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

 

[ExRanger]

I don't see any discrimination against older engineers where I work. Quite the contrary in fact. The older engineers control just about everything that happens, and at the same time seem to constantly express concerns like the OP.

Some people seem to get married to certain way of doing things and are thus very reluctant to budge. That probably gets worse with age, but younger people can be that way also. If it becomes too pronounced among the older workers, then it is one problem I can see with keeping the older generation in charge for too long. The company can fall behind if the technology is evolving. I hear old engineers often say that there are "no new ideas in engineering" or that "engineering doesn't really change".
Maybe what they really mean is "just give up trying to think of anything and trust what we say so we can look good".

Well - at some point in time, every idea was a new idea.

Tangentially, I think that old and young people have a large difference in attitude towards working for a given company. Many of the older engineers somehow feel that you owe your life to the first company you join and should be happy to take whatever they deign to give you. Maybe this is a holdover from feudalism, somehow engrained into people's genetic structure after generations of serfdom. I don't know. Younger workers can be just as bad on the other side - expecting the company to set up all kinds of social events and special arrangements for them.

My personal feeling is that you just can't expect all people to see the world the same way you do and to share all your values. Other people are busy pursuing their own diverse interests, a company has its own interests, and you have yours. They won't all come into perfect alignment except maybe during a national emergency.

 

[jmw]

Of course, a great deal has to do with the management. I don't mean this in a derogatory sense (no more than usual, that is).

The first company I joined had a large proportion of "man an' boy" types very set in their ways and with the "if it were good enough for me da then its good enough for me" attitude.
I think this was the transition period. Freedom to travel came much later to the UK than the USA as car ownership only slowly trickled down to the post war masses. Until then most travelled by bus, train or bicycle. Hence, I suggest, part of the reason for the long term employees.

The engineering department was very small and most of the guys hadn't had an original thought in decades (except for the chief engineer who had original thoughts (for him) about the receptionist.

What had management to do with anything? Well, they didn't want to invest money. Not in anything.
When management get like this they set in train a range of Darwinian forces; the one they actually know about and exploit a lot is the one to reduce the workforce to minimum size; they call it natural wastage. This means that you actually tend to concentrate all the slow thinkers into your workforce because all those with ambition and ability and a need for a decent salary find a natural instinct drives them to get jobs elsewhere.

But, if we have ongoing investment in new products and things happen then the engineering team has to be bigger and has to be brighter. They are dealing with new products and new problems all the time. Now the forces at play are different and innovation pays off. With ongoing investment experience counts. With new investment, the tendency is to build up departments with lots of young engineers (this is happening in a new company I am consulting with at the moment).

Of course, we can approach this as if there is a logical thinking process behind recruitment and retention policies. I think too often that management policy is informed not by logic or reason but by cliche and hence it isn't the long winded story about the old bull and the new bull that influences but pithy statements like "You can't teach an old dog new tricks."
Short and sharp no one ever questions the truth of such sayings.
Maybe we need to come up with something similar that says old is best?



JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[Mr168]

Discrimination against older employees? Hell, I'm 32 years younger than any of my coworkers, and can only name a single field engineer in my discipline under 40.

I'm not sure how things fare over on the design side, but in the field, there is a massive generation gap that several of the larger EPC companies haven't even attempted to fill. Much of this can be attributed to the fact that younger generations have a significantly diminished involvement in the trades. Because the site/project managers are so frugal with who they bring on board, they don't want to put forth the time and money to train college kids with no field experience. In the next 3-5 years, the poop is really going to hit the fan as a result of this reluctance.

 

[moltenmetal]

Succession planning in this profession is pretty much non-existent.

Businesses didn't hire fresh grads 10-15 years ago, and then bitch and whine about a shortage of candidates with 10-15 years experience the minute the market improves even a bit...

Twenty years of recessions taught them that it was no longer necessary to hire young, train and retain. And they learned.

Getting rid of mandatory retirement is just enabling them in this unwise behavior by providing them a means to avoid hiring even in GOOD economic times, when they SHOULD be hiring young folks and fresh immigrants too.

That's all a moot point now that there's another recession on- and this one looks like it's going to be a doozie. Businesses will once again slip into old patterns, having experienced candidates lining up for every advertised position. People at either extreme of age or experience level will find themselves squeezed out of the job market- again.

 

[jmw]

I guess some of those "old patterns" are genetic, it can't be learned behaviour because the truth would seem to be that most end up doing all the same things time and again and never learning the strategies used by some companies not only to survive in a recession but to come out of it fighting fit.

Sure, we can see all the usual behaviour, cutting back on overheads, one employee doing three peoples jobs for the same money he/she got before delayed or cancelled pay rises; cut back on advertising and R&D, a focus on selling existing products; in other words, "end-of-the-month" survival mode with all "extraneous" and future based activity cutback.
Did I forget something? oh yes, all those extra meetings so you can't of your work because you're in boring meetings discussing how you will get by, all those extra reports with extra details so management can look busy and determined.

The point is, how do older folk normally fare in such times and how could it be different? do Older folk have a more vital role to play in these times or less?

Some of the points about recruiting graduates etc are very pertinent because they are forward based decisions. I would guess that in a recession is the best time to recruit, at bargain basement prices, experienced employees, no training required and nothing beyond managing production that requires too much innovation anyway since everything is geared to established product rather than new. Of course, when times get better (funny how companies never like to admit to their employees that times are better, it encourages them to want more money) what happens then?

But is this the case? is this a pattern we might expect or is there another pattern to be seen?


JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[jmw]

Obviously a topical question; today Channel 4 showed "Too Old to Work" which compared the conceptions in the work place with the evidence from research.

Down: watching a Recruitment agent who appeared to be 19 explaining how he puts himself in his clients place and says they don't want old folks.

Up: Young people use one hemisphere of the brain, old people use both hemispheres!

So, have a look here:

http://www.channel4.com/documentaries/microsites/D/dispatches/too_old_to_work/index.html

and for the USA perspective:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B06EFDE1F3DF931A35750C0A9659C8B63

JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[csd72]

I think that our industry has undervalued experience for far too long.

Experienced eyes are essential to pick up mistakes.

 

[apsix]

If it's not time now I certainly hope it's time 15 years hence (for my own sake).

 

[corus]

jmw, the other surprising benefit shown by that tv program was that older people are less likely to have time off for sickness than younger people. Of course older people wouldn't spend the day chatting on their bloody mobiles all day, or txtin all thr m8s. They're just no fun, face it.

corus

 

[jmw]

The really interesting part was that so many perceptions are so wrong.
The opening statistics were not so surprising, the significant differences between the number of young people becoming unemployed compared to old people was the one we expected; the old are the natural targets.
But after that it was indeed not just that old people took less sick days than young people but that the accepted view was the opposite.
I think that is half of the problem. Too many "can't teach an old dog new tricks" types of unchallenged and false beliefs makes old people natural and apparently justifiable targets.


JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[ornerynorsk]

Rule #1 - Life isn't fair. Which puts us all to the task of keeping our eyes and ears open as to what might be aimed at us, without spending undue time and effort in it that would detract from passing on our wisdom to the next generation. There are those that will bleed us dry, or attempt to, and then discard us at the first chance, but as they say, what goes around comes around. Se la vie, se la guerre.

 

[casseopeia]

My French is a bit rusty (and more Cajun than Parisian), but I think that should be C'est la vie, c'est guerre.

"If you are going to walk on thin ice, you might as well dance!"

 

[ornerynorsk]

Oui, you are correct. Mine is evidently rustier than yours. Thanks Cass!

 

[KENAT]

What's the train station got to do with this?

KENAT,

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

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

What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484

 

[LobstaEata]

A few things to consider on both sides of the young vs not-as-young discussion:

1. The seasoned engineer:
a. Indirect costs (primarily health insurance) is a driver for small companies. Not so much for the medium to large firms.
b. Are higher direct costs offset by technical skills, opening of new market opportunities, prospect of new clients from candidate contacts and efficiencies from self starting of seasoned candidate.
c. Has candidate kept up computer skills.
d. How does basic personality type fit into the current team mix. (Seasoned candidates tend resist modifications of behavior and attitudes toward younger peers.)
e. Is candidate willing to mentor younger peers.

2. The less experienced engineer:
a. Will candidate remain stable for at least 3 years
b. How much emotional support will candidate require. (how many trophies do they need to remain happy)
c. Does basic personality type fit in the current team. (Younger candidates tend to have something to prove - sometimes a good thing sometimes not)
d. What level of technical skill has the candidate actually acquired, compared to what is claimed they can do.
e. Is the candidate a critical thinker or do they blindly accept accept direction.

 

[TheTick]

I saw these guys mentioned in a WSJ article about senior professionals. Looks interesting, a contract firm specializing in older workers. I plan to contact them soon, at least to establish dialog. I'll probably need them soon enough.

http://www.patinasolutions.com/

 

[p14175]

I changed careers in my mid-40s, just a few years ago, so I don't have a lot of experience yet. I go to interviews and the first thing the interviewer sees is a short round woman with gray hair. It's obvious they were expecting someone a lot younger.

Large companies don't have a problem with that, but small companies are more inclined to come out and say they are looking for 'young guys' rather than hiring a middle-aged female. Sometimes I wonder if interviewing me fulfills some kind of EEOC diversity reg for the company.

 

[WHEngineer]

There may also be differences depending on whether you are in industry or private consulting. After shutting down my consulting business of 12 years and re-entering the job market, I found that employers were very receptive to a 50 year old PE. In the consulting market, you generally bring a client base as well as those "gray whiskers" which tend to garner a little respect out on consulting jobs. Most firms that I have worked for have tried to maintain a blending of age ranges where the older (senior) personnel maintain contacts, provide experience, and mentor the younger engineers. The younger engineers tend to do much of the grunt work and help implement many of the new technologies while gaining experience. That being said, in consulting, there is little use for slackers, regardless of age. Productivity and profitability are the driving forces.

 

[jmw]

Apparently not (thread title):

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...rkers-hit-hardest-by-unemployment-crisis.html

JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[jmw]

I just wanted to add that if my pension is anything to go by, all those early years of employment and putting aside pension contributions seem to count for little compared to the money put in the the later years when allowing for both increased earning power and inflation.

I mean, all those early years at $/£200 a month to the later years at $/£2000 a month.... and just how important are the contributions during the very last years of working life?

I'd be interested to see if any studies have been done that determine the relative importance of later contributions to earlier. It would seem to me that the old are far more vulnerable than the young in this respect.

JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com