Aegism - is it time to give old age a chance in the workplace?

[jmw]

In times of recession Management most usually respond by culling the workforce and they do so in a way that often amplifies their normal attitudes to certain employee characteristics.

For example, age.

However, there have been a number of occasions or crises points where it has been the older employees "who have seen itall before" who appeared batter able to handle both the problem solving and the stress.

But am I wrong in thinking that most employers see old age as a defect rather than a benefit?

If so, then how welcome to see the Hudson Pilot (

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ash-pilot-returns-home-to-heros-welcome.html)

is a wrinkly.

I am quite sure many passengers, under normal circumstances, would express an opinion that older pilots are more worrying than younger and mutter something about reflexes.
There is, of course, a saying:
"There are old pilots and there are old pilots but there are no old bold pilots." so an aged pilot ought to be seen as pretty safe and, probably because I am no spring chicken myself, I tend to favour aged wisdom over gung-ho reckless and self-confident youth.

So, how do we stand on age?
Is there justification for regarding older employees as a liability?
In this recession, is your age a factor that makes you concerned for your job security?
How many of you regard retirement age with mixed feelings?
Is engineering a better place for old age than elsewhere - that is, is age differently significant in engineering than in other occupations?

Is our view of old age for the average person unduly coloured by our perceptions of exceptions? For example, most maths genius is evident in the early 20s, it is said. Most sportsmen are at their peak in their youth. But is this a fair way to interpret age as a factor for the bulk of the population?

Is engineering different and if so, how?



JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[Qshake]

I have no bias against old or experienced employees, however I do have a bias against complacent employees and that seems to run along the lines of experience. That is, it is less common for younger staff to be complacent and more common for older staff. That said, I'm not suggesting it is a black and white issue at all.

On the matter of recession and management decisions, I do have this to say...in periods of good times it is difficult for management or staff to grasp the basic management tenents that transcend one period to another. I speak of succession in the work force. When things get tough it is suddenly on everyone's mind: How will we perservere ahead, who will be our leaders? So this is a time when staff is evaluated for their future contributions and that, unfortunately as it may be, is inherently against the staff who has 35 years of experience and yet is a marginal contributer over the last 5 or so years. It is also firmly against the new employee who has shown a slightly steeper learning curve and has yet to contribute. So in this time both extremes are equally on the cutting block.

Not my philosohy or strategy but my experience over the years....which, of course, makes me a target in management terms unless I conintue to contribute meaningfully.

Regards,
Qshake

Eng-Tips Forums:Real Solutions for Real Problems Really Quick.

 

[TheTick]

Perhaps its an "old bull/young bull" thing. Old bull says, "We'll walk down..."

re: Aegism: I've not seen any prevailing prejudice against Greek engineers.

 

[ajack1]

I don’t think I have ever seen blatant cases of ageism anywhere I have worked with regard to redundancy; recruitment does seem against the older person.

When it comes to lay-offs it is perhaps a chance for companies to get the balance right again. Using your analogy of sport most successful teams have a good mix of youth with a sprinkling of old heads in key positions, I do not see engineering as being different.

I am sure we have all seen companies where they only keep on the old guys and they don’t move forward a sort of it has always been done that way and we wont change now attitude or it is full of “young stages” constantly locking horns full of good ideas but with no real experience or guidance. Neither tends to do very well.

I guess this is where good managers get it right and only keep people that are key to the success of the company both now and in the future, not just get rid of people because they are too old or young. The problem is we all see ourselves as the best thing since sliced bread, so it is easier to blame the fact that it was because we were too old or young rather than others are better than us.

 

[SomptingGuy]

The company I work for is probably similar to many. When the redundancy bell rings (which it does cyclically), employees above a certain age (I forget what it is, but it's not that old) are offered early retirement. In the years I've worked for this company, all early retirees were in the final salary scheme, effectively scoring a financial bullseye. Many are working in their old jobs, part time, just for the fun of it.

My company does not dismiss old people for being old, the oldies just get more choices.




- Steve

 

[ScottyUK]

"I am sure we have all seen companies where they only keep on the old guys and they don't move forward..."

Companies? It describes the UK's entire power generation industry.

There is a whole generation which is almost completely missing from the industry, a result of the denationalisation in the late 1980s followed by the de-manning and minimal recruitment over the following ten years. The guys who are retiring around now are taking a wealth of information with them because there is no one to pass it on to. The companies are slowly waking up to the problem, but too late to repair the damage: there are some bright new graduates with massive potential but little or no experience, but there is a critical shortage of mid-career engineers of roughly my age who should be picking up the reins as the older engineers retire. Things will get much worse in the next few years: I hope Thatcher lives to see the total disaster her short-sighted policies have created. No, sod that, I don't hope that at all: the sooner she embarks on her first-class ride into hell the better.

Most companies in my industry really do value the older guys for the reasons outlined above, to the extent of letting them work on well past retirement age or hiring them back in as consultants when they do retire. It's almost like ageism in reverse!


----------------------------------

If we learn from our mistakes I'm getting a great education!

 

[jmw]

The Tick:
I guess Aegism is the god-like attitude of neglecting to spell check and nothing at all to do with ageism.
Thanks all for being so nice about it.

JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[msquared48]

I am finding, that at 60 years old, having been in business for myself for 22 years, no one wants to commit to hiring me as a permanent employee for only five years. This sucks.

Mike McCann
MMC Engineering

 

[lansford]

It seems the US government hires a lot of older workers and it may be ideal for the 60 year old consultant feeling the recession downturn, so that at least his medical benefits are paid.
JIM

 

[moltenmetal]

Nobody should be thrown on the scrap heap before their time, but young people need room for advancement too. It's inherently a balancing act.

There are some gray-haired types who are superstars right up to retirement- and still sharp well into their eighties. But there are some who are fat and complacent already in their 50s. There needs to be a mechanism to get these folks to move on. The voluntary retirement redundancy system does work pretty well when it's used.

I've seen quite a few of the high performers who took early retirement back in their jobs, "double dipping" as consultants while collecting a full pension. Good for them- while it lasts.

We should hold to the mandatory retirement system though too. We can consider increasing the age due to the increased life expectancy, but we shouldn't eliminate the concept entirely. There's pressure already to repeal mandatory retirement rules, and we can expect yet more such pressure as the baby boom generation creeps closer to retirement age.

 

[ScottyUK]

Why should mandatory retirement remain? If someone wants to work and there is a demand for their skills then both parties involved in the arrangement are satisfied. Is there a problem with that? The demand for their skills isn't going to go away any time soon, not in my industry at least. Maybe other industries are in a different situation.


----------------------------------

If we learn from our mistakes I'm getting a great education!

 

[SomptingGuy]

I thought retirement was something that was earned rather than imposed.

Similarly, the phrases "old age pensioner" and "senior citizen" mean the same thing (in the UK at least), but don't convey the same sentiments.

What shouldn't great minds continue to do great thinking?

- Steve

 

[KENAT]

Mandatory Retirement never sounded good to me, like Scotty said, if you're Old & Good why shouldn't you keep working.

I have seen Ageism in the workplace, and in the 2 most obvious cases it was ridiculous. The people involved were amongst the most productive & usefull in the place but because the perception was 'they'll be retiring soon' one couldn't get taken on direct (until a change in management happened) and the other got canned at the first opportunity.

Although, it should be said there were other, equally illogical, factors against them. For one reason or another management had taken a dislike to them in addition to the age thing.

In the product documentation world I'd say the older guys have a lot more to offer than most of the youngsters, though this is in part for similar reasons to those Scotty Gives.

KENAT,

Have you reminded yourself of faq731-376 recently, or taken a look at posting policies:

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[HgTX]

A lot of the time, the older people have been there longer and make the most money, so from a pure bean-counting standpoint, they're the most tempting target for cuts.

And as msquared48 points out, employers don't want to hire someone who may have only 5 years ahead of them instead of 20. Never mind that *anyone* they employ may job-hop after 3 years, or that they may be laying everyone off again in 3 years, they want LONG-TERM COMMITMENT from whoever they hire, and won't take the person's word for it that they'll stick around.

Hg

Eng-Tips policies: faq731-376

 

[ewh]

As Hg points out, bean counters are often the driving force behind staff reductions. In addition to making more money, older workers tend to be a drain on health insurance.

"The ambassador and the general were briefing me on the - the vast majority of Iraqis want to live in a peaceful, free world. And we will find these people and we will bring them to justice." - [small]George Bush, Washington DC, 27 October, 2003[/small]

 

[spongebob007]

To a bean counter, an engineer is an engineer. There is no difference between someone with two years of experience or twenty years of experience. It doesn't matter if you are from the U.S., the U.K, China or India. In the end, the job goes to the lowest bidder.

 

[moltenmetal]

I agree that mandatory retirement seems unfair at first blush, and I agree that 70 is probably the new 65. But if you don't have mandatory retirement, you need a system whereby the employer can decide when a person who doesn't WANT to retire, has to go. And that system has to be set up in such a way that it doesn't automatically lead to a wrongful dismissal suit each time.

Not everyone wants to go, even when it's well PAST their time in some cases.

The difference between voluntary retirement and termination with severance at the end of a career is the issue.

Unless that issue is dealt with for employers, who in their right mind would want to hire anyone beyond 60 or even 55 on staff? Unless employers have a safe exit strategy, you'll see people "grayed" out of their jobs whenever the chance presents itself. This will happen at even more frequency than you see it now- and it's already an appallingly frequent occurrence from what I can see.

The other alternative is to have each employee who wants to stay on past their prime to have their last few years of employment carried out under very serious scrutiny, ultimately ending in disgraceful termination WITH cause to avoid paying severance. Employers keeping a black book on every oldie in the group so they can justify not paying them severance when the time ultimately comes. For a person with many years of service, severance is a very serious amount of money- money that could and should be used to pay the salaries of younger staff who are left behind to do the work.

Voluntary retirement doesn't work for everyone. There are people who don't have a life outside work who will NEVER leave voluntarily.

 

[KENAT]

Molten, you bring up some good points but it still sounds like discrimination to me and I thought discrimination was bad. There have been other cases where discrimination that actually had some logic behind it was still ruled illegal etc so I don't see how the age discrimination can be justified on those grounds.

That said, there was a similar situation at my wifes employer. They had a lady well into her 70's, who struggled to do her job but wouldn't retire. She'd been offered retirement of one form or another several times but didnt' take it, the job was her social life. They eventually eliminated the position, or she'd probably still be there.

It is certainly harsh to work someone till they're not any anymore but isn't it also harsh to effectively fire someone for reaching some arbitrary mile-stone of years lived?

KENAT,

Have you reminded yourself of faq731-376 recently, or taken a look at posting policies:

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[moltenmetal]

An arbitrary age limit for retirement IS cold and harsh.

But so is metaphorically hauling an employee out into the back pasture to shoot them. Especially one who has a lot of their personal dignity tied up in what they do for a living.

So too is paying someone severance when they should have had the good sense to retire years prior. It's providing a direct financial reward for hanging in there well past your prime- not something I think most firms want to encourage.

A legally mandated arbitrary cut-off for continued permanent employment based on calendar age might actually be less harsh. That's why they were put in place originally- that, and to provide opportunities for advancement for younger generations. There's nothing stopping the firms from bringing back the grizzled vetrans on a consulting basis.

We all have to go at some point. The trouble is, some folks will never admit it, much less will they act on that admission via a voluntary resignation.

Hiring and firing is a fundamentally discriminatory process, ie a process where you discriminate between those you keep and those you throw back (or out). The trick is not to discriminate on the basis of things which have no bearing on job performance. Age represents a serious problem in that regard. While it may appear utterly arbitrary, what's probably at issue first with an ageing employee is productivity per unit salary, long before it becomes an issue of basic competence. That's what the bean counters are heading off at the pass at every lay-off opportunity- and that's hardly fair either is it?!

 

[msquared48]

Isn't it ironic that the people deciding to let the over 55 or 60 employees go, will someday be there themselves.

I believe that one should not do to someone else that which he does not want done to himself.

More simplistically, what goes around, comes around.

But then, who said this system of things is perfect. To expect perfection is not human. So we can all expect this inequity to persist ad infinitum.

Mike McCann
MMC Engineering