Would We Fire Older Workers If We Could?

Age discrimination is definitely rampant, especially in certain professions. I'm in recruiting, and see it on a daily basis. While some of the over 40-45-50 people DO sabotage their own efforts to get a job, many do not and once a hiring company discerns (either from dates on a resume, or from the gray hair seen if that person gets in the door for an interview) their age, they are unknowingly fighting an uphill battle to make a good impression, no matter what their qualifications or what they say or do.

Why is this?

One reason are the 'myths,' which seem to be accepted as fact by some people and some companies, surrounding aging. How many times have you heard, "you can't teach an old dog new tricks?" Also, our country has a advertising/media machine that is obsessed with youth, and since most of what one 'sees' and 'hears' is from them, we are bombarded with a message that youth is king and nothing (and no one) else matters.

I for one am aging - physically - and not ashamed of that. But my mind is as sharp as it was 25 years ago because I keep it in shape by exercising it and always learning new things.

I think the digital revolution is fantastic and I wholly embrace new media and digital technology. I am LinkedIn, I Twitter, blog, StumbleUpon and Digg, and enjoy MySpace and Facebook. In fact, I 'out-computer' my daughters age 21 and 23 and am constantly teaching them something new.

Age is attitude, and I know plenty of 'old' 30 year olds, and many 'young' 54 year olds like me!

Yes I agree there are people that are too old... but age is a state of mind and shouldn't be connected with ones chronological age.

Skills & knowledge need to be up-to-date. The problem is many employers don't want to pay for this education on any level. Instead they say their "older workers" haven't kept up or can't be creative so they get rid of them and hire young talent.

But then the young talent doesn't have the knowledge/experience that the "older" group developed over years.

Employers need to realize they need diversity in age. *The older workers can share their experience knowledge with the younger group while the younger group exposes the "elders" the latest and greatest trends & skills (if this group hasn't learned it already).

*This means that all generations need to respect each other and not think of one group as old/dated/uncreative or young/inexperienced/clueless.

So the cumulative life experiences of a so called "oldster" are disposable without repercussions. Well, admittedly there are those who are disposable regardless of age. However, one of the most rare of commodities -- common sense -- is developed "usually" through the accumulation of knowledge. That my friends only comes in time. It may be unfair, but usually those with an abundance of "common sense" reside on the high end of the age scale. Folks, common sense is a commodity none of us can afford to discard.

You can bet the farm on the fact that Age Discrimination is alive and rampant in our society. I get quite a giggle out of hearing how those in articles like this are so agast at such practices. Bull. I hate to break the news to you, but age discrimination is practiced by the far majority of companies in the US today. But instead of whining about it, I suggest that those of you over 50 start doing what some of us now do:
1) For every job you apply for, save a copy of the job posting. It's easy. In your browser, just save the webpage. Do it in it's own little folder for that employer. This way you have a record of the criteria the employer stated was the basis for the position. If they deviate in the hiring process, they are going to have a problem.
2) If you get an interview, take a micro recorder. They're digital now, cheap, and don't need tapes. They'll record hours worth of conversations, and they're so small they easily fit right in your shirt pocket or in the flap of a leather writing attache.
3) Listen and note any comments the interviewers make about generational differences, age, length of your career, anything that infers age.
4) Get familiar with the law, http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/adea.html. Read it, understand it. Read the latest Supreme Court decision: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=06-1505.
5) If you believe you have been discriminated against by age, especially in being granted an interview, call your state equal rights department and ask them to send you a claim form.
One thing about Baby Boomers, we're not known for being very passive. Our history has been one of standing up for ourselves. We tend to not tolerate illegal social customs or those who practice them. GenX thinks we're just going to grumble a little and move along. Well guess what, it's not in our customs.
I for one am tired of the weak excuses and biased methods. It would be different if they were smart about it, but they aren't. So many times they don't even know they are breaking the law, and some don't care; at least until they get the letter for a hearing.
So, go ahead hiring managers, keep up the discrimination. "We're watching....."

So the thinking is that anyone over 40 is incapable of creative thought, new ideas, etc.? Pardon me, but what about scientists, statesmen, artists, and others who produce some of their greatest work after a lifetime of working in a particular field? I realize that there are few Einsteins, Churchills, etc., but all of have abilities that go on into our older years. I feel this is just bogus thinking by younger folks who want an excuse to push their elders out and take their jobs.

I believe most people confuse fashion with innovation. Fashion is very youth oriented, probably partly because young people have a need to create their own identity which includes creating their own fashion. By confusing fashion with innovation, many people have a bias that young people are better at innovation, and media stories reinforce that belief. In the past decade, someone decoded the human genome decades before it was thought possible, and someone created Facebook. How many people know the names of the people who decoded the genome and how many people know the story behind Facebook? Which one do you think gets used more often as an example of innovation?

This must be a joke. The preoccupation with corporate tech culture is hurting workers, seekers, and returning employees. The purpose of software, for example, is to share a common language with others in and out of the organization. Modules of SAP, for example, take two weeks to learn, yet many are excluded from consideration since they do not use that company's software du jour. Having taken some MBA courses, I am amazed at the number of graduates who do not even know the meaning or purpose of a bill of lading. (They could probably learn it if they did not "already know everything".) You cannot say that you have a diverse organization if you exclude people who are not your age, your fellow alumni, or any of a number of "briliant" ideas. I will say that many stodgy organizations of any age tend to cull people on some notion of "team" that has nothing to do with team - it is just the primitive fear of hearing what you want to hear, see what you want to see, etc. People of all ages can be valuable, productive, and think creatively if given the opportunity to do so. (In some ways, MBA = conformity.)

I think most companies are really missing the boat by not hiring older, wiser, experienced people. Business fundamentals and dealing with customers haven't changed very much over the years.
I am in the process of starting a small company. I can tell you I am looking for a mix of a few young and old. But I am starting with older and experienced that have gone through downsizings. They have a passion for work and continued success that is unequaled.

I've already been pushed out of 2 jobs because of my age. I'm a good front end developer with 10 years experience and I have to compete with fresh kids and people who think creative can do the same job. I'm near 50 now (I was a mechanical Engineer previously) but I tell everyone I'm 35. The problem is that now 35 is considered too old.

Companies don't want to pay benefits or give vacation or deal with employees who are not at their beck and call 24/7 or are to seasoned to let them get away with it.

So yeah, I'm sure that we'd all be out on our arse if the 30 something suits had their way.

I have had a far better experience with older employees. They're not as tech savvy but once they learn, they give it their all. My only complaint is that I can't prepare them to advance with the company as they are not interested in long term commitment. I get an average of 3-5 years from these employees. Their work ethics makes up for the time spent teaching them to do the work. And supervisors don't have to control texting/chatting during work hours. Sad but true.

Of course, I'm referring to administrative/clerical level workers.

The idea that older employees are lacking in cutting edge thinking is a big fallacy. Having lasted through more than one economic downturn and witnessing companies tell employees to do more with less, I and many others learned very quickly how to make something work with what tools were available and our previous experience. My job depended on it. I have seen far more mature individuals think problems through and come up with workable solutions than I could count. The store of knowledge and experience is a tremendous asset to a company, yet so many are blind to it. When companies lose these "assets", they lose far more than they make up by slashing personnel expenses. As was noted in Dan's comment, companies have gone under when the knowledge base when away. In addition, mature employees understand the importance of the human element. I have had to deal with numerous customers who have reached the breaking point when they have been unable to talk with a real person and get the help they needed. Having shiny, new servers, laptops and Blackberrys will not make a company profitable. These are just tools. Companies need a diverse staff, each bringing their unique skills, knowledge and experience to utilize these tools. "Removing" older workers under the false assumptions that they either can't keep up with new technology or cost the company too much in salary and benefits is the equivalent of ignoring a "quick sand" warning. Do so at your own peril.

New ideas and older talent pools should coexist. James Surowiecki's book, "The Wisdom of Crowds", describes how groups will often reach better decisions than the brightest individual. One of the key elements to good group decisions is having different viewpoints represented within the group. It's good to have people who ask "Why don't we do x?" and it's good to have people who know what happened the last time we tried doing x or something similar.

The workforce churn in terms of cost & technology transfer (hire a newly graduated person with a masters in chemistry to take the place of a senior scientist because they are cheaper) has been happening for a long time now. It happens in many professions and industries.

I have been in the metro Boston market for over 20 plus years. This area has the highest concentration of universities and secondary educational schools in the entire world. (someone I am sure would dispute me..just bear with me)--It was happening here when I first moved here and goes on today. Part of me wonders if the wound is fresh because more people are experiencing it because the baby boomer generation is a large demographic. I do think this trend has spread to the rest of the country. I have just had to learn how to overcome this in terms of my job search and my life at different times.

Finally, we do hire older workers at my company for professional positions (I hired two software sales people, 62 and 64, an implementation consultant 50, a documentation manager 55). We are a small, profitable, privately owned company. We hire young people as well. Its a matter of do you want to do the job I have for you to do, do you have the skills to do it, and are you a positive person who can take direction from anyone, whether its an intern or the CEO.

In the late 80's, just a few years after I had started my own IT Consulting agency in Connecticut, my office was next door to a law firm. This law firm happened to be handling a major age discrimination case against a global Fortune 100 company. I had a lot of walk-in candidates. All senior IT development workers, all over fifty years old. Not surprisingly, the Fortune 100 company lost and paid out many, many millions of dollars in the end.

Would We Fire Older Workers If We Could? If not for lawsuits such as that mentioned above, "you bet your sweet Bippy we would" (those post-boomers reading this will just have to Google the phrase - better yet, use Cuil.com). Without the fear of litigation, many CEO's and VP's would still be engaged in openly replacing older workers with younger. But not to bring in "fresh thinking and new ideas". To those at the C-level, it's all about replacing a 100K/year employee with four weeks of paid vacation with a 50k/year employee with lesser benefits. It's the CEO's job to generate profits, and cutting costs accomplishes that.

I'm in the middle of my own job search now. Is my 24 years of experience a liability? (No advice please, that's a rhetorical question). I do know that in all my years as a staffing consultant in HR at major corporations, my ability to find high-quality candidates and close openings quickly has been appreciated. But somehow nobody has asked me or my fellow team members for any outside-the-box ideas.

Sure, if you're helping design the GUI for a social networking web site, being genuinely immersed in the youth culture is kind of part of the job description. But really, what percentage of our workforce is in that position? It's still all about the bottom line. Just ask any oil company exec.

There are some forward thinking firms out there that truly value diversity. I completed an MBA at age 52; left a secure (but suffocating) position, after 20 years, at age 55. Was recruited by a major consulting firm. At age 57, I am energized by the many young and older people this firm has hired. We all treat each other with respect and as equals; I travel constantly and love it. I might mention this firm is doing extremely well in every way. These stories should also be told.

People are like cars--if you stop driving your car and let it sit in the garage, the tires get flat and the engine doesn't work as well. If people are forced to retire and aren't given an opportunity to work or do anything meaningful, they age more quickly no matter what their age.

I have interviewed many individuals at many different ages and age is not one of the factors that I consider. I do consider if an individual has the knowledge, skills, and ability to do the job well. In fact, I recently called a fellow in his 70's as he had a niche skill; he was the one who decided he wasn't ready to come out of retirement.

Overall, I think in considering age, if one ever does, one should think about it in the context of diversity and how a good mixture always works out better.

Youth make decisions on a whim without thinking through all the consequences, matured & seasoned employees make decisions through eyes of wisdom considering all possible consequences. Which employees are the best workers? I guess it all depends on how an owner wants his/her company ran (responsible employees will not break the camels back)!

Hi Sally in Chicago--I did a couple of Mad Men related posts. Glad I'm not the only one who noticed. Here they are:
http://www.businessweek.com/business_at_work/generation_gap/archives/2008/07/generational_te.html

http://www.businessweek.com/business_at_work/generation_gap/archives/2008/07/mad_menand_wome.html

Mad Men just did an episode on that very subject. See it at hulu.com.

Let me present a different twist on the topic. I was at a local HR meeting recently where one of the presenters discussed an event similar to this. A company decided that in order to save some money it was going to offer early retirement to anyone over age 50 or who had 25 years or more experience. Every single affected employee took the offer. With the loss of the knowledge base the company was out of business in 3 months. Is that what we want for our future business enterprises?

As the President of a company with 145 employees, I find that people are either smart or not smart depending upon their natural intellect coupled with their life experience, not on their age. I've met several MBAs (under the age of 40) who were "book smart" but had no "street smarts," and several high school graduates (over the age of 40) who could run intellectual (and behavioral) rings around those MBAs. And, of course, vice versa.