Study Finds Job Call-Back Rates Begin Steep Decline in 40’s

The callback rate for job applicants begins to fall significantly around the age of 40-45 and is close to zero by the age of 70.

This was the “striking” finding of a recent Swedish study in which more than 6,000 fictitious resumes  were sent to 2,000 employers with job vacancies from 2015 – 2016. The study, The Effect of Age and Gender on Labor Demand – Evidence from a Field Experiment,  was conducted by  the Swedish Institute for Evaluation of Labour Market and Education Policy. The authors are Magnus Carlsson of the Center for Labor Market and Discrimination Studies at Linnaeus University and  economist Stefan Eriksson of Uppsala University.

On average, the study found that each  year of aging reduces the call back rate of a job applicant between the ages of 35 and 70 by about one half a percentage point.

The authors note that it is unreasonable to conclude that workers in their early 40s lack important occupational skills, have low physical strength or bad health. Therefore, they say, the “main story of age discrimination in the labor market is not about being old, say above age 55, but rather about not being young, say below age 40-45.”

The authors suggest that employers fear workers in their early 40s have started to lose the ability to learn new tasks, flexibility and adaptability, and ambition.

The authors write that the call back rate for women drops at a much steeper rate than that of  men after the age of 35.

Th study concludes that age discrimination is a “widespread phenomenon, affecting workers much younger than the age where employers consider them as old (which occurs at age 54 according to our employer survey).

The study encompassed seven occupations that had a job advertisement on the website of the Swedish Public Employment Service. These include administrative assistants, chefs, cleaners, food serving and waitresses, retail sales persons and cashiers, sales representative sand truck drivers.

Cosby Trial & the Madonna Whore Complex

*  The jury was  declared deadlocked in Bill Cosby’s trial on 6/17/17. It is time for the court system to seriously examine why our criminal justice system cannot hold a rich and powerful man responsible for sexually assaulting scores of women  whom he has drugged into a state of paralyzes. PGB

According to the news report, all eyes were on Bill Cosby’s wife,  Camille Cosby, as she entered the courtroom and found her seat while the judge was speaking.

“By allowing Cosby’s wife to enter the courtroom in the middle of proceedings while the judge was speaking, officials extended her an extraordinary and unprecedented courtesy that had not been afforded to others in the crowded courtroom. Members of the audience, including some of Cosby’s other accusers who are not testifying, have not even been allowed to leave the courtroom in the midst of proceedings for bathroom breaks without being blocked from re-entering.”

Meanwhile, Cosby attorney Brian McMonagle branded as a “stone cold” liar Cosby’s accuser, Andrea Constand, a former Temple University women’s basketball staffer who says Cosby drugged and sexually assaulted her in 2004. And he argued the approximately 60 other  Cosby accusers were merely seeking to appear on television and the Dr. Phil show, including Victoria Valentino and Linda Kirkpatrick, who sat in the last of eight jammed rows of padded wooden benches.

According to Reuters, “Camille Cosby has been deposed in a civil suit filed by an accuser and had been active behind the scenes in developing strategy in the criminal case, according to sources familiar with defense preparations. But she has made no public appearances related to the criminal proceedings. That is, until Monday.”

Camille Cosby, a “philanthropist” and art collector, is accorded great deference in the court system, though it appears she looked the other way for decades, while her husband allegedly drugged and raped scores of women.  Whereas the victims, many of whom told startlingly similar tales of being drugged and assaulted by a wealthy, powerful man, are demeaned  as liars and manipulator.

To borrow McMonagle’s words, “This ain’t right.”

EEOC & AARP: The Willfully Blind leading the Willfully Blind?

You can’t make this stuff up.

The EEOC has announced that age discrimination will be a “special focus” of its major annual “training event” for employers  later this month to mark the 50th anniversary of enactment of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA).

The invited guest speaker is Jo Ann Jenkins, the CEO of the AARP, an organization that has done virtually nothing in 50 years to address the fundamental legal inequality of older workers in the United States and for years has accorded mere lip service  to the epidemic of age discrimination in employment that began during the Great Recession.

Of course, the EEOC under Democratic President Barack Obama’s administration also did virtually nothing about the problem of age discrimination in employment. The EEOC last year filed exactly two lawsuits with age discrimination claims, despite receiving more than 20,000 complaints of age discrimination. The EEOC today arguably does more to protect employers from the consequences of illegal age discrimination than it does to protect older workers from illegal age discrimination. It remains to be seen whether GOP President Donald Trump and EEOC Acting Chair Victoria A.  Lipnic will choose do any better.

The EEOC press release states the CEO of the AARP and the EEOC Acting Chair  will engage in a “candid conversation about age discrimination.”   Maybe they could start by explaining why both organizations have completely ignored the problem for decades.

I respectfully suggest  Jenkins and Lipnic obtain a copy of my groundbreaking book, Betrayed: The Legalization of Age Discrimination in the Workplace, which candidly describes the epic failure of the federal government protect older workers from irrational and devastating age discrimination in employment. Up to now, both the EEOC and the AARP have  completely ignored the book, which received an excellent review from The ABA Commission on Law and Aging. Continue reading “EEOC & AARP: The Willfully Blind leading the Willfully Blind?”

Psst. That advice you got to combat workplace bullying may not work

 Much of the advice given by co-workers , friends and family to targets of workplace bullying  doesn’t help or makes things worse.

This is the upshot of an article in this month’s issue of The Journal of Applied Communication Research by Stacy Tye-Williams, a communications study professor at Iowa State University, and Kathy Krone, a professor of organizational communication at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln.

The researchers surveyed 48 targets of workplace bullying about the effectiveness of the advice they’ were given to address the bullying.  The top suggestions include: quit the job or get out of the situation, ignore the bullying, fight or stand up to the bully, or report the bullying.

The researchers say there is a  “strong possibility” that direct confrontation of a bully will result in retaliation and the target will be labelled as a problem employee.

Many targets of workplace bullying “are treated as if they are overly emotional or behaving as if they are responsible for single-handedly stopping the bullying.” This attitude “helps sustain an orientation toward organizational life that privileges rationality over emotionality and individual expression over community.”Moreover, urging  individual targets to ‘remain calm’ and ‘stay rational’ overestimates the difference a single individual can make, downplays the significance of strong emotional responses to bullying, and constrains the ability to think and act with greater freedom.”

Another problem, according to the researchers, is that targets of past workplace bullying often tell targets who are currently experiencing the problem to use strategies that proved ineffective for the original target.

The researchers say there is a need for good strategies to successfully combat workplace bullying. “We don’t have a lot of success stories out there,” said Tye-Williams.

The study defines workplace bullying as repeated verbal and nonverbal acts over a period of time intended to inflict humiliation harm.

The United States continues to be among the only developed countries in the world that ignores the plague of workplace bullying, which is a form of workplace violence that causes potentially serious mental and physical harm to workers. An estimated one out of every three or four workers experiences workplace bullying.

This blog has noted that employers are responsible for creating a safe workplace free of harassment and violence.  The author advocates adoption of  a uniform federal workplace bullying law, such as extending the anti-harassment provision of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act to all workers and not hose who suffer discrimination.

R-E-S-P-E-C-T: It’s Critical to Job Satisfaction

A recent survey by the Society of Human Resource Management (SHRM) found the largest percentage of employees (65 percent) felt respectful treatment of all employees at all levels was a very important contributor to their job satisfaction.

Only 38 percent of the 600 employees polled in the annual survey said they were “very satisfied” that all employees are treated respectfully.

It is the third consecutive year that the annual SHRM survey has reported that respectful treatment of workers is critical to job satisfaction. The survey found that workers differ in how they perceive the importance of respect, and how much respect they actually feel:

  • Female employees were more likely (72%) to report that respect is a very important contributor to job satisfaction than male employees (57 percent).
  • Millennials were more likely  (45 percent)  to be very satisfied with the amount of respect they are accorded when compared with Generation Xers (31 percent). It is interesting that no figure was provided in the SHRM survey for the percentage of Baby Boomers who are satisfied with the amount of respect they are accorded – which may say something about the degree of respect accorded to Boomers.
  • Individual contributors were less likely (31 percent) to be very satisfied with the level of respect shown to all employees compared with executives (52 percent).

Continue reading “R-E-S-P-E-C-T: It’s Critical to Job Satisfaction”

Wells Fargo Whistle-Blowers Wait for Justice

Among the casualties in the Wells Fargo Bank scandal are many employees who were allegedly bullied and fired for refusing to engage in unethical practices.

What has happened to them since the news faded from the headlines points up a new scandal – the lack of any real protection for workers who refuse to engage in illegal acts or who participate in whistle-blowing.

Many of the Wells Fargo ex-workers’ complaints have been pending with the U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)  for years without action.

Earlier this year, Wells Fargo paid $190 million in fines to federal and state authorities after acknowledging that its employees covertly opened as many as two million checking and credit card accounts without the customers’ authorization.  The bank, which fired 5,300 employees for improper sales tactics over a five-year period, finally changed its practice of requiring workers to meet unrealistic sales goals o  Jan. 1.

Many of the fired workers claim they were terminated because they refused to engage in or complained about Wells Fargo’s unethical practices. At least a dozen current and former Wells Fargo workers filed complaints with OSHA; some date back more than a decade.

OSHA finally took some action last month when it ordered Wells Fargo to rehire one whistle-blower, a wealth manager who was not named but who was fired in 2010 after he reported suspected fraud via Wells Fargo’s ethics hotline. OSHA ordered Wells Fargo to pay the ex-manager $5.4 million in back pay, damages and attorneys’ fees.  Wells Fargo has announced it will fight the ruling. Meanwhile, the whistle-blower. who filed his OSHA complaint in 2011, said he has been unable to find a new job since he was fired. Continue reading “Wells Fargo Whistle-Blowers Wait for Justice”

More Self-Inflicted Wounds? Fox Hit With Race Discrimination Lawsuits

It was humming along, the major cable news network in America, raking in billions in profits.

Now Fox News  has lost (forced out) its visionary chief executive officer, Roger Ailes, and its top star,  Bill OReilly, both accused of sexual harassing female subordinates for decades.  Fox  paid  Ailes and OReilly tens of millions in severance to leave, not to mention millions in damages to their alleged victims.

And now Fox is reeling from a second wave of discrimination complaints – this time involving race discrimination. A Fox News spokesperson has denied the claims and said the network will “vigorously defend these cases.”

Two black women who worked in the Fox News payroll department, Tichaona Brown and Tabrese Wright, filed a race discrimination lawsuit   in New York state court on March 28 alleging  that Fox Controller Judith Slater, who was fired by Fox on Feb. 28, subjected “dark-skinned employees” to racial animus.

Eleven past and present Fox workers joined the lawsuit Tuesday, complaining that they were  humiliated, paid less than white coworkers and passed over for promotions. Continue reading “More Self-Inflicted Wounds? Fox Hit With Race Discrimination Lawsuits”

Would the Framers’ Allow Signs that Create a Disturbance?

U.S. Sen. Jeff Flake, R-AZ, a proponent of U.S. President Donald Trump, has adopted a “code of conduct” for a planned  town meeting  tomorrow at the  Mesa Convention Center, near Phoenix.

It is likely that some people in Sen.Flake’s district are upset with his support of Trump’s agenda, particularly that part of the agenda which threatens reasonable labor protections,  meaningful health care for all, and environmental regulations that may just save the world for one more generation. It’s even possible that things will get uncomfortable for Sen. Flake, a former executive director of the Goldwater Institute.

So. Sen. Flake, who was elected to the Senate in 2013, has published a code of conduct for the meeting that contains the following provisions:

  • “Attendees with signs, banners or objects that create a disturbance will not be admitted.”
  • “To ensure a safe, enjoyable, and productive town hall, all attendees must comply with posted and audible instructions and failure to comply will result in immediate removal.”
  • “Constituents may begin to park or line up on the property one hour before the program begins. Doors will open an hour before the program begins.”

A progressive feminist nitpicker might find fault with Sen. Flake’s code of conduct. For one thing, the code seems designed to limit the speech of Sen. Flake’s critics.  It is not likely that he is concerned about signage that applauds his performance in office.

The U.S. Supreme Court repeatedly has  ruled that political signs are entitled to free speech protection under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The government cannot impose “content-based regulations” on political speech. For example, the government cannot decide that signs which approve of the government are admissible but signs that express displeasure about the government are not admissible. The Court  also says it is perfectly okay if free speech creates a disturbance.

In addition, would the original framers of the U.S. Constitution deny citizens admission to a town hall meeting because they carried signs that were critical of government?

Bill O’Reilly and the Market-Driven Approach to Halting Sexual Harassment

Note: Bill O’Reilly was fired by Fox News on 4/19/17 after an advertiser revolt stemming from pubilcity surrounding his settlement of five sexual harassment lawsuits. “After a thorough and careful review of the allegations, the company and Bill O’Reilly have agreed that Bill O’Reilly will not be returning to the Fox News Channel,” 21st Century Fox, the parent company of Fox News, said in a statement. The departure of O’Reilly, who was Fox’s biggest money-maker, is yet another example of the devastating risk that employers take when they tolerate an abusive workplace.  More than 50 advertisers withdrew from his prime-time show, and 21st Century Fox asked a law firm to investigate a complaint from a woman who said O’Reilly dropped efforts to make her a contributor in 2013 after she turned down his invitation to visit his hotel room

In one sense,  Bill OReilly and Fox News work for the corporations that buy commercial time on”The O’Reilly Factor.” There would be no O’Reilly Factor without commercial advertising.

It is significant that  more than 20 corporate advertisers withdrew their advertising dollars from The O’Reilly Factor after the New York Times reported that Fox and O’Reilly paid $13 million to five women to settle allegations of sexual harassment.  This is evidence of a simple but effective strategy to address human rights abuses in the workplace.  Corporations promise to only purchase products from employers that maintain highly ethical, humane standards in the workplace.

This  “market driven model”  has been surprisingly successful in other contexts.

For example, beginning in 2011, members of the Fair Food Standards Council,  including McDonald’s and Walmart, pledged to only buy tomatoes from farm growers who implement a human rights-based code of conduct that is monitored and enforced by the Council.  Judge Laura Safer Espinoza a retired New York State Supreme Court justice who is director of the Council, told the EEOC in 2015 that the market-driven model had  in “four short years” ended decades of impunity for perpetrators of sexual harassment and sexual violence Florida’s tomato growing industry. Continue reading “Bill O’Reilly and the Market-Driven Approach to Halting Sexual Harassment”

Fix the ‘Blacklisting’ Rule

President Donald Trump has officially revoked  the so-called “Blacklisting” executive order that was signed by former President Barack H. Obama in 2014 to encourage federal contractors to obey labor laws.

That’s a shame.  It’s smart public policy to save federal tax dollars by encouraging voluntary compliance with federal law. However, in truth, Obama’s executive order was needlessly flawed and arguably unconstitutional..

As written, the blacklisting rule required contractors seeking federal contracts over $500,000 to report both alleged labor violations and adjudicated violations to federal agencies. Federal agencies could then use the information  to award future contracts, cancel existing contracts, and potentially demand remedial action to address a pattern of violations.

It should be obvious even to a high school student that the federal government can’t penalize a contractor that is merely accused of a labor law violation. What if the contractor is innocent? Contractors have a right to due process of law under the U.S. Constitution. Continue reading “Fix the ‘Blacklisting’ Rule”