Age discrimination in the workplace: The more things change …

Age discrimination remains evident across all age groups, and stereotypical images of older workers are subscribed to and experienced in workplaces. This is occurring despite there being age discrimination legislation in place in Australia. Further policy action is required to address persistent and systemic ageist attitudes and discriminatory behaviours generally, and specifically in the workplace. Negative public attitudes and discrimination can limit older people's social and economic contributions and impact on their health and well-being 1. The Government's Intergenerational Reports and increases in the eligibility age for the age pension set key policy directions around population ageing encouraging mature age workers to remain in the paid workforce 2, 3. As part of this strategy, the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) has conducted widely publicised campaigns to improve attitudes to ageing and combat ageism and appointed an Age Discrimination Commissioner to focus on addressing age discrimination nationally, particularly within employment. Notwithstanding past and current attempts to address it, the evidence indicates that age discrimination continues. Australia has age discrimination legislation in place both at a national level (Age Discrimination Act 2004) and within states and territories. The need for legislation and appointment of an official Age Discrimination Commissioner are indicative of the systemic nature of our ageist attitudes and behaviours and the pervasiveness of the problem. Negative attitudes and portrayals of older people, particularly as represented in the media, are considered to be a major factor impacting on those in mid-to-later life, their experiences in workplaces and the quality of care they receive in the health-care system 1. Negative stereotypes and discrimination can be directed towards any age group 4 as has been recognised in age discrimination legislation. The focus is usually not on those in ‘middle age’ – the norm for the workforce – but rather on those we deem to be ‘too young’ or ‘too old’ 5. For example, in the workplace being too young is often associated with a lack of knowledge and experience, while being too old is associated with being less capable of taking up new skills and more inflexible 6. Individual and government expectations that mature and older workers will remain in paid work face a number of barriers, including perceptions and experiences of ageism and age discrimination in workplaces 7. Notwithstanding the presence of legislation in Australia, the evidence suggests that age discrimination remains common across all types of industries and professions and a majority of countries 4, 8-11. There is also evidence of a gender element to workplace discrimination 12. What this tells us is that while governments are encouraging mature and older workers to remain in paid work, the evidence points to reluctance on the part of employers to change their attitudes and employment practices 1. A follow-up qualitative study 15 with older workers and managers identified a range of structural, social and attitudinal factors that contribute to age-based stereotyping and discriminatory behaviours in workplaces and shape the individual experiences of older workers. According to the study, these factors lead to different experiences of age discrimination for older workers both in the recruitment phase (e.g. can't get an interview) and within the workplace (e.g. denied opportunities, redundancy) 15. Following on from the AHRC reports 14, 15, this study presents preliminary findings from national survey data on the perceptions and experiences of age discrimination in the workplace and more generally among Australians aged 18+ years, with a particular focus on those aged 55+ years. Data included in this article are from the 2015 to 2016 round of the Attitudes to Ageing in Australia (AAA) Study, a component of the national Australian Survey of Social Attitudes (AuSSA). An overview of the AAA and AuSSA methodology and baseline findings conducted in 2009–2010 was reported in Kendig et al. 16, and details of the full 2015–2017 AuSSA round now underway are included in Kendig et al. in this issue 17. The questions examining participants’ perceptions and experiences of age discrimination generally and in the workplace were included only in the 2015–2017 AuSSA round. The sample frame for both survey rounds consisted of approximately 5000 individuals aged 18 years and older selected from the Electoral Rolls. The response rate as of late 2016 was 24.6%, and this study provides a preliminary report on responses of 1124 participants collected in 2015–2016. The 2015–2017 AuSSA Ageing Module included questions on age discrimination from a personal and societal perspective, including everyday experiences (e.g. lack of respect, being ignored), media representations of older people, perceptions of older workers (e.g. less likely to be promoted, less productive) and experiencing work-related age discrimination (e.g. turned down for a position). The questions were drawn from validated US, European and Australian surveys. The definition of ‘older worker’ used here was anyone aged 55+ years. This study focusses mainly on the workplace and perceptions and experiences across age and gender. For the purposes of analysis, participants were grouped into four age categories: 18–34 years; 35–49 years; 50–64 years; and 65 years or older. Overall, almost half (46%) of participants across all age groups indicated that age discrimination is common to very common in Australia; this was particularly evident among those in the main working age range of 35–49 (51%) and 50–64 years (48%). For employment (Figure 1), participants across gender and age groups believe that compared to younger workers, older workers (55+ years) were more likely to be made redundant (77%), less likely to be promoted (67%) and more likely to have difficulty adapting to change (55%). There was more variation in responses to the items ‘Difficult to teach new things’, ‘Less likely to have the same technical skills’ and ‘More expensive’ with responses fairly evenly spread across the categories of Strongly agree/Agree and Strongly disagree/Disagree. However, the majority (70%) disagreed that they were less productive than younger workers and less willing to work overtime (52%). Among those who had experienced age discrimination, there were similarities across younger and older groups with 23% of those aged 18–24 years reporting being turned down for a position on the basis of their age, along with 25% for those aged 50–64 years. There were major differences, however, between the younger age group (18–24 years) and all other age groups in response to the questions ‘Being treated with disrespect’ and ‘Feeling ignored’ (Figure 2). In the younger age group, over half (53%) reported being treated with disrespect, while 41% reported feeling ignored on the basis of their age. Across all age groups, more women reported they had been ignored (31%) and treated with disrespect (30%) at work. The findings reported here from a nationally representative sample of the Australian population show that the perception of age discrimination is pervasive and remains a concern across all age groups. Further, some stereotypical images of older workers are still subscribed to and experienced in workplaces, despite the very public campaigns by the AHRC and the Age Discrimination Commissioner to combat ageism within employment. This leaves us to ponder what else can or should be done to address what are systemic, enduring ageist attitudes and discriminatory behaviours generally, and specifically in the workplace. It is notable that perceptions about and experiences of feeling discriminated against on the basis of age are being reported in younger as well as older age groups. This point is recognised in age discrimination legislation and also evident in previous research 4, 5; that is, negative stereotypes and discriminatory behaviours can be directed towards any age group. There is also some evidence here that forms of gender stereotyping are still occurring in the workplace, again despite legislation and a long-term focus on addressing these stereotypes. The focus of much published research is on older workers, and the evidence found there is generally consistent with the findings reported here. Broadly, the evidence supports one of two stereotypical images for older workers: the positive one, depicting the older worker as reliable, loyal, punctual, highly experienced and possessing a good work ethic; and the negative one, depicting the older worker as being resistant to change, inflexible, unable to learn new skills and, in the view of younger workers, often in the way of their own progression up the career ladder 6. Research on workplace age discrimination has addressed a number of issues associated with ageist attitudes and stereotypes held by employers, co-workers and society. These include evidence of younger job applicants receiving more positive responses, with older women being the most discriminated against 18, managers’ bias and age discrimination when asked about older workers 12, and systematic negative stereotyping of older workers in hiring practices 19. While there is clear evidence of age discrimination in the findings reported here and in previous research, it appears that very few people who experience age discrimination in their employment take action through the legislative mechanisms available to them for fear of being deemed a troublemaker 15. As evidence of this, in 2014–2015, the Australian Human Rights Commission received 149 complaints under the Age Discrimination Act 20. The majority (63%) of these complaints concerned employment and older workers; 73% came from people aged 45 years and over, with the highest percentage (38%) coming from those aged 55–64 years. This study has contributed current national evidence to the substantial body of research in Australia on ageist attitudes and discriminatory behaviour in the general population and specifically within workplaces. These concerning findings persist notwithstanding current policy directions within the context of population ageing that aim to encourage and enable mature age workers to remain in the paid workforce. The perpetuation of age discrimination in workplaces and employment practices has adverse consequences in terms of opportunities, barriers and fair treatment particularly for younger as well as older workers and, in the longer term, for economic security for all. Australia has legislation in place intended to address age discrimination particularly within employment, but our findings add to the evidence that existing efforts are not sufficient. From an individual and societal perspective, we need to ask what it is that makes us so age-centric, or is it age-sensitive? We need to seriously question whether, consciously or subconsciously, we all accept that including or excluding people from certain activities on the basis of age is ‘natural’ and can continue to be tolerated in the context of increases in life expectancy and extensive social and economic change. These questions apply across the life span; can we better realise well-being and productivity by becoming less age stereotypic for children, young adults, and particularly around older age? Will the demonstrated productivity of older workers be sufficient to drive constructive change? From a policy perspective, the questions remain around what else can or should be done to address ageist attitudes and discriminatory behaviours generally, and specifically in the workplace. We also need to ask how research might contribute to effective social change. Our existing data will be analysed to identify occupations and industries where ageism is felt to be most acute and workplace action might be taken. Additionally, further qualitative research is needed to shed light on the social and power relationships underlying the perpetuation of ageism, its deep personal consequences and possible options for constructive action. Our Attitudes to Ageing in Australia (AAA) Study is being conducted with the support of the ARC Centre of Excellence in Population Ageing (CEPAR). This paper was first delivered in the President's Plenary Symposium, at the 49th Australian Association of Gerontology (AAG) Conference, Canberra, 2–4 November 2016. The authors declare no conflicts of interest.