Are jobseekers 50+ and older written off?

Yes, too often. Recruitment becomes a race for the newest CV, then businesses act surprised when experienced people are locked out of work while employers say they cannot find capable staff.

The idea that someone over 50 cannot learn or adapt is lazy hiring disguised as workforce planning. They have lived through change, managed clients, handled difficult conversations and learned new systems. In advice, judgement, communication and trust are not “nice-to-haves”; they are assets.

Gen Z brings thinking, digital instinct and ambition. Over-50s bring perspective, resilience and confidence to pick up the phone, challenge a bad decision and keep a client calm when things get difficult. Strong firms do not choose one generation over another. They build teams where experience and energy work together.

The problem is not older workers. It is recruiters who confuse potential with youth. Hire for capability, curiosity and what someone can contribute next, not how close they are to retirement.

Many over 50s are quietly written off long before interview, and it is a huge waste of talent. The lazy stereotype is that experience equals inflexibility, when in reality it often means judgement, resilience and knowing how to deal with people when things get difficult. Many employers say they want communication skills, reliability and commercial sense, then overlook the candidates most likely to bring them. Gen Z may have strong digital instincts, but older workers often bring wisdom, phone confidence, client-handling skills and perspective that cannot be downloaded in a training module. The best teams are not old versus young; they blend energy with experience. Hiring over-50s should not be seen as charity. It is often one of the smartest commercial decisions a business can make.

There's a risk some employers overlook candidates over 50 based on outdated assumptions about adaptability. That stereotype is often misplaced. Many bring stronger judgement, communication skills and resilience than younger applicants.

The business case is also often misunderstood. Graduates are typically cheaper to hire, but losing them after two or three years, once they're qualified, can be an expensive cycle. Candidates over 50 may command higher salaries, but they can also offer greater stability, shorter learning curves and lower recruitment costs over time.

Hays research found that 81% of professionals over 50 who felt disadvantaged in the hiring process cited age as the main reason. If age is indeed influencing hiring decisions, that's not only likely to be unlawful, but also commercially short-sighted. The best hiring decisions should be based on capability, experience and cultural fit, not assumptions about someone's date of birth.

The jobs market has a quiet bias nobody talks about. If you are over 50, you are apparently one step away from the corporate knacker's yard. Workers in this age group can hold a conversation, read a room and, revolutionary concept, actually answer the phone. While some Gen Z candidates are reportedly anxious about making calls, their 55 year old counterparts are closing deals on them.

Experience, emotional intelligence and a functioning relationship with voicemail ought to count for something. Writing off a decade or more of productive working life is not just discriminatory, it is spectacularly bad business.

Writing off jobseekers over 50 is not only potentially unlawful, it's also bad business.

Early in my career, I was conscious that managing people with far more experience than me could feel daunting. But that was a management challenge for me to grow into, not a reason to overlook good candidates.

The reality has been the complete opposite. Some of our best hires have been experienced professionals who brought judgement, resilience and communication skills that only come from years in the workplace. Experience isn't a substitute for talent, but nor should it be seen as a disadvantage. The best employers recruit the right person for the job, regardless of age.

Many over-50s are still overlooked despite bringing experience, resilience and strong interpersonal skills. Stereotypes that they cannot adapt or learn new technology are often unfounded.
Many employers value their reliability, judgement and customer-facing communication, while younger recruits may bring different strengths such as digital fluency.
It shouldn't be framed as one generation versus another.
We also see many clients in their 50s choosing to "go plural", combining portfolio careers, consulting and non-executive roles, while others seek more social, people-focused work after 60.
The Prince's Initiative for Mature Enterprise, before it closed, demonstrated the demand for helping older people start businesses following redundancy or a career change. With people working longer, employers and policymakers should focus on skills and potential, not age.

Yes, but rarely to their face. They are filtered out before a person sees them: software ranks the CV down, the advert asks for a "digital native", and "overqualified" finishes it. No reason comes back, so they assume it is their age and stop applying. That is being written off. The stereotype is that they cannot learn, yet most over-50s have re-skilled several times already; the steadiest hires I have made were in their fifties, people a CV filter skips. So I do not see a better or worse generation, only different strengths, and treating it as a contest is the mistake. Over-50s bring judgment and will pick up the phone and settle something, where many younger hires would rather message; Gen Z bring digital fluency and newer tools. The fix is simple: strip the coded language from the advert, screen the shortlist blind to age, and put both on the same problem. People over 50 are not unemployable, they are unseen. Hire the person, not the birth year.
— Harvey Dhillon, ACMA CGMA, founder