Job security/protection for older workers?

[ray245]

In my experience, whenever I find that a company is laying off people, the people who tends to get laid off is the older workers. Companies at times, seems to favour younger workers in a recession as compared to older worker.

The problem is, it is much easier for the younger workers to actually find a new job as compared to older workers. Most older workers have family to take care of as well.

So I was wondering, will it be a good idea to have a job security or job protection program aimed towards the older workers? Say 40 years old and above?

[Solauren]

Younger workers work cheaper.

You'll never change that.

That's why the older ones get tossed out first. They tend to be making more money.

As for job protection laws, what's to prevent someone from canning people when they reach 39 to avoid the law?

[Phantasee]

Younger workers work cheaper.

You'll never change that.

That's why the older ones get tossed out first. They tend to be making more money.

As for job protection laws, what's to prevent someone from canning people when they reach 39 to avoid the law?

I'd expect companies to start getting rid of people at 39 if there was such a law.

[Darth Wong]

The real problem is that workers with seniority often think they are entitled to higher salary even if their resume is no thicker than it was when they were 20 years old. Given that condition, why would any sane company not want to dump older employees first?

A 50 year old employee who has a fairly good-looking resume and varied experience can probably find another job, but it's the 50 year old janitor at a factory with union-mandated high seniority pay who really needs to keep his job, because nobody else would pay him such inflated wage for such a mindless job.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

The real problem is that workers with seniority often think they are entitled to higher salary even if their resume is no thicker than it was when they were 20 years old. Given that condition, why would any sane company not want to dump older employees first?

Then.. won't it be better to just do away with seniority pay? I know there are companies who have done that.

[Darth Wong]

The real problem is that workers with seniority often think they are entitled to higher salary even if their resume is no thicker than it was when they were 20 years old. Given that condition, why would any sane company not want to dump older employees first?

Then.. won't it be better to just do away with seniority pay? I know there are companies who have done that.

And I'd imagine that those particular companies would be less likely to dump older employees first. However, they would be in a minority; most employees expect seniority pay. Unionized employees even make it mandatory in their CBAs.

[ray245]

The real problem is that workers with seniority often think they are entitled to higher salary even if their resume is no thicker than it was when they were 20 years old. Given that condition, why would any sane company not want to dump older employees first?

A 50 year old employee who has a fairly good-looking resume and varied experience can probably find another job, but it's the 50 year old janitor at a factory with union-mandated high seniority pay who really needs to keep his job, because nobody else would pay him such inflated wage for such a mindless job.

One can cut his pay, but I don't think companies should dismiss older workers. If possible, dismiss the younger workers and proceed to lower the pay of the older workers.

One reason I propose such a 'law' is due to the fact that older workers usually have a family to support. They have kids to support, medical bills may increase due to a higher chance of getting more illness and the need to pay for their kids' education, higher education in college or university.

While such an idea might not work in some nations, such as the US, where more kids are expected to pay for their higher education as compared to Asian nations, I was wondering is these ideas can work in other nations?

[Darth Wong]

One can cut his pay, but I don't think companies should dismiss older workers. If possible, dismiss the younger workers and proceed to lower the pay of the older workers.

Almost nobody ever gets a salary cut. Generally speaking, the employer knows that a sharp pay cut will only result in a severely disgruntled employee, and such a person can wreak havoc within an organization.

One reason I propose such a 'law' is due to the fact that older workers usually have a family to support. They have kids to support, medical bills may increase due to a higher chance of getting more illness and the need to pay for their kids' education, higher education in college or university.

All the more reason to fire employees before they get old, if you pass such a law.

[Alferd Packer]

Another phenomenon of the last forty or so years is the sudden prerequisite of a college degree for certain jobs. My dad's been doing CAD work on and off since the mid 1970s and is trained on a variety of computer programs, as well as being able to do it the old-fashioned way. But since he never went to college, it would be incredibly difficult for him to find a new job doing what he does now(the horrible state of the U.S. manufacturing industry notwithstanding, of course). He is almost the last person that someone would hire, because, regardless of experience, everyone with a college degree will be considered before him. Like him, there are many older workers who have tons of practical experience in their field, but are simply edged out to periphery because of new education requirements that are difficult or costly to attain.

[Darth Wong]

Another phenomenon of the last forty or so years is the sudden prerequisite of a college degree for certain jobs. My dad's been doing CAD work on and off since the mid 1970s and is trained on a variety of computer programs, as well as being able to do it the old-fashioned way. But since he never went to college, it would be incredibly difficult for him to find a new job doing what he does now(the horrible state of the U.S. manufacturing industry notwithstanding, of course). He is almost the last person that someone would hire, because, regardless of experience, everyone with a college degree will be considered before him. Like him, there are many older workers who have tons of practical experience in their field, but are simply edged out to periphery because of new education requirements that are difficult or costly to attain.

If he has references, he should be able to get a job based on his experience as long as he applies to smaller companies. It's the big companies' HR departments which tend to reflexively dismiss employees who lack formal qualifications. Small companies are usually looking for a bargain, and they'll give more consideration to a guy who seems to know what he's doing but doesn't have his papers.

[Alferd Packer]

If he has references, he should be able to get a job based on his experience as long as he applies to smaller companies. It's the big companies' HR departments which tend to reflexively dismiss employees who lack formal qualifications. Small companies are usually looking for a bargain, and they'll give more consideration to a guy who seems to know what he's doing but doesn't have his papers.

Indeed, that's what he's done. When he first started out, he worked in much larger shops, but as time wore on, he found himself edged out in favor of college-educated kids. Now he works in small shop which does molding, tooling, and casting for smaller, custom orders. He understands that it's just way things are now(this was the main reason he wanted both myself and my sister to complete college) and accepts it as the natural course of things, but I want things to be easier for my dad as he gets older, objective reality be damned.

To my original point, I guess it would be better expressed that older workers can't expect to find the same quality of pay/benefits if new workers with greater education levels are replacing. They can certainly work in their field still, but their expectations have to be lower. Of course, this only holds until you reach some kind of lower limit--that where all the remaining jobs you qualify for have vanished overseas or into nowhere. Then, as an older worker, you're probably just plain out of luck.

[Dahak]

While it is generally more difficult to fire people here legally, the law dictates that if a company has to lay off people it has to select those where the firing is the least straining (and in this facts like age, duration in the company, kids, disabilities,... are considered). Meaning, the younger ones with less time in the company get kicked out over someone with 10 years in the company, kids and above 40.
Also, in some areas, you attain a status where you cannot be fired above 15 years in the company and older than 40...

[Stormbringer]

One can cut his pay, but I don't think companies should dismiss older workers. If possible, dismiss the younger workers and proceed to lower the pay of the older workers.

I think most people would agree with you that effective service should be rewarded. That's one reason you do see seniority considered in terms of job retention, pay, and other things. But there are serious problems with mandating that older workers be retained, especially if you're disregarding other factors as you seem to be.

One of the biggest issues is that older employees tend to be higher up the ladder. They're typically in supervisory or other leadership positions. You need to retain at least some of the people under them to maintain production and smooth functioning. There needs to be people doing the day to day work which older workers may not be able to do as well. It's not all uncommon for more senior (read usually older) employees to lack skills, and recent hands on experience, common in less senior (read: younger) employees. In that respect there's a balancing act between factors which means that you can't necessarily start cutting by age alone. Advancement is to a certain extent a double edge sword because of this fact.

They make higher wages in the overwhelming of majority of companies and organizations. That's natural but it doesn't necessarily mean that they're as proportionally valuable. It often makes sense to let those employees go first in order to protect the organization as a whole. While reducing pay is theoretically an option, as others have said, it's also a very good way to produce an unmotivated, and even disgruntled, employee. It also doesn't necessarily mean we'll reach your goal of protecting those with dependents; it's still going to result in serious financial pain depending on the amount of the cut.

Last but not least, you're authorizing a very major intrusion. This goes beyond just prevention of discrimination and into telling people how to run their businesses. We do that but it takes a pretty significant reason and your reason doesn't make it especially in light of the problems it would cause.

One reason I propose such a 'law' is due to the fact that older workers usually have a family to support. They have kids to support, medical bills may increase due to a higher chance of getting more illness and the need to pay for their kids' education, higher education in college or university.

That's an admirable goal. However, the more practical route to take is instead to make sure that there is a good social safety net and good programs to help people find, train, and/or retrain for jobs. Much though they're derided because of abuse (and the perceived abuse) programs like this have been around in the US since at least FDR's New Deal. They do need some reform, I'll grant you that, but they exist. And it's far better all around to let give companies some reasonable degree of control over who they employ and when.

[ray245]

How about people in their 50s and 60s? Knowing full well that what they saved will not be enough to last them through retirement, and once they lost their jobs, it is hard pressed for them to train and learn new things?

Unless the government is actually able to be rich enough to support a welfare state for the elderly. However, if your population is declining, it will be hard to support the aged.

By the way, I was thinking if creating a maximum pay is a good idea? To limit the pay CEOs, Managers can recieve in any company.

[Stormbringer]

How about people in their 50s and 60s? Knowing full well that what they saved will not be enough to last them through retirement, and once they lost their jobs, it is hard pressed for them to train and learn new things?

If they can't adapt to a changing business environment, what sane company would want to keep them over employees that can? While that may benefit the individuals forcibly retained, it's probably going to have significant negative affects on the company. If it's bad enough, and it probably would be under your plan, then the company goes under and it does no one any good. In order to work, companies need reasonable freedom to select the people which will benefit it most, not those it's constrained to keep by arbitrary attempts at regulating fairness.

I will point out that this problem is already occurring to some extent with unions, which rely almost exclusively on a seniority system. Companies are being squeezed by the unions to try and retain high paying workers who in many cases or over paid for the value of the work or are just plain redundant. That's a major negative for some companies and your plan, while well meaning, stands to re-create some of those failings in part.

I can understand why you would want to see this come to pass but you really can't change the fact that some times bad things happen to good people.

Unless the government is actually able to be rich enough to support a welfare state for the elderly. However, if your population is declining, it will be hard to support the aged.

In theory, we already have a system set up for that. In practice it's a crap stack system that's little better than pyramid scheme, requiring a substantial and unending growth rate to be able to sustain the promised rewards. Welcome to the wonderful world of US government enforced con games.

Still, best thing to do is to try to make these programs as workable as possible. Plan for the bad times in good times rather than just raiding it shamelessly in good times. Hopefully, and with some reform to the current mess, you won't be in a position where you have to endlessly support every senior.

By the way, I was thinking if creating a maximum pay is a good idea? To limit the pay CEOs, Managers can recieve in any company.

It'll never happen, period. It simply goes against human nature, even in nominally communist societies, to put hard and fast legal caps on how much wealth one can accumulate. Even in the USSR the parties bosses rewarded themselves and the people that served them well with comparative lavishness.

In practice, I think companies themselves should put practical limits on how much they spend on salaries, as pay for some has become utterly decoupled from performance or value to the company. In that respect, I think some reform to how companies may legally operate, effectively breaking up a bit of the incestuous nature of the high end management, wouldn't necessarily be amiss. It's one thing to help make companies legally accountable for how they operate; another thing to dictate what they must do.

[The Yosemite Bear]

Younger workers work cheaper.

You'll never change that.

That's why the older ones get tossed out first. They tend to be making more money.

As for job protection laws, what's to prevent someone from canning people when they reach 39 to avoid the law?

I'd expect companies to start getting rid of people at 39 if there was such a law.

Renewal! (sorry blatant logan's run refrence)

[erik_t]

I'm glad a Senator is setting a good example and making a relevant thoughtful post rather than some irrelevant one-liner.

Back in the land of adult discourse... I'd be curious to see how stable the financial situation of a 40-something with kids compares to the average 20-something. The average age of a first-time parent is around 25. These folks haven't had twenty years of seniority to save money, or at least put it into equity on a house. A 40-something worker with a family has little excuse not to have a substantial asset base on which they could draw during a temporary loss of work.

What's the recourse for a 25-year-old with a kid? The expenses are probably very similar, but they haven't had a chance to build up anywhere near as much savings/home equity.

I recognize that everyone is in a lousy situation right now, but it seems to me that the older a person is, the more personal blame they bear for said situation.

[ray245]

However, a person above 40 could have a harder time finding work as compared to younger workers right? If this is the case, this is the part that worries me.

[erik_t]

There is certainly some degree of favoritism shown towards a 30-year-old vs. a 60-year-old, yes. I don't know at what ages that effect really cuts in.

[aerius]

What's the recourse for a 25-year-old with a kid? The expenses are probably very similar, but they haven't had a chance to build up anywhere near as much savings/home equity.

Healthcare. At age 25 you're and healthy, and your insurance costs will reflect that, lots of people at that age can get by with minimal coverage. Get into your 40's and those health insurance costs will ramp significantly as various health problems start popping up. I could probably get decent coverage for $1000 a year, by the time I'm 45 it could well be $1000 a month if I lived in the US.

[The Yosemite Bear]

I'm glad a Senator is setting a good example and making a relevant thoughtful post rather than some irrelevant one-liner.

now if you really knew me, you would know that I am a big fan of snarky one liners. however, the majority is that I'm too involved with the reality for me to do any thing but crack jokes because it hurts too much. I'm 38, in a union, with an executive enviornment where outside of my job I'm dead weight becuase of my health problems and I know it. it's really rather dismal.

[Stormbringer]

However, a person above 40 could have a harder time finding work as compared to younger workers right? If this is the case, this is the part that worries me.

It depends very heavily on a whole lot of factors and quite frankly you're asking for an answer that's basically useless. Your statement is not necessarily true at all.

For one thing, an 18 year old high school grad, a 22 year old college grad, and a 40 year old professional are not going to be competing for the same jobs. Age, education, and experience all make a significant difference on how readily one can find a job. The demographic you're comparing are in effect moving in different strata of the jobs market and so there's not necessarily a direct correlation. If you really want to talk about this is anything more than almost uselessly broad strokes, you'll need to be more specific.

Another big factor is what sort of work you're talking about. Blue collar versus white collar; highly technical versus generalist work. It can very tremendously based on the field you're in. Again, you're talking in strokes almost too broad to give you a meaningful answer. Please, please narrow it down or accept that you're not going to get answers.

Lastly, you're talking about a kindergarten level answer to a Ph. D. level issue. There are a number of larger issues that go into this like age discrimination, technological advancement, and the changing nature of the work place which are all playing a part. There are also bigger social issues like social welfare programs, access to education and health-care which all play a big part.