I hate to bring this up

[supernova]

but I somehow need to explore it.

Considering everything Bertha, Lizzie, and I have been through with jobs the past several years. Is it just easier to fire women over 40?

:wtf:

What are your thoughts on this phenomenon?

[SeaLyons]

1. I do think women over 40

have a few more obstacles to climb over, but it's against the law to discriminate based on age. If you think that's the only reason you're having problems, you need to document it and file a suit with the EEOC.

[supernova]

3. Just because it's against the law

doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Employers love to find ways to get around this stuff.

[SeaLyons]

11. Yes, I agree....

it absolutely happens. I was just saying if you feel that age is the only problem, then they shouldn't be allowed to get away with it.

[hamsterjill]

26. I agree, too

And if the employer happens to be self-insured (and sometimes even if they are insured by a third party), I always wonder if the potential health care costs work into the equation.

It's a generalized fact that health care costs grow as people age.

It is not legal or proper if employers do this, but I think we all know that it happens every day.

[NJmaverick]

2. It's not just women, anyone over 40 is put at a competitive

job disadvantage. There is that myth about hiring young talent that a company can develop. Which is pretty odd considering how often people change jobs.

[supernova]

4. Well, younger people are cheaper too

[NJmaverick]

6. Excellent point

and with the short sightedness that most companies operate with, this is a big factor.

[PVnRT]

27. So...younger people shouldn't be hired?

The engineering firm I work for tended not to hire young graduates unless needed for a couple of decades, and there's few with experience to fill in the blanks. So, yes, there is something to be said for hiring young people that your company can groom.

[Pierre.Suave]

28. I dont think that was what was said

either...

[NJmaverick]

29. I don't recall saying that. What I said is that companies tend to favor

younger employees, often to the detriment of the company's prosperity.

[Lex]

5. Seems like women over 40 would be preferred in some ways.

I know employers shouldn't consider it, and legally can't, but women over 40 usually have the kids in school and don't have as many child-care issues as women under 40 (upon whom the child-care issues generally fall, and not the husband).

Child-care issues are the number 1 absentee-ism cause (iirc).

[supernova]

8. That's true

and then there are those of us who don't have children, so don't have that problem.

[Lex]

13. I wouldn't hesitate

to spontaneously mention in an interview that there are no child care issues. They can't ask, but you can say anyway.

[SeaLyons]

12. You're right....

in many ways over 40 is a plus.

[MissMillie]

7. I thought,

that women beyond their child-bearing years were MORE marketable in the workforce. I know that the statistics for the wage gap indicates that it improves when women are done having their babies.

:shrug:

[supernova]

9. I hope you're right

but it sometimes feels like the opposite.

[Gormy Cuss]

10. It's easier to fire anyone over 40.

It's easiest to fire support staff. Being outside of the executive ranks and over 40 is a bad combo.

[supernova]

15. There might be some truth to this

Though I am not support staff.

[Gormy Cuss]

24. Not being support doesn't convey immunity.

It's just that layoffs seem less likely the higher up the ranks one is in the food chain. Support staff and line staff are often viewed as widgets but even mid-level managers or professionals are more likely to be viewed as expendable than the executive VPs, CFOs, etc.

To some CEOs everyone outside of the executive suite is support staff.

That said, women employees of any age are assigned a lesser value many companies although they go to great lengths to disguise the bias. "Lack of career commitment" is an acceptable way of devaluing female employees who dare to take a couple of maternity leaves, for example.

[SOteric]

14. A couple of thoughts...

I think that there can be a bias among those under 40 when dealing with older women. There can be a perception that they're 'no longer with it,' so to speak. Like, once you turn 40 your technical skills, tastes and personality immediately eject and you turn into a clone of sweet old Aunt Minnie.

More importantly from an employer's standpoint, women over 40 are more likely to be experienced employees who've been with a company for a lengthy period of time. That means their salaries are higher than their younger counterparts. As things tighten all over, businesses are getting more and more difficult productivity standards (which measure dollars to manhours) to uphold. Women rather than men are more likely to be found in clerical, support, and middle management roles and less likely to be found in hard to replace Administrative and Executive roles. That means from a fiscal standpoint, it's more desirable to let go of the high salary older woman and replace her with a low salaried younger woman. And by 'let go' I mean fire her or get her to quit. Laying off an employee means you're going to be paying into some sort of employment security program on her behalf, and if they're that mean or desperate, they won't be wanting to do that, either.

As if that wasn't enough of an insult, women over 40 are statistically more likely to seek medical care for expensive to treat illnesses; - cancers, high blood pressure, diabetes, etc. So again, from a payroll burden standpoint, it becomes more desirable to let go of the older woman in favour of younger employees. (Older men are just as likely to suffer illnesses, but far less likely to seek medical treatment). Or to cancel healthcare programs entirely and reduce paid sick leave to a bare minimum of the guidelines. - Again, favouring younger, newer employees who are likely not eligible for healthcare for several months and don't qualify for paid sick leaves for more than the minimum required by state laws.

I'm not saying it's right, or fair, or even good. But it's real. I know it goes on in many companies small and large.

[lizziegrace]

16. I couldn't have said it better

The individual the firm kept was in his late 20s. He was assigned a mentor and was moved through the training process faster than me. I was left doing data entry (there were 13 bookkeepers on staff) and told I was too slow. The clients I met with liked me and many co-workers did too. But, my medical coverage was about to kick in and I was let go just prior to that date.

I know what they did was discriminatory, but cannot prove it.

[supernova]

18. Just think, you have all this to look forward to

:P

[bertha katzenengel]

17. I wonder too, super... was thinking that very thing this morning

:wtf:

[supernova]

23. We be alright!

:hug:

[bertha katzenengel]

25. Damn right!

:hug:

[Sheets of Easter]

19. In short- yes.

There's still that boys' club mentality at many places of employment. Also, age sometimes equals experience, which simetimes means higher pay. When a company makes cuts, they usually drop the "overpaid*" first.


*- edit- "overpaid" as in not as cheap and expendable as an entry-level employee.

[supernova]

20. Um, you might want to rephrase that

I don't think either of the three of us considers ourselves 'overpaid.'

[Sheets of Easter]

22. Theoretically speaking. That is not always the case.

Please don't take offense. I meant "overpaid" in the eyes of the powers that be who decide who stays or goes.

It's hard to make little theories like this in short time frames.

[bertha katzenengel]

21. Overpaid?

I don't know whether to :rofl: or :puke:.