Reports on evidence for work place age discrimination in Australia

1. Does Workplace Age
Discrimination Exist?
Professor Philip Taylor
Christopher McLoughlin
Brotherhood of St Laurence
22 March 2012

2. Today’s presentation
 Background on our research and the concept work ability
 Describe our current research activities
 Preview upcoming developments in work ability research.
2

3. Section 1: Background
3

4. Work ability: Development
 Work ability is an indication of how well a person’s health, skills and
experience match the demands of their job.
 Developed by the Finnish Institute of Occupational Health
– 30 year longitudinal study
– Work Ability Index (WAI)
– Framework for work ability promotion
– International symposia
– Evolving theoretical model
4

5. The holistic model of work ability
5

6. The holistic model of work ability
6

7. Utility of the work ability construct
 Driven by economic imperatives to contain costs arising from
population ageing, governments internationally are aiming to increase
participation by older workers.
 Inter-related factors determine the relationship between older people
and the labour market.
 Consensus that tackling the issue requires multi-faceted and integrated
strategies.
 Work ability construct and a framework for its workplace promotion
offers such an approach.
 Sustaining high levels of workforce participation by older workers will
depend in part on efforts to ensure that work ability is maintained over a
working life.
7

8. Section 2: Current Activities
8

9. Work Ability Survey Revised (WAS-R)
 Monash University, Sydney University, Swinburne University and Safe
Work Australia
 Nationally representative sample of workers (n ≈ 3200)
 Methodologically sound approach to scale development
 Improved coverage of operationalisable elements of the conceptual
model
 Current status:
– Data collection completed
– Completing modelling analyses
– Examining the relationship between elements of work ability and
demographic and other factors.
9

10. Theoretical model
10

11. Experiences of everyday discrimination
 The experience of behaviours labelled ‘everyday discrimination’ in the
workplace was assessed across 12 items, with significant variation in
the frequency of occurrence.
 Between 10-50% of participants reported experiencing these
behaviours in the workplace over the last 12 months.
 The most commonly reported of the 12 was ‘receiving insufficient
information to do your job properly’ and the most infrequently reported
behaviour was ‘your property being damaged’.
 On average, 25% of respondents reported experiencing these
behaviours at work.
11

12. Experiences of everyday discrimination
 Receiving insufficient information to do your job properly 54%
 Being ignored by your colleagues or treated as if you didn’t exist 31%
 Not getting the opportunities you needed to be competitive for
promotions 27%
 Your work performance being evaluated unfairly 26%
 Not getting privileges others received 25%
 Being left out of a social gathering at work 23%
 Being excluded from a work meeting 22%
 Feeling as though you were being pushed out 22%
 Being passed over for promotion 20%
 Insulting jokes or comments 20%
 Being set up for failure 17%
 Your property being damaged 10%
12

13. Everyday discrimination

14. Relationship between age and everyday
discrimination
 One-way ANOVA applied to investigate the association between age
and reports of everyday discrimination.
 Considering two typologies of discriminatory behaviour, social and
advancement discrimination, the average reported frequency of such
behaviours was compared across the age groups: 18-24, 25-34, 35-44,
45-54, 55-64 and 65+.
 No statistically significant difference observed in terms of social
discrimination (f(5, 2861) =1.99, p=0.077).
 In the case of advancement discrimination, a statistically significant
mean difference was detected (f 5, 2861) =2.23, p=0.048). Those aged
under 65 reported a homogenous frequency of experiences. Those
over age 65, on average, reported fewer experiences of advancement
discrimination than those aged 24-54.
14

15. Relationship between age and everyday
discrimination
 Dunnett’s T3 post hoc comparisons indicated that participants aged
18-24 (M=4.5, SD=1.0) were more likely to experience insulting jokes
and comments than those aged 55-64 (M=4.7, SD=0.8).
 Dunnett’s T3 post hoc comparisons indicated that participants aged
25-54 (M=3.8, SD=1.2) more frequently reported receiving insufficient
information to do their job properly than those aged 55-64 (M=4.1,
SD=1.1).
 Dunnett’s T3 post hoc comparisons indicated that participants aged
35-54 (M=4.4, SD=1.0) more frequently reported having their work
performance evaluated unfairly than those aged 65+ (M=4.8, SD=0.7).
 No age differences observed for the item: ‘Feeling as though you were
being pushed out’.
15

16. Work Ability Survey Revised (WAS-R)
 Next steps:
– Complete modelling process
– Delve into; industry, sectorial, occupational, organisation type,
gender, age, socio-economic position and work ability.
 Future directions
– Benchmark WAS-R scores for Australian workers
– Extend project through longitudinal design
– Refine measure – responding to data and method advances
– Track changes in work ability over time and developing
international comparative data.
16

17. Thank you
Professor Philip Taylor
philip.taylor@monash.edu
17