e.g. actors for a particular commercial). Offering below-market salaries for 80 hour work weeks isn't illegal age discrimination even if this highly correlates with age, those are legitimate criteria that affect work performance, and thus are valid; just as criteria that require workers to be able to lift a certain weight is a legitimate criteria if appropriate to that job role, even if it would disqualify almost all women for applying. Disqualifying an old man because you think that people of his age won't work 80 hour weeks for a poor wage or can't carry the required goods is prejudice and illegal discrimination. However, disqualifying an old man because you know that this particular man won't work 80 hour weeks for a poor wage and can't carry the required goods is fair game, it's a reasonable evaluation of a potential employee.
- sidlls 9y ago
  Legal discrimination can occur in explicit, discrete instances, such as your example about this particular man. Illegal discrimination can, too. But illegal discrimination can also occur in a systemic, implicit way. Systemic bias exists. One manifestation of that in this industry is the signaling in certain job descriptions and hiring practices. We needn't point to explicit, specific examples (e.g. "hiring manager told me point-blank 'sorry, we do not hire people over 30'") to see a broader effect.