this will be unpopular opinion, i know that, but i think older employees who have been with the company for more than twenty years should not be protected when it comes to layoffs.
majority of them has been here for so long that they have lost all of their drive but are still paid much more than the rest of us.
this is not personal, i'm not advocating to lay them off, just saying if they are it's not ageism. there are actual reasons behind it.
Greetings from the middle of it all. I'm of the half-generation stuck between the old timers and the new hires. I can honestly see both sides of this coin.
On one side - it gets old fast trying to show someone new tasks who - all they do is talk about how long theyve been there and when theyre going to retire and oh by the way grandkids blah blah blah.
On the other side - its real hard to show someone new tasks who - wont get off their damn phone! For real! All that world will still be there at 430, I promise!ing
Is it fair to say that if you plot work ethics over age, that there just might be a bit of a bell curve to the data? Does that make too much sense?
Really? Some of us have skill sets that the younger generation does not. Am I bitter? Maybe just a bit. When you go from working for a company that values you to being a number after 30 years, it is hard to swallow. When you see errors upon errors daily due to lack of training it gets to you. I apologize all day long for these younger employees who screw up a basic entry transaction over and over. It will be a sad day when all of us so called "aged" people who found pride in their work are forced out. We may be paid a bit more due to our longevity, but the knowledge we possess is something you do not learn in a month of training. As a policyholder, I am appalled with the mentality of just pressing enter, enter, enter to achieve your metrics. Cross your fingers you don't screw up. Remember when one policy error was one too many? We are no longer looking out for the customer. Our service is proof enough. I struggle with looking at this as just a paycheck. I was not brought up that way. I have a work ethic that is no longer valued. I want to enjoy my job and know that I am making a difference. As with most jobs, long gone are those days and it is sad. It may be the way of the future, but it doesn't make it right.
The younger worker is now oppressed by the older worker who makes more money. This is classic Cultural Marxism garbage that was spoon-fed to the younger cohort. A product of current Zeitgiest. This inability to work together also contributed to the demise of our once functional corporate culture. Fear of the same philosophy in the executive ranks, in the form of percirved discrimination based lawsuits, which led to auto pd claim supervisors not knowing the difference between a sail panel and a rocker panel; fire claim supervisors who received their knowledge of construction techniques from watching This Old House and Bob Villa contributed to the current situation.
The Tide Pod eating champ has spoken.
Federal law was enacted to deal with idiots that think this way and is actively enforced by the EEOC - Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Sounds like upper executives need a few more Archer risk findings opened to understand this law better.
The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) forbids age discrimination against people who are age 40 or older. It does not protect workers under the age of 40, although some states have laws that protect younger workers from age discrimination. It is not illegal for an employer or other covered entity to favor an older worker over a younger one, even if both workers are age 40 or older.
Age Discrimination & Work Situations:
The law prohibits discrimination in any aspect of employment, including hiring, firing, pay, job assignments, promotions, layoff, training, benefits, and any other term or condition of employment.
Discrimination can occur when the victim and the person who inflicted the discrimination are both over 40.
Age Discrimination & Employment Policies/Practices
An employment policy or practice that applies to everyone, regardless of age, can be illegal if it has a negative impact on applicants or employees age 40 or older and is not based on a reasonable factor other than age (RFOA).
https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/age.cfm
https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/litigation/
https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/history/adea50th/at50.cfm
https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/meetings/7-15-09/index.cfm
A few points:
1) The OP is based on a strawman argument and therefore can be completely disregarded, as no one has argued that older workers should be "protected" from layoffs. The argument is that the company should follow federal discrimination laws and not deliberately target older workers. If State Farm is targeting older workers for being old or because of their pension or salary benefits, it is against the law and State Farm is subject to being sued.
2) Most millennials came into the company during a period of extreme cultural dysfunction. Therefore, any opinions they have about older workers (or any workers within the company, young or old) are extremely myopic and based upon a highly skewed point in time where productivity in general was at an all time low, courtesy of our executives.
3) You younger folks can have the company. I've taken a job with a better company making more money and doing more interesting work. Good luck wasting your life in this f---ed up hell hole.
In hubs it is common knowledge that 50% of the Bloomington transplants that are developers are useless and don't have very much of a drive. Most fresh hires(regardless of age) are eager to learn and implement, while those from Bloomington are ready to just go with the flow because they know State Farm won't fire them.
That being said there are brilliant older people from Bloomington, they just aren't the majority.
There are plenty of boomers that are content to sit on their phones all day, it's not an age thing, it is a being alive in 2018 thing.
Age discrimination doesn't require you "not to have a reason."
You have to be willing to explain your reason in court and make the argument that you weren't using it to single out employees based on a protected class. Good luck.
You can't blame these youngsters for thinking they're getting things done. They were raised in CDE. They think user stories, scrum, and running around like chickens with their heads cut off while getting zero support from PMs or BAs or any other role is actually a good model for completing project work. Never mind that the industry in general has recognized it for what it is: a giant joke. Which is why now the industry is leaning more toward the agile manifesto and chucking all this formal agile crap out the window.
Safe and Scrum s--- balls. Actual balls.
Every millennial I've been on a project has been very confused, and very non-productive. Not their fault, mind you. This was the road we set them on.
Another arrogant, angry, Millennial snowflake who has absolutely no clue what they are saying. Unbelievable.
The main reason to be honest are alot them are dinosaur young and old.Either you can or can't do the job that simple. It's not about age but work ethic.
You kids get offMah lawn!
You know what we did for fun when I was your age? We had sock hops and played checkers and met the gang at the Malt Shop and went and solved mysteries.
Yes, it's not ageism, it's #AgeDiscrimination
this will be unpopular opinion, i know that, but i think older employees who have been with the company for more than twenty years should not be protected when it comes to layoffs.
majority of them has been here for so long that they have lost all of their drive but are still paid much more than the rest of us.
this is not personal, i'm not advocating to lay them off, just saying if they are it's not ageism. there are actual reasons behind it.
And then there's the spinners - the younger ones with ADHD that are impulsive, rude and spin around in their chairs during meetings, and then they say they can't focus unless you bring them food to the meetings. So much of that goes on.
Agree with responses. Seems like the least experienced ones are the ones that paint big pictures with crayons and all, but can't handle figuring out how to get there. They could care less about the details. They are the ones that are missing the much needed analytical skills at the farm that the older analysts have fully developed.
Sounds like you're a little jealous they make more than you. Do your time, contribute something, work hard, and maybe someday you will earn that salary too. That's part of the problem. People think they should join the company and earn big bucks in the first year. Earn it like the rest had to.
I have been here over 20 years and work circles around most people, especially people that stereotype others... That is really offensive to a lot of people when you make statements like people over 20 years do not do much, or know much... I could equally say people 5 years or less have no experience, tend to be impulsive and scatter brained, lack focus or drive... and generally have an understanding of the big picture other then whats in front of them.. Oh yeah they get really offended super easy!
You can't make a blanket statement like that because they are older. There are good and bad eggs in all age brackets. Performance is what should count.
That's the dumbest statement ever! I know plenty of long-term employees that can, and do, run circles around the younger ones. Their work ethic is undeniable, and they don't need someone to hold their hands and tell them what to do all day long. They are analysts and do just that - analyze, recommend and execute. They are truly the ones that should be protected.