Ageism!!!

BERNADETTE · 10-02-2009, 14:44

After watching Dispatches last night it has become very clear to me that we have a new discrimination against the older generation when it comes to employment. People with damn good CV's are being passed over in favour of a younger and quite often not experienced workforce. Surely reaching a certain age doesn't mean you are incapable of doing a good job. I am talking about people as young as late forties/early fifties here. Surely companies are losing out as well as older potential employees?

MargaretR · 10-02-2009, 15:31

I retired at age 51, and had a struggle to get it.

It happened 15 years ago when the civil service was being 'pruned'.
Over 50s were being offered early retirement with a pension enhancement which meant I could retire with the pension I would have got if I worked until age 58.
That pension was a final salary pension and 'index linked' - a type which few had then and none will have in the future.

The reason I struggled to get it was the fact that my job was not to be privatised to the public sector for another year, and so anyone doing that job for its final year would be in a dead end and likely to not be a civil servant after that. So they wanted me to carry on with it and accept that much less favourable fate.

I was ready for retirement, I had worked full time for 35 years and wanted the luxury of time on my hands, plus I could live comfortably, but not opulently, on the pension due.

It was the best option for me, but few people have that option, and to be forced into poverty and idleness when you don't want it is a horrific prospect.

The present law allows employers to shed their workforce at age 65 without regard to the effect it has on the individuals or on society as a whole.

That law will have to change eventually because the state cannot support pension payments to a growing percentage of oldies, but it is Sods Law that many will suffer until it does.

cashman · 10-02-2009, 15:55

its nowt new bernie, i was binned in feb 98 after 23 years service, from a staff job,on damn good money, all i was offered at time was jobs (minimum wage) which i took one, cos i had always worked....stupid, was treated like crap, which did not sit well wi me, so i cleared off to spain. the rest is history.

i was told at the "joke centre" all i would get was minimum wage cos of me age, was 50 at the time, couple of interviews i had refused me n actually told me, they wanted someone younger.

churchman phil · 10-02-2009, 16:08

I'm recently redundant and turn 40 this year. It is amazing how many jobs require people with experience in that field, even if it is something that most people do in everyday life or have done in a different field of work.
I have been unemployed before and would not expect anything else tbh but ageism is just one factor.
I was actually once told during an interview I wouldn't be getting the job cos I was over qualified and they wanted a 'monkey' for the vacancy!! If the face fits....

garinda · 10-02-2009, 16:43

In a way you'd think employers would look more favourably on older people, than on younger.

They come with a much longer track record, with things like attendance, how long they've stayed with a company etc., that can easily be verified.

Cynically you also know that if you employ a lady of a certain age she probably won't need time off for maternity leave. Though with the fairly recent introduction of paternity leave, the older man might!

I'd certainly not not employ someone just because of being older. It's very short sighted to disregard the wealth of experience that they could bring.

The most suitable candidate should always get the job, regardless of age.

cashman · 10-02-2009, 17:01

agree rindy, were i worked they "Re-Structered" as they called it,end result all Staff oer 50 didn't have a job.

all the experience went n the place went too the dogs.

many mates with long service have since bin binned, totally crazy, but the Uni wallas know best.

jaysay · 10-02-2009, 17:09

There's only one profession I would like to see use ageism and that's Judges, they should have to retire by law at 60, before the start going doddery

Margaret Pilkington · 10-02-2009, 17:36

I think that it is just as damaging to say that judges become doddery after the age of 60.......some of them will be older than their chronological age earlier, and some of them will retain good judgment(that and experience have got to be considered).
I don't think it is fair or reasonable to single out a profession that should not have a law against ageism in its favour.

SPUGGIE J · 10-02-2009, 17:48

It was in the paper the other day that an 83 years young cleaner became a call centre manager. She realised she would be better at the job than those there, took the course and in 2 years made it to management. It may be a once in every 5th blue moon outcome but she got it. She ran a shop so was quite used to talking to the public that and the wealth of knowledge and experience was what they wanted. Ok I am not saying she should or shouldnt but youngsters in their 40's n 50's can see it as a shining light.

Less · 10-02-2009, 18:08

Ageism? Don't make me laugh, last time I was made redundant, (properly), I was on a damn good wage and my department was running smooooothly, they couldn't replace me under that job description for 6 months so changed the job title and took on two young lads fresh out of University admitted, their combined wage was less than what I had been paid, their combined experience? less than an eighth of what they had with me.

3 months later the M.D. offered me my old job back with a rise to sort out the mess, tilt game over I had found a job with plenty more cash and much less stress, so no thank you.

Another job I went for stipulated they wanted someone with at least five years full driving licence, I was 30 at the time, the thicko that interviewed me told me Your a bit old I was after an 18 year old trainee.

With five years driving experience? I said when you find an 18 year old like that give him my 'phone number I'll guarantee I can find him a job on twice what your offering.

Ageism is the same as any other 'ism if they don't want you they'll find an excuse not to hire you!

Splinter · 10-02-2009, 18:09

Younger is cheaper. Older is more reliable. I know which I would choose.

yerself · 10-02-2009, 18:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by Less

I was 30 at the time, the thicko that interviewed me told me Your a bit old I was after an 18 year old trainee.

I was 25 and went for a job interview, the fruitcake interviewing me asked "Don't you think you're a bit old to start learning new things at 25 years old?" That was the end of the interview, I got up and walked out.

SamF · 10-02-2009, 18:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by cashman

all i was offered at time was jobs (minimum wage) which i took one, cos i had always worked....stupid, was treated like crap, which did not sit well wi me, so i cleared off to spain

And that is why they prefer younger people - they have no previous comparison so will put up with crap.

Speedy · 10-02-2009, 19:14

Can i just make a point that age-ism does also happen the other way.

I have been to loads of job interviews and all too often heard "your not really what we were looking for, we wanted someone a bit older and more responsible".

Just thought id point this out as so far this topic has been all anti young people :-).

Eric · 10-02-2009, 19:42

Since I joined AccyWeb I don't have a problem ... I will for ever be under 18

And I will always be the youngest diry old man on the planet

And there are the undoubted advantages of being older: unlimited free debit transactions at my bank, supermarket staff who will carry your stuff to the car, and I do believe that the local whorehouse (ooops, Escort Service) offers a seniors' discount ... all kinds of neat things. And with the world going to hell in a hand basket, who would really want to stick around for much longer anyhow.

Old Farts Rule