Positive–Negative — Laws making it illegal to reject job applicants over age

A date of birth tells an employer almost nothing about whether a candidate can do the job, yet for generations it was enough to end an application. Laws that forbid this practice are a clearly positive development, even though they are harder to apply than to pass.

The main benefit is that people are hired on merit. Age is at best a crude proxy for the things an employer actually cares about, such as stamina or skill, and the law simply obliges firms to assess those things directly. This matters most to workers in their fifties who lose a job and previously found that no one would interview them. In many jurisdictions it protects the young as well, since a capable twenty-three-year-old can no longer be turned away from a managerial post simply for being 'too young'. There is also an economic motive: in ageing societies such as Japan or Germany, keeping older citizens in work eases the burden on pension systems and fills gaps in a shrinking workforce.

Admittedly, the legislation has weaknesses. Discrimination is difficult to prove, because an employer can always claim that another applicant was 'a better fit', and small firms may fear being sued each time they reject an older candidate. Some occupations, moreover, do make physical demands that are harder to meet with age. Yet these are arguments for careful drafting, not for abandoning the principle. Well-designed laws allow employers to set genuine job requirements, so a fire service may still test strength and an airline may test eyesight, provided the test is applied to everyone. And even imperfectly enforced rules change behaviour: once upper age limits vanish from job advertisements, older applicants at least reach the interview room.

Overall, I regard this as a positive step. It replaces a lazy assumption with an honest assessment, and its practical difficulties, though real, are a price worth paying for a fairer and fuller labour market.