This Article Full Text (PDF) Services Download to citation manager

IS AGE DISCRIMINATION BAD?

Professor Emeritus Duke Center for the Study of Aging Durham, NC 27710

Age Discrimination: An Historical and Contemporary Analysis, by John Macnicol. Cambridge University Press, New York, 2006, 308 pp., $75.00 (cloth), $29.99 (paper).

From the title of this book, one might assume that it is about ageism in general. But it is not. Rather, it is about age discrimination in employment and more specifically about proposals to outlaw mandatory retirement in Great Britain.

In the first chapter, John Macnicol distinguishes between ageism (in social relations and attitudes) and age discrimination (in employment)—although he recognizes that the two terms are often used interchangeably. In fact, this chapter tends to use the two terms interchangeably in his discussion of the origins of ageism, the "ageism debate," the "social justice case," and "difficulties of proof." However, most of the rest of the book is specifically about age discrimination in employment, with some discussion of health status in old age relevant to retirement and rationing of health care by age.

I think the vast majority of gerontologists in the United States tend to assume that most, if not all, forms of ageism are unjust and that age discrimination in employment is one of the worst forms of ageism. Thus it comes as a surprise to this reviewer to read a scholarly, well-documented book that seriously raises the question, is age discrimination bad?

Furthermore, Macnicol presents many arguments with supporting references in favor of age discrimination in employment and specifically in favor of mandatory retirement! In the United States, mandatory retirement under the age of 70 have been illegal for nearly 30 years (in almost all sectors of employment) and outlawed at any age for 20 years. So it is rather refreshing (to say the least) to have an opportunity to review these arguments and counter-arguments, as presented below. The arguments favorable to mandatory retirement are Macnicol's; the counter arguments (presented in parentheses) are mostly mine.

• The Lifeboat Principle. This assumes that there are a fixed number of jobs at any one time and that young workers are more deserving of those jobs because they have families to support. (These two assumptions are dubious at best. The number of jobs in an economy are not fixed, but can be expanded by various means, including creating jobs through public works or fiscal policies to stimulate the economy. As for young workers being more deserving, it could be argued that older workers are more deserving because of seniority, and their need to save for retirement, increased health care costs, etc.)
  
• Removes blockages to promotion. This assumes that younger workers who deserve promotion are being blocked by seniority rules protecting older workers. (There are ways to resolve this problem other than mandatory retirement based on age. Seniority or tenure rules could be waived, or open competition for promotions regardless of age could be used, or periodic reviews of productivity, etc., could be undertaken to weed out those with diminished abilities.)
  
• Gets rid of older workers who have become too costly to employ. This assumes that most older workers are no longer worth their costs because of their diminished productivity or higher salary or higher health care insurance costs. (The counter arguments to this assumption are similar to the preceding ones; there are other ways to get rid of costly employees. Also pay could be reduced to reduce costs.)
  
• Improves job prospects for minorities and women. Because minorities and women have been discriminated against in the past, mandatory retirement opens up jobs to compensate for the past discrimination. (This raises a problem of "affirmative action." Is it justified to discriminate against one group, in this case older workers, to compensate for past discrimination against another group? This is highly controversial to say the least.)
  
• "Serves as face-saving" device. If all workers must retire at a certain age regardless of ability, the older worker avoids the stigmatization of failing a test or being judged to have diminished abilities. (This argument assumes that it is alright to "throw out the good with the bad" in order to avoid the possible stigmatization of the bad. I think older workers who want to keep working would reject this assumption.)
  
• Deals with declining abilities with age. This assumes a fairly uniform and inevitable decline in abilities with age, which justifies using age as a "proxy" for declining abilities. (This assumption is clearly false. There are wide variations in the rate and amount of decline—if any—in different types of workers in different jobs. Age is actually a poor proxy for declines in abilities. Some workers' abilities actually improve with age as their experience, skills, and knowledge increase.
  
• Avoids difficult, expensive, and controversial individual performance appraisals. This assumes that mandatory retirement because of age would prevent all the difficulties, expense, and controversy that would result from individual performance appraisals of older workers. (In fact, individual performance appraisals of younger and middle-aged workers occur regularly in any efficient organization. There is no obvious reason why such appraisals could not be continued at older ages.)
  
• Outlawing mandatory retirement is a "red herring." Because of falling voluntary retirement ages, the proposal to outlaw mandatory retirement would affect few workers. Such proposals detract from more important issues such as the adequacy of pen-sions, social security, and health care. (Regardless of how few would be affected, those who are forced to retire because of an arbitrary age suffer an injustice that should not be inflicted on anyone.)
  
• Outlawing mandatory retirement forces old workers to keep working. Macnicol argues, "Forcing older citizens to ‘work till they drop’ may be the ultimate form of ageism" (p. 266). (There is confusion here between forcing workers to keep working vs allowing them to keep working if they are willing and able. The latter does not require the former.)
  

Macnicol appears to present both sides to these arguments. But the reader gets the impression that he really favors allowing mandatory retirement. He even raises the odd question: "But is age discrimination really the cause of mandatory retirement and the wider labor market problems of older workers" (p. 34)? The first part of this question is odd because mandatory retirement at a fixed age is, by definition, a kind of age discrimination (Palmore, Branch, and Harris, 2006). The second part of this question is complex and debatable. After examining supply-side (voluntary retirement) versus demand-side (mandatory retirement) explanations of increased retirement rates, he concludes that the supply side is the major explanation (p. 41). However, these theories are not very relevant to the central issue of whether age discrimination is good or bad.

A more relevant discussion is whether age discrimination is "just as virulent and corrosive as race or sex discrimination" (p. 24) or whether it is fundamentally different. Those who say age discrimination is different cite the following:

• There was no tragic legacy behind age discrimination, such as slavery behind racism or lack of suffrage for women.
  
• Race & sex discrimination are based on pure bigotry unrelated to a person's ability to perform a specific job, while "working capacity does gradually decline with age."
  
• Belonging to a particular race or sex is akin to joining one specific "club" at conception, whereas old age is a universal "club" most of us will join one day.
  
• Age is a "relative characteristic" on a continuum, whereas race and sex are "immutable characteristics." (In fact, race and gender are also on a continuum and are not immutable.)
  

Those who say age discrimination is similar to race and sex discrimination point out:

• They are all based on irrational negative stereotypes about the oppressed group.
  
• They are all based on feelings of antipathy against people who are different from oneself.
  
• They allow the dominant group to profit by the oppression of the minority group.
  

Macnicol also discusses the controversial question of positive discrimination and the dilemmas of "agelessness." He rightly points out that there is much positive age discrimination in favor of old people such as bus passes, discounts, Medicare, and even Social Security benefits. Some argue that such positive discrimination stigmatizes and isolates the aged from the rest of society. Bytheway (1995) argues that gerontology itself can be seen as essentially ageist. He even suggests that we should dispense with age as a categorization.

Also there is age discrimination against young people in terms of age requirements for voting, driving, and drinking. Is age discrimination against older people any worse than these discriminations against young people? I believe it is worse, because age is a much better proxy for physical and mental development among children and teen-agers than it is for older people. I would not favor dispensing with age as a categorization among children, but I would favor attempting to do so among older people.

Is Work-Disability Increasing?
The third section of Macnicol's volume reviews the history and evidence about whether work-disability is increasing or decreasing. He rightly points out that there are many factors involved and that it is often difficult to measure work-disability.

However, he appears to be unaware of the definitive research by Kenneth Manton and others which clearly shows that disability among older people has declined substantially (at least in the U.S.). For example, from 1982 to 1999, the percentage of persons aged older than 65 who had chronic disabilities dropped from 26% to less than 20%; and the active life expectancy at age 65 years rose from fewer than 12 years to nearly 14 years (Manton & Gu, 2006). That's a 5-year gain from what a 65-year-old could expect in 1935.

He also tends to confuse the empirical question of whether older people could continue working, with the political and ethical question of whether they should be allowed to continue working if they are willing and able to do so.

Is America's ADEA Successful?
The fourth section of the book is a review and debate about the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), passed in the United States in 1967. This historic act, along with subsequent amendments, has outlawed age discrimination in employment and has abolished mandatory retirement for all but a few occupations.

Macnicol first reviews the history that led up to the ADEA and the reasons behind the law, pointing out that it is "something of an aberration in a country with far less employment protection than Britain" (p. 209). He concludes that there were five major explanations for this "aberration":

1. Age was a major disadvantage of unemployed older workers seeking employment.
   
2. Older workers' experience of joblessness was qualitatively worse than that of younger workers.
   
3. The civil rights movement showed that age discrimination was similar to race and sex discrimination.
   
4. Economic modernization increased pressures for opposing mandatory retirement.
   
5. The "grey lobby" exerted strong pressures on politicians to oppose mandatory retirement.
   

Macnicol is rather ambivalent in his assessment of the success or failure of the ADEA. He points out that it had three somewhat different aims: 1) to promote the employment of older workers based on ability rather than age; 2) to prohibit arbitrary age discrimination in employment; and 3) to help find ways to solve problems arising from the impact of age on employment. He concludes that it is difficult, if not impossible, to prove how successful the ADEA has been in achieving these aims, pointing out that there are many complex economic and labor force factors involved, and that it is often difficult to prove age discrimination. However, his assessment seems to neglect the central issue: did the ADEA at least reduce mandatory retirement and other forms of age discrimination? It seems clear that it certainly did reduce both.

Concluding Thoughts
This is a timely book reflecting the increasing debate in Britain and Commonwealth countries such as Canada over age discrimination in employment. In 2000, the European Council of Ministers agreed to introduce legislation in all 15 European Union member nations to prohibit discrimination at work on the grounds of age. Even though this legislation was supposed to be introduced in Britain by December 2006, there does not seem to be any progress yet toward this goal in that nation. There is some discussion of raising the "normal retirement age" of 65 years, but no legislation as of this writing. Ontario by contrast has introduced legislation to end mandatory retirement by December 12, 2006.

Macnicol's book is well written, balanced, and is a useful reference on the history and contemporary debate in Britain on age discrimination in employment. However, this entire debate about whether age discrimination is bad or not, strikes me as rather anachronistic. It can only be understood against the backdrop of a country that expects workers to retire by age 65; that allows employers to discriminate against older workers in hiring and promotions; and that allows employers to force their workers to retire simply because of age, regardless of their ability and desires. I am glad that, at least in this respect, the United States has taken the lead in outlawing this kind of injustice.

References

• Bytheway, B., (1995). Ageism. London, UK: Buckingham.
• Manton, K., & Gu, X., (2001). Changes in the prevalence of chronic disability in the United States. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 98, 6354-9.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
• Palmore, E., Branch, L., & Harris, D., (2006). The encyclopedia of ageism. Binghamton, NY: Haworth Press.

This Article Full Text (PDF) Services Download to citation manager