More than 50% of older workers pushed out of work

[Spock]

....

p.s. Even when older workers are "forced out" by employers making their working conditions miserable, the motive there is often not really age discrimination; it's the fact that the older worker is generally paid more, and they can get someone younger to do the work at a cheaper rate.

BS. As a high band level employee go into your bosses office and offer to "downshift" to a lower paying/less responsibility job... won't happen at an IT/tech company except for extenuating circumstances such as a reduced work schedule due to injury/disability/FMLA.

 

[youbet]

I have mixed feelings about it......

On one hand, I strongly feel that an employee who is well qualified, appropriately compensated (not paid more due to age or seniority) and performing up to expectations should not be treated negatively in any manner because of non-work related age issues.

On the other, I feel older employees who fail to keep skills refreshed, are overpaid vs younger employees relative to their current contributions or who fail to perform at levels expected of everyone in the group should be dismissed or reassigned.

I've played the game from all sides. I managed (and defended!) older workers who were competitive and truly deserved their current roles. But I've also managed older workers who projected a sense of entitlement, were overpaid in relation to their current value to the team, frequently expressed a longing for "da good ole days," exhibited below average flexibility and performance and/or generally were just a burden to have on board compared to other team members.

Every case seemed unique and anecdotal examples both pro and con older workers could always be brought up. In the end, I myself was RIF'd in a massive downsizing where older employees represented an unbalanced proportion of the victims. But we were offered packages with "no-litigation" clauses and no legal actions occurred AFAIK. I was 58 and opt'd to call being "fired," FIRE'd and and have never sought employment or worked for compensation since.

Looking back, I'd say:

Employees should avoid feeling entitled to a "career" with a particular employer and instead should keep skills, compensation expectations and willingness to expend effort at competitive levels. Preparing financially for employment interruptions is key.

There should be well conceived labor law legislation protecting employees from blatant age discrimination but employees must understand that, like all discrimination, age discrimination can be very vague and rules might be difficult to enforce. Their best protection is preparation and flexibility.

Not to change the subject...... but I feel that just as replacing DBP's with 401k's has been a net positive in regard to protecting workers, I also feel that a health insurance system that separates health insurance from employment would be beneficial, especially to older workers.

I think it's a real "gray" area.

 

[tb001]

I have mixed feelings about it......

On one hand, I strongly feel that an employee who is well qualified, appropriately compensated (not paid more due to age or seniority) and performing up to expectations should not be treated negatively in any manner because of non-work related age issues.

On the other, I feel older employees who fail to keep skills refreshed, are overpaid vs younger employees relative to their current contributions or who fail to perform at levels expected of everyone in the group should be dismissed or reassigned.

I've played the game from all sides. I managed (and defended!) older workers who were competitive and truly deserved their current roles. But I've also managed older workers who projected a sense of entitlement, were overpaid in relation to their current value to the team, frequently expressed a longing for "da good ole days," exhibited below average flexibility and performance and/or generally were just a burden to have on board compared to other team members.

Every case seemed unique and anecdotal examples both pro and con older workers could always be brought up. In the end, I myself was RIF'd in a massive downsizing where older employees represented an unbalanced proportion of the victims. But we were offered packages with "no-litigation" clauses and no legal actions occurred AFAIK. I was 58 and opt'd to call being "fired," FIRE'd and and have never sought employment or worked for compensation since.

Looking back, I'd say:

Employees should avoid feeling entitled to a "career" with a particular employer and instead should keep skills, compensation expectations and willingness to expend effort at competitive levels. Preparing financially for employment interruptions is key.

There should be well conceived labor law legislation protecting employees from blatant age discrimination but employees must understand that, like all discrimination, age discrimination can be very vague and rules might be difficult to enforce. Their best protection is preparation and flexibility.

Not to change the subject...... but I feel that just as replacing DBP's with 401k's has been a net positive in regard to protecting workers, I also feel that a health insurance system that separates health insurance from employment would be beneficial, especially to older workers.

I think it's a real "gray" area.

I agree with much of what you’ve said, but I do wonder if you would feel differently if instead of taking the opportunity to FIRE, you wanted/needed to look for a job.

It’s been shocking to see how hard it was for DH to even get an interview. It took years for him to find his last position and he was only hired after consulting at a very below market rate for 6 months. Then came on board full time at a salary 1/6th of his previous salary. Within a year there it more than doubled.

 

[youbet]

BS. As a high band level employee go into your bosses office and offer to "downshift" to a lower paying/less responsibility job... won't happen at an IT/tech company except for extenuating circumstances such as a reduced work schedule due to injury/disability/FMLA.

Agreed. At the high tech company where I pulled the plow, voluntary demotions were rare. You could do your current job well or you were likely to be moved out (not down). Although, there were a few cases which occurred and worked out well.

Employers are resistant to voluntary demotions because sometimes:

1. The senior employee seeking the demotion might just looking to "cruise" for a while before retirement and likely will soon demonstrate the same negative attributes in the lower level job as in the current higher level job.

2. The senior employee's presence in the lower level job keeps it from being available as a training step for a new, likely younger, employee.

3. The senior employee often finds the lower level, lower paying job turns out to be just as demanding/stressful as the higher level job but at lower pay and becomes blatantly dissatisfied.

4. Etc.

Still, I think reductions in responsibility and pay for seniors who have "lost the edge" a bit are appropriate and I'd like to see the process developed. It will take work on both sides. On the company's part, see the reasons above. On the employee's part, the sense of entitlement where it's expected higher pay for declining levels of contribution is the norm and guaranteed if you've put in your decades has to be eliminated........

 

[youbet]

I agree with much of what you’ve said, but I do wonder if you would feel differently if instead of taking the opportunity to FIRE, you wanted/needed to look for a job.

That's a good point. I will point out, however, that given the state of of Mega's DBP, health insurance and other fringes, I would have gladly accepted a demotion in order to bridge the years from 58 to my planned FIRE age of 62, even at a substantial salary reduction. But noooo....... That seemed to be exactly what Mega was trying to avoid and we seniors were rounded up and moved out. But, as mentioned, with packages designed to keep us from litigating. Generally, we were pissed and bitter. 12+ years later, at our monthly lunches, we still bitch and moan about it!

It’s been shocking to see how hard it was for DH to even get an interview. It took years for him to find his last position and he was only hired after consulting at a very below market rate for 6 months. Then came on board full time at a salary 1/6th of his previous salary. Within a year there it more than doubled.

To me, the issue is whether market forces were in play and working or were employers discriminating against your DH because of age and despite the fact he was the "best buy" out there. If they were able to hire people capable of delivering the goods and who they felt had more future potential for the same or less, how can they be faulted? If they paid the same or more for a younger candidate with the same or less abilities and potential because they just had a distaste for older people, then they should be hung from the highest tree..........

I think the solutions to age discrimination should revolve around keeping fair and open free market competition the key factor. Most employers and management folks tend to be profit driven and greedy and having the older employee be the best value in that regard is in the best interest of the older employee.

 

[tb001]

That's a good point. I will point out, however, that given the state of of Mega's DBP, health insurance and other fringes, I would have gladly accepted a demotion in order to bridge the years from 58 to my planned FIRE age of 62, even at a substantial salary reduction. But noooo....... That seemed to be exactly what Mega was trying to avoid and we seniors were rounded up and moved out. But, as mentioned, with packages designed to keep us from litigating. Generally, we were pissed and bitter. 12+ years later, at our monthly lunches, we still bitch and moan about it!

To me, the issue is whether market forces were in play and working or were employers discriminating against your DH because of age and despite the fact he was the "best buy" out there. If they were able to hire people capable of delivering the goods and who they felt had more future potential for the same or less, how can they be faulted? If they paid the same or more for a younger candidate with the same or more abilities and potential because they just had a distaste for older people, then they should be hung from the highest tree..........

I think the solutions to age discrimination should revolve around keeping fair and open free market competition the key factor. Most employers and management folks tend to be profit driven and greedy and having the older employee be the best value in that regard is in the best interest toof the older employee.

I’m not sure I understand the logic of paying for ‘future potential’ in today’s world of more frequent job changes. I understand that people may want someone younger because they’re cheaper, hungry, and there’s a perception that they may be willing to work harder. I would argue that I want to pay for the best person for the job and pay market rate. Someone with more experience may not need to work ‘harder’!

DH applied to multiple positions where he was by FAR more qualified than the candidates who ultimately were hired. In one case they burned through three of those younger workers with more ‘future potential’ while he was still looking. He didn’t even get an interview for the job! I think a lot of it is just human nature. People are uncomfortable hiring and managing people who are older than they are. This is especially prevalent in an area like the Bay Area where there are so many startups. The workforce skews very young at these places.

 

[Mr._Graybeard]

Salary vs. experience isn't the whole equation. There's also health insurance. Twenty-five-year-olds don't need coronary bypasses and other medical procedures that increase in frequency as the years add up. Even midsize companies have chosen to self-insure health coverage, IME, so when an employee racks up some big medical bills, it comes off the bottom line. It may be a bigger factor than the salary differential between young and old.

 

[youbet]

I’m not sure I understand the logic of paying for ‘future potential’ in today’s world of more frequent job changes.

There are cases where skills are somewhat specific to the company and job and must be developed there.

I understand that people may want someone younger because they’re cheaper, hungry, and there’s a perception that they may be willing to work harder. I would argue that I want to pay for the best person for the job and pay market rate. Someone with more experience may not need to work ‘harder’!

I certainly won't disagree with that outlook and that's pretty much what I'm saying. We geezer job seekers need to understand that we have to be competitive in regard to skills, effort and compensation requirements. It sounds like your DH was competitive but was discriminated against because someone held inappropriate negative feelings towards older workers. It certainly happens. One way to help minimize this is to support labor and business practices which favor hiring the candidates who deliver the most bang for the buck.

 

[tb001]

Salary vs. experience isn't the whole equation. There's also health insurance. Twenty-five-year-olds don't need coronary bypasses and other medical procedures that increase in frequency as the years add up. Even midsize companies have chosen to self-insure health coverage, IME, so when an employee racks up some big medical bills, it comes off the bottom line. It may be a bigger factor than the salary differential between young and old.

True, but should also be illegal. You could make similar arguments I’m seeing here about hiring women of child bearing age.

 

[youbet]

Salary vs. experience isn't the whole equation. There's also health insurance. Twenty-five-year-olds don't need coronary bypasses and other medical procedures that increase in frequency as the years add up. Even midsize companies have chosen to self-insure health coverage, IME, so when an employee racks up some big medical bills, it comes off the bottom line. It may be a bigger factor than the salary differential between young and old.

Well....... there is that statistic. It's been years since I waded through the numbers as part of my job, but I do recall that near end-of-career employees miss more time due to MLOA's and have more medical bills than younger employees (even considering health insurance coverage for families as opposed to singles or an empty-nest couple).

IMHO, that makes all the more reason for separating health insurance from employment. The current connection disrupts the free market system between employers and employees.

 

[ER Eddie]

Actually, I believe what you described here could indeed be the basis for an age-discrimination lawsuit, if the employee that is forced out is replaced with a younger employee. Cost-savings may have been the main motivation, but the way they achieved the cost savings involved replacing an older worker with a younger one, so age was definitely an important factor. I know this happens all the time, but that doesn't necessarily make it legal.

Maybe. I don't know the law well enough to say, but it seems like a stretch. If the motive is pay/profit not age, then how do you establish that the motive is age? They'd also have to demonstrate that no other issues were involved. I'm sure it would depend on the specific situation.

BS. As a high band level employee go into your bosses office and offer to "downshift" to a lower paying/less responsibility job... won't happen at an IT/tech company except for extenuating circumstances such as a reduced work schedule due to injury/disability/FMLA.

That's not what I said.

Salary vs. experience isn't the whole equation. There's also health insurance. Twenty-five-year-olds don't need coronary bypasses and other medical procedures that increase in frequency as the years add up. Even midsize companies have chosen to self-insure health coverage, IME, so when an employee racks up some big medical bills, it comes off the bottom line. It may be a bigger factor than the salary differential between young and old.

Interesting point.

 

[Spanky]

One way to help minimize this is to support labor and business practices which favor hiring the candidates who deliver the most bang for the buck.

Is it true the employers are already doing/thinking that they are hiring the best candidates with the least amount of expenses?

 

[Spanky]

IMHO, that makes all the more reason for separating health insurance from employment. The current connection disrupts the free market system between employers and employees.

Does that mean that employers would increase salaries in lieu of health coverage?

 

[Amethyst]

I don't know enough about insurance to understand this.Can the company provide or subsidize insurance policies that specifically exclude, or pay little for, expensive procedures that older people are more likely to get? Seems like that would be accomplished through high deductibles and high premiums and co-pays, which would be even harder on the younger, lesser-paid employees than the senior ones.

Salary vs. experience isn't the whole equation. There's also health insurance. Twenty-five-year-olds don't need coronary bypasses and other medical procedures that increase in frequency as the years add up. Even midsize companies have chosen to self-insure health coverage, IME, so when an employee racks up some big medical bills, it comes off the bottom line. It may be a bigger factor than the salary differential between young and old.

 

[Spanky]

I don't know enough about insurance to understand this.Can the company provide or subsidize insurance policies that specifically exclude, or pay little for, expensive procedures that older people are more likely to get? Seems like that would be accomplished through high deductibles and high premiums and co-pays, which would be even harder on the younger, lesser-paid employees than the senior ones.

Some employers are starting to offer on-demand health insurance program such as bind: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/27/insurance-start-up-launches-on-demand-health-coverage.html

The idea is that expensive procedure is covered separately as needed.

 

[youbet]

Is it true the employers are already doing/thinking that they are hiring the best candidates with the least amount of expenses?

In free market theory, spending the least for the most should maximize profit and survivability of the firm. So I'd like to think that owners/managers are greedy enough to spend dollars to maximize their "bang for the buck." I'm sure there are exceptions in hiring and managing human resources, including allowing non-economic forces (prejudice and/or discrimination) to enter the hiring decision process.

 

[youbet]

Does that mean that employers would increase salaries in lieu of health coverage?

Employers will offer the smallest total compensation package they can to recruit and retain the human resources they need. Of course, since we're talking about a commodity (humans) that is hard to spec out and evaluate to see if it matches the print, it's hard to know exactly what you are buying!

Employees will demand the biggest total compensation package they can and still be hired. Of course, since you can't really completely know a job and an employer until you're there (in many instances), what they have to give vs what they actually get over time may or may not meet expectations!

I doubt you'd see any long lasting salary increases designed to offset the transfer of health insurance costs from private employers to the government. Companies might see tax increases generally offsetting the health insurance premium elimination.

The important thing is that health insurance would not be part of the hiring or retention decision for either employers or employment candidates.

 

[USGrant1962]

I doubt you'd see any long lasting salary increases designed to offset the transfer of health insurance costs from private employers to the government. Companies might see tax increases generally offsetting the health insurance premium elimination.

Yes, this is probably the only way that moving health insurance off our employers could happen. A payroll tax or similar on the order of say $10K per employee per year (on average).

 

[Teacher Terry]

Age discrimination is real. My husband has only been able to get 2 short contract jobs in the past 7 years. He was contacted by a headhunter for a engineering job that he had all the qualifications and experience. After they sent his resume to the employer he never got the interview. He turns 60 soon and I am sure it’s because of age.

 

[street]

About a week ago I seen a TV news article on where companies are sighting out retired people to fill jobs. They talked to a few company managers and said the older and experienced works are a great asset and like to hire retired folks.

 

[ERD50]

Age discrimination is real. My husband has only been able to get 2 short contract jobs in the past 7 years. He was contacted by a headhunter for a engineering job that he had all the qualifications and experience. After they sent his resume to the employer he never got the interview. He turns 60 soon and I am sure it’s because of age.

You're sure?

Could be, but "2 short contract jobs in the past 7 years" does not make for a shining resume at any age.

-ERD50

 

[explanade]

Is anyone really shocked?

One of the reasons forums like this exist is because of this kind of policy.

Few of us may have been pushed out because of age but I bet a lot of us wondered if they would look for a reason to get rid of the older people.

One thing is that older workers aren't brown-nosing like they might have earlier in their careers.

Younger workers eager to make their mark will stay in the office longer, just to signal that they will endure more BS, if nothing else. They will be cheerleaders for the boss and management and new corporate initiatives.

When the company rolls out some new mission statement or something they're signaling to the public about some new thing about the corporate culture, the older, wiser BS-weary workers who've seen this all before will be cool about it, if not overtly rolling their eyes.

But the younger ones will internalize the lingo and show management how grand this new thing is.

From management's POV, they see older workers who've made a lot of money and other compensation over the years versus younger workers who start out at a lower salary who seem more enthusiastic and wide-eyed.

Of course this contrast is even more pronounced if management has more younger personnel, who are closer in age to the new recruits than the graybeards.

They will deny it but nobody is under illusions. And these days, there's overt hostility from millennials against baby boomers. Some young politicians and political activists have said baby boomers should get out of the way so they can take over.

In the workplace, they see all these deductions from their paychecks, the first time they're making any real money. There's huge cynicisms from those under 40 that they will ever collect SSI or Medicare benefits by the time they're eligible.

So they see people at or within 10 years of SSI or Medicare and there's resentment there as well.

The generational war will only become more pronounced over the next 10-20 years. Age discrimination will only increase when those now under 30 become decision makers in the next couple of decades.

 

[Dtail]

You're sure?

Could be, but "2 short contract jobs in the past 7 years" does not make for a shining resume at any age.

-ERD50

Chicken and the egg......

 

[Spanky]

You're sure?

Could be, but "2 short contract jobs in the past 7 years" does not make for a shining resume at any age.

-ERD50

Another point is that he was only able to land two contract jobs because of age discrimination.

 

[Teacher Terry]

Yes sparky that’s exactly it. He finished both contracts and has excellent references. He got laid off at 53.