Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think it should be for everyone and not just for the older workforce. I think there is unspoken discrimination against younger workers as well. Like say "Last in, First out" rif policies, often are against younger workers who do not have seniority. Source.
In my industry, RIF's are based (usually) on performance, and (sometimes) on politics.
I've seen it happen both ways, even within the same company and same group. It often depends on the motive for the RIF. When it was a general RIF to appease wall street, low performers and trouble makers were definitely targeted first. But a couple of times the RIF has been purely financial in the org, and older workers were definitely targeted. We just lost a team member for the very reason. He was the most senior person in the group, and definitely the highest paid. My boss flat out told me it was cost, which usually == age in most fields.
It is - those 40 and older are protected as far as employment discrimination. Well, on paper they are.
Exactly on paper. I am in my 40's know that I have been discriminated, but can't prove it, because no one really can. I actually reached out to a recruiter I have worked with, and he said he knows companies that will not hire anyone over 35 for sales and he refused to say who. Now I could prob report him to EEOC, but then I burn a possible resource.
I think objectivity should be removed. Aptitude tests by simulating the work entailed should determine employability, and you should be given a number rather than something linking to bein physically identifiable. That way employers can't go "we'll he's too young" or "she's too old" or "they're homeless so no."
Remember when Josh Bell did his violin experiment in public? A rich man's performance for free, and nobody cared. Barely received money panhandling in the subway but gets TONS at a venue for the same thing.
I think objectivity should be removed. Aptitude tests by simulating the work entailed should determine employability, and you should be given a number rather than something linking to bein physically identifiable. That way employers can't go "we'll he's too young" or "she's too old" or "they're homeless so no."
Remember when Josh Bell did his violin experiment in public? A rich man's performance for free, and nobody cared. Barely received money panhandling in the subway but gets TONS at a venue for the same thing.
I agree. Though, I assume you meant subjectivity should be removed. A lot of people are qualified for many jobs but remain unemployed because they don't fit the employer's preconceived notions. (Ie: too old or too young, not the right age, wrong or no degree, wrong university, not enough experience, currently unemployed, employment gaps, physical appearance issues, resume length, live out of the area, etc.)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
