Why is it "legal" for the U.S. Government to practice Age Discrimination?

[Up2Late]

Sorry, the Subject line wouldn't let me complete my question:

Why is it "legal" for the U.S. Government to practice Age Discrimination in hiring?

:shrug:

I lost my job at age 39, a few years ago, and was amazed when I realized that, even if I wanted to, I would not be allowed to even apply to be in the Military, who's age cut-off for applicants, in the summer of 2003, was 35 years old. I think they raised it to 38 or 40 or something last year when they found they couldn't make their recruiting goals, but even still, that just seems wrong. :mad:

Then yesterday, I learned that to apply to work for the U.S. Border Patrol, the application cut-off is 37. Again, I don't think I would ever apply to work for the U.S. Border Patrol, but this just seems wrong to me. With all the Federal, and in some cases State, Laws against Age discrimination, why is it legal for the Federal Government set a MAXIMUM age/application cut-off, when applying for a job with a U.S. Government agency?

Here's a list of Federal agencies, that I know, practice age discrimination. Feel free to add any others that you know of:

Army
Navy
Air Force
Marines
FBI
U.S. Boarder Patrol

O.K., it does make some sense to me for the Army Infantry or Marines to have a cut-off for combat troops, the average 40 year old new recruit, might not be able to "keep-up," physically, with the average 20 year old, on the battlefield, but their are a LOT of non-physical, non-combat jobs that a 40 year old could do well, if not better than, a 20 year old.

So WTF? :wtf: Why is this legal? Shouldn't someone sue, or would that be "frivolous?"

[Gyre]

1. What recuriter wants to be changing Attends on his "new" recurit?

Think about what happens then. More military guys dying from heart attacks than enemy fire? No thanks. We've got enough problems.

The military is a "one size fits all" type of operation. Just because you're in good shape or can hit the correct keys on a type writer doesn't mean you're combat (or whatever) ready. The common denominator for the military is that regardless of your rating (specialty) you are always theoretically ready to carry out "the mission" yourself.

Gyre

[electron_blue]

3. Depends at 39? 49? 59? I don't get your point.

[MADem]

2. The truth of the matter is that for noncombat jobs (and they are FEW and

FAR between) Service Secretaries can waive age requirements. See, most people in service are combatants, or potential combatants, as a function of their work. But others, like surgeons and chaplains, do not have to meet those age requirements. They are expected to meet physical readiness standards, though. Of course, if you have the best heart surgeon in the biz working for you, you might let that little matter slide...

The FBI has age requirements as well--the cut off is 37. See here for a representative job posting: https://www.fbijobs.com/jobdesc.asp?requisitionid=368

Most federal law enforcement jobs have a 37 years old cut off: http://federaljobs.net/law.htm

[Nay]

4. The madatory retirement age of 57 for jobs classified as law enforcement

is the main driver for the cutoff age of 37 in jobs like cop, border patrol, postal service inspector, etc. That retirement age was set because of the extreme physical requirements (theoretically) of those jobs.

As far as the military, I would assume they have many fewer of those non-physical, non-combat jobs and want to save them for their lifers.

[Up2Late]

5. I understand your point, but I think what probably needs to happen is...

...the modernization of these "rules." That 57 year old retirement age was probably last updated in the 1950's. People live a lot longer now, and think about it, that was 50 years ago!

If they are going to keep moving Social Security up, now to almost 70, and with the average American man living to an average age of around 73 years old, 57 is just stupid. Just think about how many U.S. Senators that we have that are over 57 as opposed to those under 57, I bet more than half are over 57.

A mandatory retirement age of 57 in 2005 is just retarded. :dunce: :silly:

[Nay]

6. It was just updated less than 10 years ago, from 55 to 57. And the

entry age from 35 to 37. The raising of the regular retirement age, to me, is a crime--lots of folks aren't going to be doing a decent job at most of the available workplaces at age 70. Can you imagine being a waitress at 68? A wallpaper hanger at 70? Certainly there are 70-year-olds who will do fine, but believe me, lots will not.

And law enforcement has the special rules because of the physical demands of the job. No law enforcement agency can afford to be weighed down with very many officers/agents who aren't physically up to the work. It's cheaper to retire them (or give them one of the few upper level jobs) than keep them on. And there are plenty of places for them to go to after retirement -- security, private investigation, etc., so don't feel sorry for them. Feel sorry for the rest of us, who will be waitressing or clerking at age 70.