11–20 of 808 posts
Meh, is it really important. There are many reasons to want younger workers, and there are many reasons you shouldn't want younger workers. I don't find it necessary for the government to step in to help one of the highest paid fields in america.
Meh, is it really important. There are many reasons to want younger workers, and there are many reasons you shouldn't want younger workers. I don't find it necessary for the government to step in to help one of the highest paid fields in america.
Is this different than advertising in a magazine that has a specific reader demographic? Or would that get a company in trouble too, if a the court rules that the intent was to exclude a given group?
It's against U.S. federal law for employers to discriminate against people aged 40-or-over on the basis of age. Having job ads that only younger people could see would seemingly fall afoul of that law: https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/adea.cfm
Is it ok to recruit at a college job fair?
How long until the tech giants are held accountable for willfully skirting decades of civil rights legislation.
Is this different than advertising in a magazine that has a specific reader demographic? Or would that get a company in trouble too, if a the court rules that the intent was to exclude a given group?
The article mentions this scenario. It points out that anyone can purchase a copy of Teen Vogue (for example) but there's nothing you can do about ads that Facebook won't show you.
Is this different than advertising in a magazine that has a specific reader demographic? Or would that get a company in trouble too, if a the court rules that the intent was to exclude a given group?
It's against U.S. federal law for employers to discriminate against people aged 40-or-over on the basis of age. Having job ads that only younger people could see would seemingly fall afoul of that law: https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/adea.cfm
And the presence of a targeted ad doesn't prevent excluded people from actually going to a job posting site. If the job posting site was doing this with people's Facebook session (or other way of knowing age), I would be alarmed and appalled. If a company was doing this on their career site I was be up in arms.
But Facebook running ads where some of them happen to be job related ads in the same place that other random ads appear? Ehhhhhhhhh
Is this different than advertising in a magazine that has a specific reader demographic? Or would that get a company in trouble too, if a the court rules that the intent was to exclude a given group?
It's against U.S. federal law for employers to discriminate against people aged 40-or-over on the basis of age. Having job ads that only younger people could see would seemingly fall afoul of that law: https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/adea.cfm
Segmentation is a common characteristic of online advertising campaigns. A sophisticated advertiser never shows the same types of ads to young and old audiences (especially on Facebook) because the two audiences react drastically different. If your goal is to run efficient campaigns, you will always separate the two.
As a result, the advertiser can simply claim that they separated the two, and then realized they simply couldn't afford the CPC of the older audience (i.e. the ROI didn't make sense). Alternatively, they could just set a very high bid for the older audience and never get any traffic to those segments.
Overall, I think you'd be hard pressed to prove discriminatory intent even if it exists.