Pᵣₒmₒˢᵐ

Thanks for all your help and support this year.

The laws in place protecting people from age discrimination are very clear and are constructed in such a way that makes it near impossible to prosecute perpetrators successfully. The recognizable signs of the acts of age discrimination, both overt and covert, are so well known, and hence avoided by the perpetrators, that the possibility of any legal success in prosecution of the offense is impossible. The usual offenders can either afford to employ a legal department or keep legal counsel on retainer to protect their interests...individuals typically cannot afford this luxury. Most older employment candidates are eliminated through the physical interview stage as it is impossible to hide the signs of aging. If the interviewer is unable to assess an age range visually, there are questions that are employed in ferreting out the age of a candidate, which is age discrimination, but again, impossible to prove within current law. Employers use instructional videos that all employees are required to view, that address these laws, so employers can “wash their hands” of any liability, while they themselves practice the abuse of age discrimination without repercussion. There are several reasons why the success rate of offender prosecution is negligible. States that are in the “Right to Work” category, enjoy bathing in the ability to execute an age-based termination without ethical justification or having to prove why. States outside of the “Right to Work” category, work around existing laws to obtain a “reason”, but again, under the counsel of legal counsel to avoid detection of the act of age discrimination as defined by current law. This burden falls on the victim who can nether prove, much less afford to prove the act of discrimination. The EEOC who is in place to provide protections in this area has proven to be useless in its management of age discrimination claims and does little to nothing to help the victims. There is also no money to be made in the attempt to prove age discrimination, so victims are further victimized by a system designed to protect the perpetrator…not the abused. If you want proof of this, ask an ethical attorney, otherwise be prepared to pay without a favorable outcome. Employers are “encouraged” by health organizations to “find ways” to keep costs low and in so doing age discrimination is employed through the use of higher premiums as a deterrent and/or termination of the aging worker. This results in what we currently have today, which are useless laws that are used to identify “what” are considered valid examples of age discrimination, as defined by current law, used by legal counsel to “coach” the perpetrators avoidance rather than ethical governance of a fair, just, and non-discriminatory work environment. IF these laws worked, we would see an equitable distribution of ages represented in the workplace, but that is not the case. While there may be a few instances, they are far and few between and few employers demonstrate that equitable age distribution is being practiced in the workplace today. We all suffer from age-based discrimination…some of us sooner than others but one day it will happen to all of us who are lucky(?) enough to last that long.