Over or near 50?

Here's the scariest thing you'll read this week:

https://www.propublica.org/article/older-workers-united-states-pushed-out-of-work-forced-retirement

That was depressing....and sort of disgusting too.

I really got a kick out of DDRLSGC's posts in the comments. What a nut.

Unfortunately, it's too true. My own husband was one of the 56%, after over 30 years for the same employer. Younger workers are cheaper and more tech saavy and employers apparently will take that over wisdom born of experience.

This is why it makes zero sense to stay with most companies for an entire career. Unless you're a top executive with a contract, you should bounce around every 2-3 years for significant pay increases and gaining a wider breath of experience.

AC, unfortunately most of the time you're right. Not to mention the general rule that has existed for a long time now that to move up and increase your salary any significant amount, you need to move companies. Sad, but too true.

Not achievable in all markets. js.

Yes, i think the whole narrative (companies firing older workers, the need to move around to get ahead) shifts drastically in smaller, rural markets.

Also, if you've already been with an employer long enough to have built up good benefits, you may be better off taking your chances with that employer.

I read an article recently about ensuring that you stay "relevant" if you want to stay in your job past a certain age. Towards this end I ensure I take a class or get some sort of certification at least every other year. When I sit down to input my annual performance review I want to make sure I have something new to show value added for my employer. It's no guarantee of anything, but I want to show that I did my part to demonstrate my ability and willingness to be flexible. The fact that my knees are not so flexible is a different story. I even commute 70 miles a day now because that seemed to be an opportunity to get a more stable position in my company. And in the end there is only so much I can control, and I think my age is giving me a little wisdom about that.

There are ways to work around the disadvantages of being in a small market. You may not be able to sit in a bank all day, but if you're willing to travel, there is work to be found in compliance.

ACB, it's tough being in a small market when there are limited local opportunities and you don't want to spend your life on the road in airports and hotels and want to be home with your family, unfortunately.

^ Agreed MB. However, if one loses their job, justified or not, I would imagine they would be open to all potential employment if the financial compensation was appropriate.

It all depends on when you 'lose' or are forced out of the job. If you've near to or have hit retirement age, you're not going to get a comparable job in your field under any permutation. I know, employers can't ask how old you are but they can surely tell the difference between a baby boomer and a Gen X or Milenial just by looking.

Amen to that ACB, gotta pay the bills.

And that's where a severance package from a long term job can make a huge difference.

negatory, ghost rider, the pattern is full...i had a job once that required me to be gone Sunday evening - friday evening every week, never again...i'll go flip burgers first...and the amount of money it would take to incent me to relocate, well, that is probably about $25,000,000 more than anyone would be willing to pay me...

I agree with Happy:

My husband was a contract lineman for 14 years prior to landing a job with our local utility. That life style is not for the faint of heart.
It is difficult for the traveler and for the spouse that remains home to take care of the day to day.
I was asked to apply for a job with the FRB a few years ago which would have required traveling to NYC weekly and my polite response was thank you for the consideration but no thanks.

Agreed. I traveled as an examiner with the FRB for about 5 years and I have no wish to be a frequent traveler again. I am with Happy, I will take a much lower paying job to remain local and not have to regularly travel.

but don't get me wrong, if anyone reading this is willing to offer me that $25,000,000, then i'm your guy!

I'm not suggesting that you take a job that may have difficult requirements if you're in a secure spot financially or can find a similar role. The original article suggested that a number of people over 50 are having trouble finding work which may cause them difficultly in making ends meet, hence the discussion that followed. I know a number of people who lost their jobs in my area and had trouble finding work because they were looking for a job with unrealistic expectations (Pay, travel, locations, work schedule, etc.). They could have very easily taken a role which meets some, but not all of their check boxes.

Truth be told I believe that the vast majority of folks on this forum are the kind of individuals who can and are willing to learn and grow. Unfortunately there are many in the job market who are not. Think of the many folks whose answer to your coaching is "We've always done it that way" or some variation. While I might like that person as an individual, I would not be disappointed if they were cut loose so that a more malleable person could be hired. Which in turn makes my job more enjoyable. Selfish? Perhaps.

Yeah, that's a pretty broad brush to paint this group, eh?

But, I would say that this is not the case with most compliance people due to the nature of compliance rules changing on a regular basis. Your description is probably more apt to apply to people in operations areas of financial institutions. JMHO.

Yeah, my personal opinion......nobody's job should be safe just because they've been at it for years and years and years. But on the flip side, no one who is doing well at their job should be fired or demoted simply because of their age. Those seem like pretty obvious things to me......but just as obviously (this article, for example) many companies don't agree.

They are also looking at costs...as in health insurance, if they supply it. Longer vacation times...a lot of things incent employers to cut older folks loose...is it wrong? Absolutely...it all goes back to greed [assuming you are still sharp and capable of your job title]

Right.......what you are describing is simply age discrimination and should be ruled as such. Everyone in this country is going to be an over 50 worker at some point if they live long enough.......they shouldn't be able to get rid of competent older workers simply because it's cheaper.

There was a term thrown around a few years back when a lot of folks were being let go: "retiring at your desk." If you work with someone who fits the description you know what I mean, and some of those folks were in the first wave of recession reaction layoffs. You don't like to see anyone lose their job, but when you know you are taking up their slack on the regular then you get it.

Ideally, older workers should be happily mentoring and training those who are coming up to replace them. Unfortunately, that might mean training your replacement only to be left go at 50 or 55 with several years left until retirement because your replacement works for less and has a less expensive benefit package to offset their lack of experience. I know that many banks would forego the 30 or 40 years of experience that some of us have to be able to cut the cost of a department that in simple terms generates no income. It's a horrible position to be in. I pro-actively switched jobs a couple of years ago in part to try to avoid that scenario - hopefully it pays off.

if any job terminates you simply because you are over 50 and replaces you with a younger worker, that is age discrimination and 100% actionable in court, where you should take them and sue their rear-ends off...when you win and now own the company, you can then fire the clowns that let you go to begin with.

this was a poorly written article with many gross generalizations, but simply firing someone for age is not allowed.

I always wonder how that point gets proven or disproven......in a court of law that is....because no company is stupid enough to just say "we are firing you because you're over 50". I mean, it seems like it could easily become a game of "i say, you say" in a court of law. "They fired me because i'm over 50". "We fired him because his job performance wasn't measuring up. Check out these trumped up peformance reviews if you don't believe us".

Just curious.....it just has always seemed to me that if a company was bound and determine to fire you for "cause", they could make it appear so.

I don't know about the rest of you but my location (CNY) specifically in Banking, we can't keep the younger folks, so those of us over 50 are pretty much carrying all the weight. They come for a very short time and move on which we all know is a generational thing.

This area has seen most of it's community banks be sold to larger regional ones who do not have their headquarters local, so skilled employees are a rare find.

raitchjay is right about 'cause'. You can bet your bottom dollar that especially any company with an HR department is going to make sure they have whatever they need to justify forcing an older worker out so they won't get caught in court. They also rely on the fact that the now unemployed person doesn't have the financial means to pursue a case that they can draw out intermitably.

The ADEA actually protects anyone 40 or over. These are very difficult lawsuits for an employee to win. There is no chance if the employer is a National Bank.

My name must have fallen through the cracks at the banks I have worked for, I am 50 plus 19 and counting. No one has suggested yet that I hang up the spurs and ride off.

Pale, you are so old they forgot you're there....just a part of the furniture by now

I worked for a large telcom that will remain un-named but has a logo that looks like the deathstar that while I worked there would routinely scrub the work force of anyone getting close to retirement so they would not have to pay full benefits. They would call it early buy out. They fired my fired big Doug twice only to realize they had to hire him back as he was the only one with knowledge of certain technologies the company needed. Of course he got more money to comeback both times but most where not that lucky.