4 ms·

I’m at Amazon now. This is not true.

by ozzythecat 5y ago

imwillofficial 5y ago
Seconded. Haven’t seen this anywhere in Amazon. Edit: Clarified that I meant within Amazon.
- tablespoon 5y ago
  > Seconded. Haven’t seen this anywhere. The military has it, and (news to me) it appears common in accountancy and management consulting. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Up_or_out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Up_or_out
  - imwillofficial 5y ago
    I wanted to chime in the the military part. This is not an age limit on positions to keep old people out, this is to weed out under performers at a time where the military has a glut of highly qualified volunteers. So up or out means “if you’re passed over for promotion twice, you must suck and we don’t want you anymore.” But I have seen old officers in the lower ranks because they were enlisted men, then warrant officers, then finally officers. They were far older than their peers, but still needed to tick the boxes and get promoted. Ref: Military Officer
trhway 5y ago
You're already an employee. I'm talking about requirements for candidates. As far as I see it is a relatively recent innovation, which I thought would be blatantly illegal in the US until I saw it myself - I suppose the AMZN lawyers found a loophole. When people talk about glass ceiling - well, now i know what glass bottom feels like :) If any requirements you don't directly match you can try to make a case in say cover letter to substitute - education vs. experience, etc., there is no way though how one can "decrease" the number of the years.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > which I thought would be blatantly illegal until I saw it myself it would seem to be: https://www.eeoc.gov/regulations/questions-and-answers-eeoc-final-rule-disparate-impact-and-reasonable-factors-other-age#:~:text=In%20addition%20to%20prohibiting%20intentional,unless%20the%20employer%20can%20show https://www.eeoc.gov/regulations/questions-and-answers-eeoc-...
  - jkaplowitz 5y ago
    That document can absolutely be interpreted to say that this is blatantly illegal, but it doesn't explicitly address the question of maximum years of experience, so it's a matter of interpretation. Have they explicitly addressed this question somewhere else? https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-labor-report/insight-capping-years-of-experience-in-job-postings-employers-beware https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-labor-report/insight-cap... is a more recent article summarizing a court ruling from the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in which, at least for the states covered by that court, it was determined that job applicants (as opposed to transfer or promotion applicants) can't bring disparate impact ADEA claims against theoretically age-neutral rules such as maximum years of experience. State or local age discrimination laws can go beyond the ADEA, of course, and some do.

I’m at Amazon now. This is not true.

imwillofficial 5y ago

Seconded. Haven’t seen this anywhere in Amazon. Edit: Clarified that I meant within Amazon.

tablespoon 5y ago
> Seconded. Haven’t seen this anywhere. The military has it, and (news to me) it appears common in accountancy and management consulting. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Up_or_out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Up_or_out
- imwillofficial 5y ago
  I wanted to chime in the the military part. This is not an age limit on positions to keep old people out, this is to weed out under performers at a time where the military has a glut of highly qualified volunteers. So up or out means “if you’re passed over for promotion twice, you must suck and we don’t want you anymore.” But I have seen old officers in the lower ranks because they were enlisted men, then warrant officers, then finally officers. They were far older than their peers, but still needed to tick the boxes and get promoted. Ref: Military Officer

trhway 5y ago

You're already an employee. I'm talking about requirements for candidates. As far as I see it is a relatively recent innovation, which I thought would be blatantly illegal in the US until I saw it myself - I suppose the AMZN lawyers found a loophole. When people talk about glass ceiling - well, now i know what glass bottom feels like :) If any requirements you don't directly match you can try to make a case in say cover letter to substitute - education vs. experience, etc., there is no way though how one can "decrease" the number of the years.

dragonwriter 5y ago
> which I thought would be blatantly illegal until I saw it myself it would seem to be: https://www.eeoc.gov/regulations/questions-and-answers-eeoc-final-rule-disparate-impact-and-reasonable-factors-other-age#:~:text=In%20addition%20to%20prohibiting%20intentional,unless%20the%20employer%20can%20show https://www.eeoc.gov/regulations/questions-and-answers-eeoc-...
- jkaplowitz 5y ago
  That document can absolutely be interpreted to say that this is blatantly illegal, but it doesn't explicitly address the question of maximum years of experience, so it's a matter of interpretation. Have they explicitly addressed this question somewhere else? https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-labor-report/insight-capping-years-of-experience-in-job-postings-employers-beware https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-labor-report/insight-cap... is a more recent article summarizing a court ruling from the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in which, at least for the states covered by that court, it was determined that job applicants (as opposed to transfer or promotion applicants) can't bring disparate impact ADEA claims against theoretically age-neutral rules such as maximum years of experience. State or local age discrimination laws can go beyond the ADEA, of course, and some do.