Not impossible, there are some bosses who genuinely buy in to the idea of mature age hires. But we’d be denying reality to say ageism isn’t a significant issue in the Australian labour market, and, it no doubt would be causing some to think “why bother?” going through the time and expense of re-training. It isn't easy to study when you have kids and financial responsibilities. It takes all your energy and financial resources, and to come out the other side and find you aren't even being considered because of your age is a very bitter pill to swallow.
Is there a problem? Yes. There are now 200,000 Australians over fifty on the dole, up a whopping 45% since 2010, indicating that the older worker was very likely the first to get the spear during the GFC, and he or she has struggled to get back into work.
Over 45's account for 34% of those unemployed, and, much to our disgrace, 45% of long-term unemployed according to the HRC.
I've seen too much of it with my own eyes. My first boss (who went onto be CEO of an ASX 200 firm) flat out refused to hire anyone over 30, arguing they can't be taught.
It's a dirty little secret in one particular industry that the ideal hire is very young, very intelligent, and very insecure - these people are more likely to buy into "workplace culture" and die at their desks to impress their families that they work at Smith and Jones in a big city office.
The HR director of a very prestigious law firm in Sydney once admitted to me when I asked her why it’s such a struggle to change careers via graduate employment that she’d hired one mature graduate in six years. Twenty eight year old managers don’t like managing people in their forties was her rationale.
All this sort of stuff is real, rampant, and has to go. It has no place in Australia 2055, or Australia 2015. We need the 55 year old worker whose knees and back are shot from years of laying bricks to be able to become an accountant if he or she wants. Or the person who spent their life working in a career that technology has made obsolete should be able to start again.
Let's see the Corporations Act contain a provision that for a listed company, demographic details of their graduate intake must be provided in comparison to the demographic profile of the preceding year's university graduates, and stamp this endemic discrimination out once and for all -- then you might start seeing older people take the likes of Hockey seriously.
As for being able to draw down on your super to fund a career change, I think this is a worthwhile idea, as long as it is structured as a loan from the super fund that you have to pay back when you are able to. I'd draw the line at Hockey’s other thought bubble -- being able to take out lump sums to fund house deposits -- such a move would only make housing affordability even worse (if that's even possible -- the median, yes median property auctioned yesterday in Sydney was almost $1.2 million).
