Thoughts on unemployment and age

[lemming]

Hope your headhunter friend wasn't joining in and is sending out applicants based on skills and knowledge.

I don't think the get em young theory works as well as they think.
One word ... Facebook

 

[ziggy29]

As am I. Working 60 hours/week is hard and a huge strain on the body. Doing 80 hours/week for months/years at a time? Work 8-8 7 days/week? Never seen it unless a release is imminent.

Working these 60+ hour weeks used to be an adrenaline rush for me, partly because (a) they were rare, (b) they usually only lasted a week or two and (c) I had pride in what we were doing and I could see the need for a short period of "burst mode".

These days they just stress me out and make my abdomen hurt. You ran the business just fine without this "critical" new set of TPS reports for many years, not having them before the end of this quarter isn't going to make the business go under.

 

[youbet]

I'm skeptical of these 60-80 hour uncompensated work weeks.

Yeah, me too. When someone on my team was complaining of excessive hours, I'd check it out. Almost every time the truth was associated with either a burst of activity being extrapolated over hypothetical stretches of time or mediocre performing associates struggling to keep up with smarter, more efficient teammates.

Once when we moved our operation to a new building, we put in some 60 hour weeks. Stories that our team always worked 60 - 80 hour weeks under the sting of the lash abounded for years afterwards.

I tried to foster an environment where performance evaluation was based on accomplishments and not hours worked. (Note: this was in manufacturing so presence at the factory was important, but not a steady 60 hours. Not even close for most.) Folks who struggled to acheive competitive results vs. their peers sometimes put in a lot of hours trying to keep up. Then, at performance review time, they (NOT management) would want to talk about hours worked and would want some credit for clock hours spent on the job. In the long run, I would probably have been better off terminating these marginal performers rather than allowing them to struggle for so long with the long hours they required to get their jobs done probably ruining their lives.

 

[Vaca]

I noticed a huge change in attitude in the newbies or younger hires over the past two decade in my field. When I graduated, a Bachelor was needed but over the past 10-15 years, Doctorates became the new entry level degree. New intense training programs and rotations requirements were implemented with the new degrees so those new graduates that were hired felt so entitled. Some refuse to do certain part of their jobs because they consider it menial duties and it's so beneath them. I even had to contact a supervisor to make it clear it is in their job description to leave an area clean for the next employee including removing the small trash basket outside the satellite for the cleaning crew; it was 3 feet to the door!!! As my field became more saturated and every new graduate has a Doctorate, those attitudes quickly changed.
I’m in research/pharmaceuticals and a huge trend I’m seeing is the hiring of all these “green” employees and not just the lower or mid-levels but also in upper and executive management. They may have the degrees and the qualifications on paper but their lack of experience is apparent in conversation and meetings. In fact, a few sound stupid every time they open their mouth and some of the decisions they implemented are the most ill-conceived I have ever seen in my 20+ years working. It’s been 2+ years since the mass hiring of those “green” employees and my company is facing bankruptcy; I wonder if the two are somehow related?

 

[Rustward]

<snip>
My new co-workers are working 80 hour weeks because of the severe worker shortage. I am running half of the job rotation and am concentrating on making life as easy as possible for my co-workers/trainers and bosses. After 80 hour weeks, they are extremely grateful for the help and of course are giving me fantastic reviews.
<snip>

Are they really working 80 hour weeks or has this been embellished a little?
That would average to 11.39 hours per day for 7 days per week with never a day off.

I do recall one year working 2400 hours (I have records) -- mayby the most time I ever put in over a calendar year, and it seemed to kill me. That is an average of a little over 46 hours per week over 52 weeks. I did take three weeks of vacation that year, and a few other days off, so the weeks I worked probably averaged something like 50 hours per week, and it was a killer. Sorry but I'm having a difficult time with the 80 number unless the job is completely mindless.

 

[MichaelB]

I worked >60 hour weeks for well over a decade. If travel time were counted as work it would be much higher.

 

[bld999]

"Sorry but I'm having a difficult time with the 80 number unless the job is completely mindless."

Me, too. Even the Pony Express swapped horses regularly.

In the face of any commercial endeavor that has substitute labor inputs available, working your people for long periods of time [60-80hrs/wk] on a regular basis is nuts. Management should take the fall for that. We hear all the time that business won't hire because of fear that the recovery won't stick, but as a new paradigm? Crazy.
We are arguably in a recovery, even if you have to put your ear to the rail to notice.

 

[FUEGO]

I work in government now, so more than 40 hr weeks are rare.

But in a previous life working for a consulting engineering firm, in general the older workers never really worked out even though the CEO loved to hire them. The salaries were always a lot higher (often double that of a newly minted engineer with 0-4 years experience). The real problem was that they weren't that technically savvy. Frequently they didn't have the computer and software skills needed to succeed and work independently. This shortcoming was seen on the word/excel/outlook side of software - they couldn't complete simple reports and get them formatted professionally. And on the technical software side. Many older engineers never had learned CAD so were stuck manually reviewing plans and manually marking up and hand sketching (sooo 20th century!). And there were other kinds of analytical software we used that had new versions coming out every so often. The kids just coming out of college were up to date on the latest versions. The old guys never really learned the first version and had sort of muddled through with a real lack of knowledge and were far outclassed technically. Add to that the fact that industry standards and guidelines seem to morph or change on a roughly 10 year cycle, and again the old guys were still learning the new guidelines that came out 8 years ago while the new college grads had learned the current state of practice in depth from the start.

These knowledge shortcomings can be overcome, but at a steep cost, made steeper when you are paying the less skilled employee 2x that of a new college grad. The reason the corporate overlords paid more was to get their networking, marketing, leadership etc skills. Most older prospects never really panned out.

That is not to say the younger workers were diligent and eager to put in 60+ hour weeks. Most were very interested in limiting their employment to 40 hours and some had absolutely no problem walking out at 40.0 hours even if something pressing was due and they were necessary to complete the project. But no one ever worked more than 45.x hours on average, even during the boom times of 2007 (they used to distribute monthly lists of average hours worked for all employees so I know the numbers). Most averaged 40.x or 41.x hours and very few put in any substantial amounts of overtime (of course we were never compensated for overtime even though we know the hourly billable employee business model of charging by the hour).

Just my experience at a small engineering firm - I am sure it is not representative of the entire US economy at large.

 

[Rustward]

Not counting travel or commuting. If I counted travel I would have a several year string of 7 day work weeks.

I know a sales manager who claimed to work from 6AM to midnight. But a lot of that "w*rk" was relationship-building on the golf course, and at the tennis club and in restaurants and reading industry-specific periodicals. I don't doubt that he may have thought about "w*rK" that many hours a day but he uses a really loose definition of w*rk. To his credit he did have a $50 million quota and rarely fell short.

 

[ziggy29]

In the face of any commercial endeavor that has substitute labor inputs available, working your people for long periods of time [60-80hrs/wk] on a regular basis is nuts. Management should take the fall for that. We hear all the time that business won't hire because of fear that the recovery won't stick, but as a new paradigm? Crazy.

But when there are substitute labor inputs available and unemployment is stubbornly high, it's not hard to just hire someone else to do the 60-80 hour weeks until they crash and burn out like their predecessors did. And probably for lower pay and worse benefits than their predecessor got.

Businesses won't hire for a number of reasons, but the fact that they don't HAVE to in such a fear-motivated job market -- even when they have more work to do -- is certainly one of them. Why hire more people or give raises when you can simply tell them to shut up and be thankful they have a job at all?

That seems to be the new paradigm -- labor as disposable resources to chew up, burn out and discard.

 

[Gone4Good]

Normal work day for more senior people was 6:30 AM to ~7:00 PM. Travel and entertaining clients was additional. Weekend work was not uncommon. If things were exceptionally busy, all bets were off.

Junior people were expected to work longer.

 

[FUEGO]

Businesses won't hire for a number of reasons, but the fact that they don't HAVE to in such a fear-motivated job market -- even when they have more work to do -- is certainly one of them. Why hire more people or give raises when you can simply tell them to shut up and be thankful they have a job at all?

At my old firm the president would frequently tell us that. We all laughed on our way out the door to more lucrative job offers that would give us better industry experience and position us for even better work in the future. I guess you have to know your own value and know how marketable you are. Maybe that president was ok with having a third of his workforce walk off the job to better opportunities. Their profitability finally started recovering in 2011 so he may have been on to something with keeping salaries low and benefits crappy! Since I'm still a part owner of the firm and a non-employee I am quite ok with underpaying the employees and treating them like crap since it increases my stock value. I'm getting paid out over the next 5 years anyway so I don't care about the long term reputation or profitability.

 

[Finance Dave]

I agree with the questioning of 80-hour weeks. Another factor many omit is the personal time many of us take during the workday. For example, my air conditioner tune-up is next week. They gave me a 4-hour window from 2-6 pm. So I'll work from home. However, there will be an hour in that period where I'm letting them in the door, asking questions, signing the paperwork, and letting them out the door.

What about dentist and doctors appointments? Lunches that run a bit long? Picking up the dry cleaning? Talking to your CPA on the phone while at work? Calling the wife for 10 minutes once a week to discuss the fact that the carpet cleaners showed up and dropped something on the rug.

The list goes on and on. I have no issues taking some time from work during the work day...as I'm not measured by hours, but rather by the work I complete. For me, I'm physically "on the job" about 50-52 hours a week....but probably 6-7 hours a week is the above examples where I'm at personal appointments....so my workweek averages in the mid 40s.

I work for a global MegaCorp, so about twice a week I have conference calls at 9 pm with Singapore or China, or sometimes India. There are a lot of "give and take" situations like this...I work some at night, and take some time off during the day for personal appointments.

There have been short periods where I've worked 70+ hours during a week, usually around SEC reporting since I'm in Finance. But when I work until 10 pm on a Sunday night getting the SEC reports ready and submitted, then I sleep in on Monday morning and come in at noon.

At the end of the year, so long as I can look in the mirror and say I'm doing right by the company, I can sleep at night and feel good about my work.

 

[Finance Dave]

At my old firm the president would frequently tell us that. We all laughed on our way out the door to more lucrative job offers that would give us better industry experience and position us for even better work in the future. I guess you have to know your own value and know how marketable you are. Maybe that president was ok with having a third of his workforce walk off the job to better opportunities. Their profitability finally started recovering in 2011 so he may have been on to something with keeping salaries low and benefits crappy! Since I'm still a part owner of the firm and a non-employee I am quite ok with underpaying the employees and treating them like crap since it increases my stock value. I'm getting paid out over the next 5 years anyway so I don't care about the long term reputation or profitability.

Exactly. Although in poor job markets, you may not be able to find something else...companies know that if they treat you like that now, then in 2013 you might be gone if the job market improves. I don't think most companies are quite that nimble to change their approach that quickly. What they do now may come back to bite them.

 

[Sarah in SC]

I worked >60 hour weeks for well over a decade. If travel time were counted as work it would be much higher.

Yikes!
This is where I refer to the thread on taking a job for less pay on the forum.
There is no way, for any amount of money, I could manage that.
Please, enjoy your retirement. You deserve it!

I may be more on the Travis McGee plan myself, taking my retirement in snatches, at lower pay, but I seriously cannot fathom being at the office or traveling for work that much.

As to the thread subject, I think it is highly individual. I've seen older slackers and younger ones, but I gotta say that the 20-somethings that I know seem to have a far healthier attitude about work/life balance than the folks my age and older.

 

[ziggy29]

At my old firm the president would frequently tell us that. We all laughed on our way out the door to more lucrative job offers that would give us better industry experience and position us for even better work in the future.

It is certainly my hope that karma works out this way for employers who take that "live to work" attitude once the market improves.

 

[tmm99]

There were times I could work and did work many many hours and didn't think twice about it. Now, it is much much harder to work the same number of hours I could years ago. I would start breaking down physically and mentally, so I stop before it gets too far. I have to. I do want to keep this job until I retire (I am way over "early 40's".), but I just have to stop when things get too much.

 

[Finance Dave]

Exactly. Although in poor job markets, you may not be able to find something else...companies know that if they treat you like that now, then in 2013 you might be gone if the job market improves. I don't think most companies are quite that nimble to change their approach that quickly. What they do now may come back to bite them.

It is certainly my hope that karma works out this way for employers who take that "live to work" attitude once the market improves.

IMO it will!

 

[akck]

...But in a previous life working for a consulting engineering firm, in general the older workers never really worked out even though the CEO loved to hire them. The salaries were always a lot higher (often double that of a newly minted engineer with 0-4 years experience). The real problem was that they weren't that technically savvy. Frequently they didn't have the computer and software skills needed to succeed and work independently. This shortcoming was seen on the word/excel/outlook side of software - they couldn't complete simple reports and get them formatted professionally. And on the technical software side.

Hey! I learned how to properly format reports in Fortran!!! My first programming class was in high school. The teacher not only had us getting the program to work, but we had to format the output so it was properly spaced out across the computer paper. This served me well later as I've always kept formatting in mind for reports. So, not all of us older workers are challenged by these newer programs.

 

[ejman]

When I was working civil construction jobs overseas in the 70's and 80's the standard work schedule was 6 12's. Six days a week, 12 hours a day. I did this for close to a decade (That's what allowed me to FI/ER). After doing that, coming back to the the US and working regular jobs that only required 50-60 hours a week was a piece of cake. I guess it all depends on one's perspective. I rather suspect that one's work flexibility and willingness to learn is directly tied in to the wolf's relative location to one's door.

 

[NW-Bound]

Eh, you people who worked 60-hr week, at least you got something from it.

I spent a few years doing that, first moonlighting with a couple of start-ups, then quit my day job to join one. The first few years, we made enough money so I could get paid straight-time, and then at the end, I worked for free so we could pay rent, utilities, and salaries of lower employees.

Never, never again!

 

[Nords]

Then, just now finished watching a 60 Minutes piece on the Millenial Generation. It said that the younger folks in their 20s were self-absorbed, spoiled, and would not go the extra mile for their employers. It was like Midpack described below.
So, what's the truth? The TV piece above was old. Perhaps the Great Recession has changed them?

"What is happening to our young people? They disrespect their elders, they disobey their parents. They ignore the law. They riot in the streets inflamed with wild notions. Their morals are decaying. What is to become of them?" -- Plato, 4th Century BC

I hope the young folks learn from what happened to the old folks. When they tire of 60+ hour weeks and are burnt out, they will also be cast onto the scrap heap of expendable resources.

I don't see how a young folk would possibly see the relevance of an old folk to their current situation, let alone their future.

I'm skeptical of these 60-80 hour uncompensated work weeks. We have been hearing about them for at least 25 years. For much of the time it was bogus self promotion by us boomers about how hard we worked, now it is the demands of evil bosses. Yet every few years someone publishes a study that shows that workers vastly overestimate their hours of work. They may feel like they are slaving away 80 hours but most of them are not. For skilled workers it may be due to the 24x7 electronic tethering that allows us to pop back into work at any time of day and night. For non-skilled, I suspect the vast majority who work long hours get the overtime pay they are entitled to by law.

For DonHeff and the others expressing skepticism about the 60-hour workweeks: you're right. Some weeks we didn't even work 20 hours.

We spent the rest of the time in meetings, in mandatory training, on cleanup, on watch, on duty, on cleanup watch duty, in drills, in drill critiques, in counseling sessions (both upward & downward), on the road, at sea, on the phone, and occasionally on mandatory co-worker social events.

But I wouldn't call any of that actual "work"-- just doing a job. I'm pretty sure I was on the job because I wasn't allowed to take a break, let alone go home for the rest of the day.

 

[NW-Bound]

It is certainly not possible for me to do physical labor for 60 hours a week. But I did spend that much time in front of the CRT looking over the code for some bugs, and then at the electronics workbench probing around the circuit board, with a hot soldering iron at the ready.

No aching muscles, but the brain gets tired and drowsy. Still, I guess it is a lot better than digging trenches or tilling the soil for 60 hours a week. It pays better too.

 

[traineeinvestor]

As am I. Working 60 hours/week is hard and a huge strain on the body. Doing 80 hours/week for months/years at a time? Work 8-8 7 days/week? Never seen it unless a release is imminent.

It's pretty common in the larger law firms (and some other professions) to find people working 100+ hours a week from time to time but its not sustainable for very long (even if you switch the rest of your life off). There's no overtime, but the combination of incentive (bonus, salary increase, possible promotion and competitive working environment) and threat (job loss or income reduction) means that there is no shortage of people willing to put in those sorts of hours.

Needless to say, efficiency deteriorates pretty rapidly as the hours step up and mental and physical tiredness set in. I've also found that it gets harder as I age.

The working hours are one reason I am intending to FIRE in the near future.

For

 

[Buckeye]

When I was working civil construction jobs overseas in the 70's and 80's the standard work schedule was 6 12's. Six days a week, 12 hours a day. I did this for close to a decade (That's what allowed me to FI/ER). After doing that, coming back to the the US and working regular jobs that only required 50-60 hours a week was a piece of cake. I guess it all depends on one's perspective. I rather suspect that one's work flexibility and willingness to learn is directly tied in to the wolf's relative location to one's door.

Were you paid overtime or for just 40 hours, i.e. salary?