People are getting older and older and companies are encouraged (at least over here) to hire those people.

On the other end of the chain they are being worked out of a company for being too expensive; someone younger and cheaper can do their job as well.

Over here there is word going on for scratching the retirement age for those who want to continue working after they are 65.

Also in the works is a plan to up that pension age to 67 (I believe it was 67), because of people getting older and older and the pension plan getting in danger with lesser people working.


With all this on the table, should companies be encouraged to hire older employees, or should age be a factor that should really not be in the applicant's file, so to speak?

In US is illegal to ask the age and if you put it in your resume they usually trash it imediately because they don't want to be accused of discrimination.

Really? Wow.. over here it is in the resume alright. Hmm.. might be worth scratching that little bit over here too, to make things more fair!

In Europe they mostly ask Curriculum Vitae not resume (or mostly that's the difference disregarding how you call it), I remember that in my country they were asking for picture too. Here is US they can't ask for picture because they are afraid they would be sued discrimination: race, sex, age (not they won't see you at the interview, but it's an additional protection measure).

Here it's against of the law to discriminate someone because of the age, hiring people only because they are younger or older (positive discrimination) is discrimination. People should be judged only in context of how well they are able to do the job. If they are old and not able to run from one place to another if the job require that they are not hired because they fail to do the job not because they are old (at least theoretically). The problem is with subjectivity, not every job has clear demands that can be clearly -*test*-('")ed so it leave lots of room for biased decisions.

Anyway my position and from what I understand the general position here is that people should be hired based on what they can do, not based on age, so no discrimination in either direction.

Yeah but discrimination happens so easily, after the interview they can say ‘sorry someone better came along’ even if someone hasn't. Besides I have heard from some people who have gone for jobs and not get them based solely on their age. One person was even told she had ‘too much experience’ for a job when she was declined it, again because she was an older worker.

The simple fact of the matter is, discrimination for all reasons easily happens in the hiring process and there is very little chance of stopping it unless the employer comes forward and admits to his own breaches of the law. This is one of those sad little things that happen in life that no one can really change no matter how much I wish they could.

The above line:
Anyway my position and from what I understand the general position here is that people should be hired based on what they can do, not based on age, so no discrimination in either direction.

Sums up so much with how I feel on a range of matters, from ‘drug -*test*-('")ing’ to ‘hiring practices.’