Keeping the senior staff employed longer

[Hain]

View: [ANCHOR]Top court rules for workers in age bias case[/ANCHOR] (link)
Source: Reuters (http://www.reuters.com)

Abstract: "The employer, not the employee, has the burden of proof on the issue of whether an employment action like the layoffs was done for reasons other than age"

Go to Top court rules for workers in age bias case from Reuters, http://www.reuters.com.This post was created with FASS.

I remember in my industrial organizational psychology class that studies had shown that not only did "senior" members (employees having worked for a specific employer in a specific field and position longer than most) not only produced better work than their younger, and sometimes considered "better" colleagues (currently educated on present topics), but worked far harder than the newbs.

I feel this to be true for a few of reasons. One, fresh out of college students have little more on their mind than finding a job that pays to best. They are less likely to act loyal to the company than a staff member that has put years into a single company. Two, senior staff know the ropes of a specific company better than any new person, whom must be trained and groomed to fit into the new business practices that certainly were not precisely covered in his senior year of college. Three, I felt the best studying I ever did was not behind a desk taking notes, but next to a professional teaching me their wisdom that they have acquired over the years. Having studying in Germany and realizing that the manner of apprenticeship is still very much alive and used makes me feel good.

I think this is a good thing. Others argue with me that this helps stimulate new jobs, innovations, etc, etc. I think we are just making it harder to be old.

[percy]

In my experiences this tends to be somewhat true, however not exclusively so.

The biggest thing I have notice about people coming in to work at the firm I work for(marketing/advertising/design/publishing) is that if they have just finished university and have been in the job for a week and a half, they already think they should be CEO.

I do like their drive and motivation though find that they lack tact and oddly enough, social skills. Every thing seems rehearsed and rigid. They will sooner change the topic of conversation if they have little or no interest or knowledge of the subject. In my business that is the kiss of death. Show little or no attention to a client and say bye bye to the account.

I feel they are also individually oriented rather than teamwork wise.It seems as though they feel (some do) that somehow their inexperience and naiviety is somewhat special and that no one else has the capacity to grasp their concepts. But they soon learn otherwise,...and in time use their ears more than their mouths.

But older workers aren't the cat's ass all the time either. Having dedicated, experienced people makes more of a difference in pressure situations than anyone gives credit for and the knowledge base is multi-leveled. But the flip side is bitterness, complacency, a sense of dues paid(ie-someone else does the work and they get credit) and aloftness(dreaming of retiring)

But in a pinch would I take on a 25 year newby full of piss and vinegar or a experienced, savvy 45 year old pro as a partner? No doubt, experience wins the day,..the 45 year old would be the one.One reason-sense of purpose. That sense of purpose is very hard to find in young people, I think mainly due to their lack of loyalty at such an early stage in their careers.

[ASU2003]

40 years old is old now? It seems to me that the company was setup in a way to keep the upper management and the younger people pushing papers and making things work. But the middle management, advertisers, secretaries and design engineers (once their product is to a marketable state) would be 'disposable' if they didn't want to grow, but just make what they have, use the same marketing, and produce the same amount of products.

Now, if they were firing people 60 and older because they didn't want to pay retirement benefits or something, that is another story. Actually, the fact that people still have to work at 60 means they have been living an expensive lifestyle and should have been saving money. It does prevent the teens and twenty somethings from entering the workforce and gaining experience, responsibility & money.

[Fotzlid]

Actually, the fact that people still have to work at 60 means they have been living an expensive lifestyle and should have been saving money.

...or maybe they just like/are really good at what they do.

My initial reaction was that it's a bad ruling but the article doesn't give enough information about the case for me to say one way or the other.

[Nisses]

The fact that people still have to work at 60, means that your population is graying, and that a pension does not supply you with all that much money to live by.

It also means that people live alot longer than they used to, causing a strain on all and any social systems to back the elderly.

It's simply a consequence of better standard of living. And with life getting more expensive allround, it's common sense for them to still be working.

I'm sure there are people that were living an expensive life, but I highly doubt that they're the majority.

[snowy]

Originally Posted by ASU2003

40 years old is old now? It seems to me that the company was setup in a way to keep the upper management and the younger people pushing papers and making things work. But the middle management, advertisers, secretaries and design engineers (once their product is to a marketable state) would be 'disposable' if they didn't want to grow, but just make what they have, use the same marketing, and produce the same amount of products.

Now, if they were firing people 60 and older because they didn't want to pay retirement benefits or something, that is another story. Actually, the fact that people still have to work at 60 means they have been living an expensive lifestyle and should have been saving money. It does prevent the teens and twenty somethings from entering the workforce and gaining experience, responsibility & money.

My dad is 61 and he certainly doesn't have to work; he's saved more than enough money to retire very comfortably. Technically, he's retired out of one state system, and will retire out of another in a year or so (he's in public education). He could have retired a few years ago, but he keeps going because 1) he loves what he does, 2) he feels that he is still needed by his staff, and 3) he cares about his school and staff and wants to make sure that everything is as good as it can be before he retires. He wants to make sure that there is someone to take his place, and that takes time and training--school administrators are so hard to find these days that a lot of states are offering retire/rehire deals. It seems no one wants to be in charge any more.

My SO's dad is in a much different situation. He works for a major computer/printer/etc manufacturer. He is one of the lead engineers in their printing division. This company is looking to cut 300-400 jobs from their local campus in the printing division. He's survived several bouts of layoffs before, but it's still a situation where nobody knows who's going to get cut, and because he's a senior employee and makes considerably more than his younger, less experienced counterparts, he's definitely at risk for having his job cut. It sucks, but he's financially prepared for it, and has been since the first round of layoffs many years ago. He feels he can't retire--he says he's too young to do so (51) and enjoys the work that he does for this company. I don't think he's too terribly worried about being laid off; he's a very accomplished engineer, and very employable elsewhere. But yes, I do feel that this company is trying to cut older employees to 1) get rid of the higher salaries they must pay more senior workers, and 2) to cut down on the benefits/etc they must pay once those senior workers retire. I have to say that for his sake I'm glad for this ruling; it will make his company think twice before dismissing someone just because they make more (and this company has definitely done that before, regardless of the employee's contribution to the company).