Age discrimination: legislation and human capital accumulation
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/01425450610633082 |
| Published date | 01 January 2006 |
| Date | 01 January 2006 |
| Pages | 87-97 |
| Author | Peter Urwin |
| Subject Matter | HR & organizational behaviour |
Age discrimination: legislation
and human capital accumulation
Peter Urwin
Westminster Centre for Employment Research,
University of Westminster, London, UK
Abstract
Purpose – It is hard to disentangle the possible reasons for differential rates of training incidence
amongst older and younger workers. While older workers are less likely to undergo employer-financed
training, many do not take up the opportunity to train. Differences in training incidence are also
reflected in the extent to which formal qualifications are associated with individuals from different age
groups. The purpose of this paper is to investigate the human capital explanation for these differing
experiences and ask whether they can shed light on employers’ apparent differential treatment of older
and younger employees. In an attempt to highlight the need for additional research in this area before
the introduction of legislation in October 2006, the paper proposes considering the issue of mandatory
retirement within this human capital framework.
Design/methodology/approach – Through a review of the relevant literature and discussion
around a number of cross-tabulations the paper discusses issues relating to age, education and
training within a human capital framework.
Findings – The paper finds that, although human capital theory would seem to provide some
explanation for the differential experiences of workers of different ages, when viewed from the
employer perspective it is the time that an individual has left at the firm that is of importance, not their
age per se.
Practical implications – Recent announcements regarding legislation on mandatory retirement
ages may result in the time to retirement no longer being such a straightforward function of an
individual’s age. In this case “training contracts” could be used to specify the minimum time an
individual needs to be employed in order that the employer can reap the returns to investment in their
human capital.
Originality/value – The paper reviews issues that are relevant to policymakers, human resource
practitioners, employers and employees.
Keywords Training, Learningcontracts, Human capital, Age discrimination, Legislation
Paper type General review
Introduction
An extensive academic literature has been generated on the subject of age
discrimination over the past 25 years (for a review see, Duncan et al., 2000). Many
empirical studies that attempt to identify evidence of discrimination have concentrated
on the views of managers (Taylor and Walker, 1994; McGoldrick, 1996; Humberside
Training and Enterprise Council, 2000); a number have reported the views of older
individuals (Walker, 1993; Fell and Foster, 1994; Redman and Snape, 2002), while more
recent studies, as part of the DWP Age Positive Campaign, have been more widely
administered (for a review of research in the 1990s see, Boaz et al., 1999). This wealth of
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0142-5455.htm
The author would like to offer many thanks to an anonymous referee. Responsibility for errors
remains with the author.
Age
discrimination
87
Received 20 December 2004
Revised 3 May 2005
Accepted 10 May 2005
Employee Relations
Vol. 28 No. 1, 2006
pp. 87-97
qEmerald Group Publishing Limited
0142-5455
DOI 10.1108/01425450610633082
To continue reading
Request your trial