Maccas aren’t lovin’ the over 60s
<p dir="ltr">A McDonald’s in Auckland Central has landed itself in hot water after posting a job ad that wanted nothing to do with the over 60 workforce. </p>
<p dir="ltr">The post, shared to the establishment’s Facebook page and since removed, sought new staff to cover the 10pm to 6am ‘graveyard’ shift. The usual benefits and various position criteria were listed, but it was one line at the bottom that caught the attention - and ire - of the masses.</p>
<p dir="ltr">“Any age from 16 to 60,” the listing read.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Feedback came fast and furious, with many outraged by the blatant ageism the fast food giant was peddling. And while McDonald’s tried to pass it off as the fault of a franchisee, the store’s manager instead said that their head office was at fault.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Social media users were vocal about what they thought of the ad, and it wasn’t long before legal experts and union representatives got involved in the ongoing uproar - and even the big wigs over at McDonald’s. </p>
<p dir="ltr">“We’ve been made aware that a job ad by one of our franchisees has created some debate on social media like Reddit, as it references an age range of 16-60,” company spokesperson Simon Kenny said.</p>
<p dir="ltr">“The reference in the copy was intended to illustrate that people of all ages are welcome. We’ve asked the franchisee to update the copy to avoid any potential confusion.”</p>
<p dir="ltr">As Joe Carolan from New Zealand’s Unite Union told the <em>New Zealand Herald</em>, “contrary to the myth that most McDonald’s jobs are [ideal for] part-time students, improvements made by the union throughout the years have seen many workers stay in these jobs into their 50s. </p>
<p dir="ltr">“Older workers bring experience, stability and maturity to a workplace and we call on McDonald's to end this discriminatory ageism.”</p>
<p dir="ltr">Employment law expert Max Whitehead added that the pay - $22.80 per hour - combined with the age restrictions, were a “blatant” breach of the Human Rights Act. </p>
<p dir="ltr">And for those who thought the line had just been an ill-advised marketing move, Whitehead noted “if it really is to get a catchy cliche going, it’s a stupid thing to do.” </p>
<p dir="ltr">Whitehead’s fellow expert, Professor Bill Hodge, had more to say on the matter of ageism too, noting that The Human Rights Act actually bans discrimination against people over the age of 60, though he saw no issue with the teenage half of the equation. </p>
<p dir="ltr">“We discriminate against people 14 or 15 all the time and it’s justifiable to say ‘no, you can’t drive a car, you can’t leave school’,” he said. “On the face of it I see no obvious requirement that would exclude people over 60.”</p>
<p dir="ltr">As a spokesperson for the Humans Right Campaign informed the <em>New Zealand Herald</em>, The Human Rights Act 1993 had rendered it unlawful for people to be treated differently for their age during the employment process. </p>
<p dir="ltr">“It is unlawful to discriminate against employees, job applicants, voluntary workers, people seeking work through an employment agency and contract workers because of age,” the spokesperson explained. “The only exception is where, for reasons of authenticity, being of a particular age is a genuine occupational qualification for the position or employment.”</p>
<p dir="ltr"><em>Images: Shutterstock, Facebook</em></p>
