Remember when employers could - with a clear conscience - NOT hire young women? After all, they might get pregnant and leave the job.
We've got over that and moved on to new nonsense. The Government can, legitimately, not fund the training or education of older people because they mightretire soon.
As reported in the Chronicle, Denise Davies has completed six of the eight papers for a diploma in Enrolled Nursing but, at 59, is not eligible for Study Link living costs - and Winz won't help because she's not available to take any job that's going. True, she's set her sights higher and is just four months from completing her qualification.
A glitch in the system meant she received some payments in error but it seems to have coloured the opinion of those who could make a difference.
Local MP Chester Borrows, instead of seeing the bigger picture and the benefits of another nurse in the community, defends his Government's policy of denying anyone over 55 certain allowances - living allowance and course-related costs.
The official story is there is "evidence" training older people results in a reduced return. Methinks the "evidence" is suspect.
Chester's reaction to her plight was unsympathetic, suggesting she could work part-time or borrow from a bank. It has been a while since Chester lived in the real world.
To hear him slap the issue aside with flippancy is disappointing. Mind you, it was Chester who wondered if his constituents expected MPs to live in dormitories and earn $20 an hour.
There are thousands of working people who would regard $20 an hour as good money. Arrogance from a position of privilege is so 19th century and unbecoming.
One would think a government supposedly encouraging people to work in a declining job pool would drop petty prejudices and help Denise finish her course.
