Age discrimination should get more focus than sexual harrassment

I just retired after working in a kitchen for 22 years. I have worked with people of all ages but kitchen work seems to attract a lot of younger people.

Especially where I worked because it was the food service for a college and students were hired whenever possible.

So were the younger employees generally more productive? In a word, no. The vast majority of them did their work as if they had all the time in the world. In food service there is a almost constant race against time, meals need to be done on schedule, so most of the young workers needed to be prodded to hurry up, pay attention, get going!

Not to mention how common it was for them to avoid the dishroom. They often had to be told repeatedly to go in and get the dishes done.

Were these kids bad people? Not at all and I really liked most of them, but more productive? Definitely not.

To me I'm just amazed that so many women are coming forward against the men, it's like a last stand for feminism or something, when you would think that there are more important issues to be concerned about, like age discrimination. I'll be though when all those ladies get up there in age, they'll be wishing they had fought for something a little more lasting than just bringing down a man for being attracted to them physically.

As an older woman who has faced both I can tell you my stance. Sexual harassment is more emotionally devastating - age is more financially devastating.

In my younger days, I had to leave a great job a worked very hard for because of sexual harassment - changed me as a person and I'm still dealing with issues today. But I managed to find a better paying job fairly quickly.

Age is another thing - it's less violating but it's hard to recover from.

I've heard time and time again about hiring some "kid" with one to two years experience out of college. I've even seen many many ads with a specific limit on experience.

This is totally legal because in theory, you could go back to school at 50, so they aren't discriminating on age. This loop hole needs to be closed - it has the effect to discriminate against age.

There's also the notion that "younger" kids are more computer/IT savvy. This may have been true 30 years ago due to training but isn't based in reality now. In fact, I have seen a decline in skills because steps have been reduced to pushing a series of buttons. They ability to create and understand "these buttons" is lost.

a reply to: Indrasweb

I have seen first hand where ethnicity was taken very much into account. Affirmative action , a term you need to think about. I have seen it happen during lay offs after 2008. They could not go by just a workers ability or his attendance , because by percentages it would have been too many of one ethnicity let go and the over all percentage would have been too high.
Just the truth when it comes to some companies that have a lot of employees. On the third round of lay offs I saw 4 very qualified workers in engineering go and three kept that should not be there at all because of ethnicity.

a reply to: savagediver

I understand what you're saying... are you suggesting though that I was supporting the notion of discrimination? Because I wasn't... I was suggesting that it's wrong to discriminate based on ethnicity, and gender, and age (unless there's very good reasons e.g. you wouldn't be looking to recruit a 65 year old into special forces or something).

I think the whole notion of affirmative action is ridiculous. Discrimination by any other name is still discrimination. And I don't see "because there's not enough black people around here" as a good reason to discriminate.

originally posted by: openminded2011

originally posted by: onthedownlow

originally posted by: openminded2011
a reply to: onthedownlow

Waiting....


Also I cant wait till you get older and experience your own prejudice.

You assume to much. I have no prejudice against the elderly... you don't even know my age. You made a rediculous

statement and I answered it logically

No, you answered it with a generality. I don't know your age, but I don't agree with your statement that older workers are less productive. Lets leave it at that.

So you are suggesting that the elderly, even though more productive and harder working, are being fired just because of their age? It sounds like you want a socialist Utopia where everybody just gets taken care of just because they were born... That doesn't sound like the sensible mentality of a hard worker to me. The truth is harder workers get better pay and have better job security, regardless of age. My age doesn't put me at the front of the list when I'm looking for work, but guys like me are in high demand. I don't think this is a more important issue than women facing harassment in the workplace.

From my experience, younger workers are lazy unless pushed. They require more time off for anything they can come up with. They lack wisdom. They lack experience. They do not listen. Young workers are often highly competitive, which generates a hostile work environment.

The things that companies like about the younger worker is their spontaneity and the lower wages they are willing to accept.

God forbid having a young worker making hiring decisions who are more willing to hire their friends and archetypes, hot looking males or females, etc., rather than hiring based on an applicants skill set and experience.

a reply to: openminded2011


I heard , at least the word on the street is, You are 'open minded' yeah? I'm not going to address the 'ageism' as I was retired at 41 and when that happened I still had baseball $$$ I never spent. (I'm frugal Jim "shortwallet" Nasium)

I'm in Flori-Duh, "God's Waiting Room" and see how the elderly get shoved about. It seems folks of Asian extract; people of a darker hue and then 'Old Yellers and Old Fellers' get crapped upon in that order.

I've noticed it for a few years now and found it "IRONIC" because if everyone plays their cards correctly, they too will become aged. I've even typed about it prior on ATS™ Where if I survive My Wife and get 'up there' I'll move to someplace like Vietnam; Laos or India where they appreciate the aged. Plus the exchange rate because I've also noticed the older folks' Retirement is STAGNANT! Who'll be able to afford to retire in the future? Now how far does a U.S. Dollar go overseas? If the "caregiver" is talking about You, who cares? Here You'd be able to understand them...

Stay Hydrated...

originally posted by: eManym


God forbid having a young worker making hiring decisions who are more willing to hire their friends, hot looking males or females, etc., rather than hiring based on an applicants skill set and experience.

It's the Executive who never was a worker bee who is the problem. They see workers doing a task. Let's say an accountant doing a bank reconciliation. It doesn't look that hard and most tasks are repetitive. They start to think to themselves they could hire a "kid" to the same thing. After all, they say to themselves, they would probably work faster due to their energy.

However, they can't "see" the judgment and critical thinking skills. Without these skills you don't know what to do when you have exceptions or problems (which always occur).

I've seen some cash reconciliation disasters all because some young kid didn't have enough experience to understand the entire process. They were taught steps and that was enough to get them through training but change is always guaranteed and without experience and critical thinking skills the entire process falls apart.

a reply to: openminded2011

When my company hires, we are much more likely to hire younger people. The reason for this is that there are much more younger people looking for work. Secondly, unless the older person is looking for work in an industry they have experience in (which is not always the case) they most likely are not as well-versed with the new technology or process required for the position as it is today.

I give every interviewee the same opportunity and never judge based on age (I can say the same for my peers), but the fact is that unless they are in an industry that has not been affected by new technology and have previous experience in the field, they will be less likely to succeed in the role.

I think half the problem is, that the method of marketing yourself these days has changed. An interview is all about showing the company that you are adaptable and capable, in a short amount of time. Old methods do not impress employees like they once did.

a reply to: openminded2011

I've worked in high density industrial factories, to small weld shops, union and non-union. (I'm a welder)

I've seen it all. And there's generally one thing I have noticed, it doesn't matter the age, it all comes down to the person. I've seen 65 year old men keeping up with 21 year old working men, I've seen a 26 year old 115lb woman keep up with physically peaked 26 year old men.
But, like I said, it all comes down to the person honestly.

NOW, that being said. Older senior employees do tend to slack off more than younger workers. They know the ins and outs, and play the system. Where I currently work now there's 2 guys who weld together, they can pump out work like no other, but they slow down on purpose. These are called bad habits, and they tend to follow a lot of older people in the workforce.
Sure you might have the knowledge, the know how, but I think hiring older people is a gamble, it's either they are full of laid back habits, or they work really hard BUT they don't have much life left in them work wise. It's easier to look for younger talent and keep those who prove themselves for years and years to come.

a reply to: tattooedlunchlady

For most people awareness and experience comes with time. People can put as much effort as they like into their job, it doesn't make them effective at it.

Naturally, younger adults have less experience, are less aware and thus not as "ready" or prepared than their older peers. I think the curve of learning plays a big part too.

I know I've often been a headless chicken in a new job but I've also learned that knowledge gets you further than effort, well physical effort... Depends on the job.

Your 22 years of experience is irreplaceable in most workplaces. How many people did you work with who were older and had no experience yet took to the job like a Swan does water?

Not all skills are transferable, hard work usually is though and on that end it really can be a role of the dice.

People have to learn or "relearn" work ethic at some point though, I'm not sure how things are in the US in that regard but I know it's an issue here (UK) that certainly isn't age specific. A lot of the time supervisors have to whip up their workforce here, that's wholly disheartening when you know employment in your workplace is a revolving door. The youth are disadvantaged too, they've little to no experience in a workplace. More can be done in regards of preparation.

So many factors really, 20 years experience brings a lot of productivity and transferable knowledge.

originally posted by: SlowNail
a reply to: openminded2011

They should be able to reject an application for whatever reason they like.

I tried to think of a good response, but all I could come up with was. That's probably the most ignorant dumbest replies I've ever read. Have you even suffered from outright discrimination before?

a reply to: Indrasweb

The problem is humans discriminate, we do things for how it will look not how the it will be.

That 65 year old might be a retired vet who's had enough of teaching chemistry and beating people half his age in weight lifting contests.

I guess some day machines will pick the most suitable candidates, because humans are fallible.

To be very honest, I think if I ran a business, I'd be very hard-pressed to staff it with majority 55+. Between the legitimate physical & physiological health issues & legitimate cognitive decline that crop up the older folks get that impact their ability to work and not just "clock in", and looming retirement for the younger end of that range, I'd rather hire younger folks (30/40-somethings) without those issues on their horizon.

Does that mean I'd be an age discriminating employer?

Probably. Good thing I don't run a business then. I can still see how it's one of those things that boils down to hiring someone older being worth it or not worth it in the end from an employer's POV, though. And it's totally within their rights to weigh those age-related pros and cons -- Genius Joe with the biology PhD in the lab in his COPD glory might be a worthwhile investment to certain companies, but put Average Joe with COPD in the stock room and...he's probably not.

a reply to: Nyiah

To be very honest, I think if I ran a business, I'd be very hard-pressed to staff it with majority 55+. To be very honest, I think if I ran a business, I'd be very hard-pressed to staff it with majority 55+. Between the legitimate physical & physiological health issues & legitimate cognitive decline that crop up the older folks get that impact their ability to work and not just "clock in", and looming retirement for the younger end of that range, I'd rather hire younger folks (30/40-somethings) without those issues on their horizon.

And I always looked at it from the exact opposite perspective.

I tended to favour the older, more mature applicants more times than not.

To me, age meant more life experience, more developed logical and problem solving skills, less likely to be impatient and reactionary, home life is usually more settled, kids are all grown up (no dealing with runny noses and daycare schedules), personal life is settled down (less likely to call in "sick" from a hangover), etc etc.

In terms of homelife, personal stability and maturity, older people (for the most part) have grown beyond most of the problems that are usually a nightmare for employers.

Generally speaking, of course.


I guess you could say I was guilty of age discrimination, but in the opposite direction ?

originally posted by: SlowNail
a reply to: openminded2011

They should be able to reject an application for whatever reason they like.

And with that caveat, an actuary can be proven for the mature
simply costing the hiring person more initial AND continuing
expenses.
Sad but true-- and I'm an exponent of the aging consultancy as
well as a manufacturing cog. My off the top insurance costs
as a comparatively bad risk isn't near the degree of rancor
one can experience from not being able to physically perform
as well as a candidate half my age... at least physically.

At the end of the daze, no hard feelings: but don't tell me I'm
less qualified than somebody half my age, please. We're supposed
to hire on merit, not medical fuse length.

age discrimination is alive and well. im curious if youd be willing to give up the beneficial discriminatory practices that you benefit from aswell. such as cheaper senior food prices, senior only housing, senior medical aid, etc etc. its a 2 way street and one that has affected me on many occasions. id love to own a house on a golf course near me but im not 55 so im not allowed to purchase in that community. is there any other non senior community with a golf course in my area... nope!

a reply to: TheScale

Living next to a golf course means golf balls smashing through your kitchen window.



And besides, you haven't earned the right to tee off from your own backyard just yet, young laddy.

... because I know (as a fellow golfer) that's what you're secretly wanting to do.

Uh-oh! You have stumbled into the oppression rankings. Kinda like college football but with more snot slinging.

There is a hierarchy in case you were not aware. All the negativity you are drawing is from the all-pro's. Sure. Discriminating because of age and discriminating because gender/sexual proclivity/etc. are both still discrimination. Makes sense, right?

Wrong!!! Not even close. The point is not to determine what is fair and just across the board. No Sir. Instead we are looking for who gains more oppression yardage via virtue signaling and slurring those with whom you compete.

Now, you may ask: How is there any virtue in slurring other people especially when you claim to be against derogatory speech in any form? You ask this because you assume words and actions in stark contrast to one another should create a faulty argument.

Wrong again!!! Here, there is no argument and no one is interested in seeking any truth or understanding. You need bow down to those with more oppression badges as obviously they are of a higher order of human.

//sarc off//