reading

16 contexts.orgPhoto by TheeErin via Creative Commons

When I wrote an article on age discrimination last year, I couldn’t

believe the response: countless emails and at least five phone calls

a week for several months. These communications weren’t coming

from researchers in the field but from workers across the country,

male and female, semi-skilled, skilled, and professional. They shared

stories of age discrimination that they, a spouse, or a parent had

experienced or were currently living through, asked for information

about their rights and what could be done, and thanked me for

bringing light to an issue that “nobody talks about.”

ageism in the american workplace

by vincent j. roscigno

17winter 2010 contexts

They were and are correct about the neglect of age discrimi-

nation in public dialogue. There is remarkably little coverage in

the popular press and, with a few exceptions, social scientists

who study employment inequality often overlook ageism—a

problem that Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

statistics show is on the rise.

The increase in workplace ageism is due to a host of cul-

tural, demographic, and structural factors: a society increas-

ingly consumed by “youth,” be it in culture, mass media or

medicine; a large and aging baby boomer population, many of

whom will remain in the workforce well into their 70s and 80s;

and current corporate downsizing and globalization pressures

that heighten worker insecurities and vulnerabilities. Social

researchers are now documenting trends in aging workers’

employment prospects and employer stereotyping and discrim-

ination. Using both survey research and first-hand accounts by

victims, they are uncovering the real social and human costs of

age discrimination.

talking with victims Almost all victims with whom I spoke related tangible costs

to them or a loved one. Many conveyed fear of defaulting on

mortgages or being unable to pay for their children’s college

after being pushed out of their current jobs. Others expressed

anger and insecurity over the loss of affordable health insur-

ance or pension benefits—benefits that they felt were both

earned and owed. Just as prevalent and somewhat surprising

to me in these discussions were the less-tangible, yet deeper

social-psychological and emotional costs that social science

research has established for racial discrimination or sexual

harassment, for instance, but are only now being considered

in relation to older workers.

The first-hand experiences of victims aligned closely with

my own research on the topic. Karen, for instance, told me

about her mother who, several months prior, was pushed out

of her job of 20 years and replaced with a 25 year old. Her

mother felt isolated and helpless. She continues to cry at night,

months later, due to the loss of a job, loss of friends she loved,

and an overarching violation of trust by her employer. “She

thought of her colleagues as her family,” Karen noted, “but now

it is her family that abandoned her like… like she just doesn’t

matter. It killed her inside... It’s still killing her inside.”

Violations of trust, despite a history of hard, dedicated

work and good citizenship, seemed especially poignant. Joe,

a committed maintenance worker, talked with me just as he was

“being pushed out” after 23 years of work. He expressed

anger—anger triggered by violations of a “normative social

contract,” wherein employee dedication and hard work are

met with employer obligation and “making good” on past

promises. “They now don’t want to pay me my pension. I was

a good worker for them and always did everything they asked.

I went out of my way to help train people and make every-

thing run smoothly, so everybody was happy and it was a good

place to work. And now this is what I get, like I never really

mattered to them. It’s just not right.”

age stereotypes at work Stereotypes—negative generalizations about entire groups

of people—indicate status and inequality that can spur dis-

criminatory behaviors and actions. Although employers may

say they want long-term, experienced, dedicated workers, sur-

vey research tells us they tend to view older workers like Joe and

Karen’s mother as expensive, inflexible, possibly stubborn or

forgetful, and bad for the company image. We also know from

reports and surveys from organizations like the AARP that more

than half of aging workers have either experienced age dis-

crimination on their jobs or witnessed such discrimination

toward others.

Erdman Palmore of the Duke University Center for the

Study of Aging and Human Development reports that 84

percent of Americans over 60 years old report one or more

incidents of ageism, including insulting jokes, disrespect, patron-

izing behavior, and assumptions about frailty or ailments. Such

patterns are manifested by a culture consumed with “youth”—

a culture passed to young people through socialization and

then reproduced in institutions and organizations like the work-

place.

Surveys, interviews, and experimental research all uncover

ageism in employment. Classic work by Benson Rosen and

Thomas Jerdee, for example, revealed perceptions of older work-

ers as less responsive, if not resistant, to workplace changes. A

more recent book by social psychologist Todd Nelson confirms

this point, revealing how managers and younger coworkers tend

to view older workers as inflexible, slow, unorganized, difficult,

and expensive to train. Such stereotypes, which sometimes take

a gender-specific character, are notable given that older work-

ers often exhibit greater job commitment, less turnover, and

lower rates of absenteeism than do younger workers.

Contexts,Vol.9,No.1,pp.16-21. ISSN1536-5042,electronic ISSN1537-6052.©2010AmericanSociologicalAssociation. All rights reserved. For permission to photocopy or reproduce, see http://www.ucpressjournals.com/reprintinfo.asp. DOI: 10.1525/ctx.2010.9.1.16.

Skilled and dedicated workers, older people may be one asset employers overlook.

Ph o to b y B er n ar d Po lla ck vi a C re at iv e C o m m o n s

18 contexts.org

No doubt some employers try to protect older workers

from discriminatory treatment in an effort to maintain a well-

trained, highly skilled labor force. Yet an emerging body of

research is finding that employers invoke age stereotypes and

discrimination to help justify cost-savings for the business. This

may be especially true for skilled workers, such as those in

manufacturing, given recent trends in globalization, downsiz-

ing, and corporate restructuring. Indeed, such economic trends

and employers’ responses to them have created a structurally

vulnerable, aging workforce or, as Arne Kalleberg described in

his 2009 Presidential Address to the American Sociological

Association, “precarious work” and “insecure workers.”

economics and vulnerability There is solid evidence of growing insecurity among all

workers, but perhaps especially among aging workers, begin-

ning in the 1990s and continuing to the present. The United

States has witnessed mass layoffs, declining relative wages, the

growth of part-time and temporary work, and what Robert Val-

letta of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco describes as

an “employer breach of implicit employment arrangements.”

Here, Valletta is referring to the “normative social contract”

described earlier—the expectation that good workplace citizen-

ship and tenure will be rewarded with security and job benefits.

In the face of corporate restructuring and downsizing,

replacing older with younger workers may be seen by some

employers as a cost-savings technique, insomuch as pension

payouts can be circumvented and wages decreased. Moreover,

health benefit payouts can be held in check, and promotions

and on-the-job training opportunities can be reserved for

younger workers who are often seen as cheaper and more

worth the long-term investment. The consequences, particu-

larly for higher skilled older workers, have included significant

job displacement over the past twenty years, involuntary exit

from the labor market, and downward mobility upon re-

employment.

Research on long-term employment by Princeton econo-

mist Henry Farber corroborates such findings, reporting dete-

rioration of jobs in the private sector from 1990 to 2006, with

tenure declining substantially for workers over 40 years of age.

What this means is that older workers are being “displaced”

or pushed out of long-term employment at an even higher rate

than younger workers. This occurs largely through plant clos-

ings and job elimination. Employers have some discretion in

deciding which plants to close and jobs to eliminate, which

can disadvantage older workers who may have higher earn-

ings and more expensive benefits packages.

Though this sort of vulnerability to economic pressure is

not the same as discrimination, there are important overlaps that

suggest they are, in fact, closely related. First, as I found in my

study of age discrimination suits, the very justifications employ-

ers use to discriminate against and push out aging workers are

often “age-neutral” in tone, incorporating rhetoric about “cost-

savings,” “downsizing,” and “restructuring.” This is true even

when no such formal restructuring occurs. Second, the pat-

tern of age discrimination suits nationally closely mirrors more

general worker displacement trends.

Age discrimination complaints to the Equal Employment

Opportunities Commission are increasing rapidly in proportion

to complaints on the basis of race, sex, disability, and religion.

Although formal complaints only capture a sliver of the dis-

criminatory acts occurring in the real world, the data point to

an absolute as well as a relative increase in

age discrimination. The raw number of

case filings, monetary awards for dam-

ages, and percentage of cases settled in

the employee’s favor also show that age

discrimination charges and their serious-

ness are on the rise, paralleling the broader

trends in worker displacement. The costs are multi-dimensional

and serious.

tangible costs, emotional scarring, and injustice Much age discrimination in the American economy is

linked to being fired, let go, or laid off, often preceded by a

period of outright harassment or unequal terms and condi-

tions of employment (such as being asked to perform tasks

other employees are not asked to do). The consequences can

be numerous and wide-ranging.

There are immediate costs surrounding wage and bene-

fits losses and the need to find new employment. With Sherry

Mong, Reginald Byron, and Griff Tester, I studied both the age

An emerging body of research is finding that employers invoke age stereotypes and discrimi- nation to help justify cost-savings.

Displacement rates of long-tenured workers

1981 200520032001199919971995199319911989198719851983

Source: Displaced worker supplement, Current Population Survey, Bureau of Labor Statistics

1

2

3

4

5

6 percent

Age 20-24

Age 25-34

Age 35-44 Age

Age 55 and over

45-54

19winter 2010 contexts

discrimination process and the resulting job security and finan-

cial hardships, based on 120 discrimination cases verified by

state Civil Rights investigators. Consider, for example, the case

of Jim Terry, a shift foreman who was terminated and replaced

by a younger employee just 23 days

prior to his 30-year anniversary with the

company. Jim was cross-trained in sev-

eral areas and could have easily per-

formed any of the duties in his

department. Yet he was terminated for minor “infractions”

when other foremen were not. Consequently, his pension ben-

efits were cut by about $300 per month, and his medical and

life insurance were immediately shut off. Sarah Ray, an African

American executive secretary for a government agency, was

pushed into involuntary retirement after 21 years with her

employer and, like Jim, received only a portion of her pension

as a result: “At 59 years of age I felt desperate because of the

financial situation in our home that I had to do something to

keep money coming. So, at that choice—at that time, I retired

even though that’s not what I wanted to do…”

The push to create and maintain a young workforce due

to stereotypes of aging workers and their assumed higher costs

means that companies may feel pressure to both purge older

workers from their ranks and hire younger rather than older

workers. This two-pronged pressure—in employer biases about

who to purge and who to hire—makes older workers vulner-

able in both the hiring and firing process. They are susceptible

to being pushed out or laid off, to be sure. But once they are

out, they will also expend disproportionate time and energy

seeking re-employment elsewhere.

According to recent data from the Bureau of Labor Statis-

tics, about 65 percent of all displaced workers find gainful

employment within two years of the initial job loss. Workers 55

and older, however, encounter the greatest obstacles and worst

prospects for re-employment. For them, re-employment often

occurs in part-time or temporary work with lower wages and

job benefits. And, as time passes, many give up job searches

and take themselves out of the labor market altogether. As

Sarah Rix of the AARP wrote in Aging and Work: A View from

the United States, labor analysts and advocates for older work-

ers have long been concerned with the extent to which older

workers become discouraged.

Beyond the employment and wage toll, then, age discrim-

ination also brings psychological, social, and emotional costs—

costs that deserve attention. Aging research on employment

disruptions, such as that by Victor Marshall and colleagues,

shows how unplanned job losses bring adverse health effects

for both men and women. My own conversations with victims

also brought out such impacts, especially for social psycholog-

ical well-being and depression. It began with 56 year old Mar-

garet, an administrative assistant, who was terminated without

just cause several months earlier. She described herself as for-

ever “emotionally scarred.” Catching me somewhat off-guard

by that phrase, I asked what she meant, to which she replied,

“I am drained. Besides having to start over and find a new job,

I no longer know who to trust. I lost most of my friends. And

I have little faith left to believe anything an employer might

tell me.”

After our talk, I couldn’t help but revisit the other phone

conversations and email communications I had been having, rec-

ognizing similar emotional currents running well beyond con-

cerns about lost wages, benefits, and newly encountered

economic insecurity. Like Margaret, Joe, and Karen’s mother

quoted earlier, many of those encountering age discrimination

Ph o to b y B ill A lk o fe r

An architect by trade, John Cuningham hopes to keep working—and contributing—for as long as possible.

A two-pronged pressure makes older workers vulnerable in both the hiring and firing process.

1997 2005 2007200620042003200119991998 200820022000

5

10

15

20

25

35

40 percent of total charges

Basis of equal employment opportunity charges

30

Race

Religion

Disability

Age

Sex

Source: EEOC

20 contexts.org

were clearly injured by the unexpected nature of what unfolded

and what it meant for their friendships, sense of identity, and

overall sense of fairness. Of course, some sought justice through

the legal system. Many became even more cynical, however,

about what had occurred and about the overarching power

of employers. In an e-mail, Michael, an electrical engineer who

recently went through litigation, wrote:

“That experience has taught me that the legal sys-

tem is no deterrent to the workplace age discrimi-

nation that you have described in your paper.

Litigation takes 4-7 years, the laws regarding age

discrimination are weak, the state and federal agen-

cies set up to protect older workers are effected

[sic] by politics and the same cultural influences you

describe, the legal process ‘rules‘ regarding permis-

sible age discrimination ‘damages’ claims do not

provide adequate deterrence, and older workers

making under $75k (median household income is

~$55k) do not have access to the legal system (on a

‘contingency fee’ basis) because the possible returns

to an attorney are not worth the time (‘the business

of law’).”

Importantly, the people making these comments consid-

ered themselves good, hard-working people and long-term

dedicated employees. They

believed, at some earlier point,

what culture tells us about

employment and effort: namely,

that hard work, commitment,

and dedication are reciprocated.

And according to them, this is

precisely what their employers

claimed to have wanted in

employees. Many were termi-

nated, regardless. Others were

harassed by supervisors and co-

workers. And some were iso-

lated or relegated to

less-desirable, sometimes lower-

paid positions.

That victims of age discrim-

ination experience psychological

stress and emotional scarring

should not come as a surprise

given what we know about the

impact of race and sex discrimination on well-being and how

harassmentandbullyingaffect socialandemotionalhealth.What

is unique about age discrimination, however, is the lack of atten-

tiontothepsychologicalandemotionaldamage itmaycauseand

the long-term sense of injustice and emotional turmoil, if not

outrage, that victims experience when

the “normative social contract” that

bound them to employers is abridged.

To the extent that such a contract still

exists, it is being fundamentally altered if

not altogether dismantled via globaliza-

tion, restructuring, and corporate down-

sizing. This seems to be bolstered by employers’ willingness to

discriminate despite formal federal protections. Aging workers—

all of us, eventually—are a major casualty.

fighting ageism Current trends—in downsizing, in the aging baby boomer

generation, and in rates of discrimination complaints—cer-

tainly suggest a growing problem. Yet, growing recognition of

the causes, costs, and legal status of age discrimination could

alter this trajectory.

Understanding and appreciating the attitudinal and behav-

ioral dimensions of ageism could well provide the knowledge

base needed to sensitize public and human resource audiences

to aging workers’ true capabilities and their legal right to equi-

table treatment. Social science can play an important role in this

regard by distilling the causes in digestable form and laying bare

the human toll of age discrimination. Employers, for their part,

need not only be held accountable for unfair treatment, but

must also become better informed about the business costs of

Social science can play an important role by distilling the causes and laying bare the human toll of age discrimination.

Employers of older workers benefit from the talent and experience of a stable workforce.

Ph o to b y B ill A lk o fe r

21winter 2010 contexts

engaging in unfair treatment of older employees. Although

employers may see the purging of older workers as a cost sav-

ing technique, in the process they are losing talent, experience,

and a stable and predictable workforce.

Workplace age discrimination is ultimately illegal, and per-

haps that is where the greatest challenge lies. The Age Discrim-

ination in Employment Act provides aging workers with federal

legal protection against much of the conduct described in this

article, yet age discrimination persists and is likely intensifying.

Lack of knowledge about legal protections and avenues for

recourse is partly to blame. More prominent, however, is limited

corporate accountability and disparities in resources and power

in the legal-judicial process. Such disparities make it difficult

for victims to mount challenges, allowing age discrimination

to go, for the most part, unchecked. Some recent and pro-

posed changes to discrimination law and practice include time

extensions to charge filing, greater resources and investigative

oversight powers for the EEOC and state civil rights commis-

sions, and the removal of damage caps for companies found

guilty of violations. Such reforms would help bring older work-

ers the protections already guaranteed in law—and bring to

light the discrimination that “nobody talks about.”

recommended resources Arne L. Kallenberg. “Precarious Work, Insecure Workers: Employ- ment Relations in Transition.” American Sociological Review (2007), 74:1-22. Addresses the implications of recent economic shifts for worker vulnerabilities and insecurities.

Todd Nelson. Ageism: Stereotyping and Prejudice Against Older Persons (MIT Press, 2004). An examination of the manifestations of age stereotypes in our culture.

Erdman B. Palmore. “Research Note: Ageism in Canada and the United States.” Journal of Cross Cultural Gerontology (2004), 19:41-46. Gives generalizeable statistical data, for both the U.S. and Canada, on attitudes toward older citizens and the experi- ences of older persons.

Vincent J. Roscigno, Sherry Mong, Reginald Byron, and Griff Tester. “Age Discrimination, Social Closure, and Employment.” Social Forces (2007), 86:313-334. Looks at the dynamics of age discrim- ination in employment drawing on qualitative content from veri- fied case files.

Robert G. Valetta. “Declining Job Security.” Journal of Labor Eco- nomics (1999), 17:S170-197. Provides an overview of increasing worker insecurity and the changing nature of the employer- employee relationship.

Vincent J. Roscigno is in the department of sociology at The Ohio State Univer-

sity. He is the author of The Face of Discrinimation: How Race and Gender Impact

Home and Work Lives.

AD