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.
Did the company's Operations/Business fall into the gutter after this was achieved? My company has accomplished this similar goal and now every facet of business has been affected as a result. A sort of "brain drain" if you will
Yes, that is exactly what happened. It is even more serious than that. There is a very strong possibility that my former company is going to go under because the new cheap employees are simply not able to grasp the intricacies of the jobs, no matter how smart they are.
The problem is that the systems are complex and it takes new employees YEARS to become truly productive in that kind of environment. Now there are very few veterans (who are on their way out) who are left that can help the newbies come up to speed. When management decided on their "employee replacement scheme" they failed to take into account this system complexity. That was an unbelievable blunder on their part, and they still seem not to get it. They thought that it was easy to throw out the older, expensive workers are replace them with cheap, unproven workers. The new workers should come up to speed in a couple of weeks, right? WRONG. Clients are angry and are ranting and raving. The new workers cannot help them because they don't know much, and many of them are literally crying and quitting in droves. The ones that stay and try and try are being fired for incompetence. Upper management is angry at middle management for hiring idiots. Heads are rolling. New personnel are being hired...with the same disastrous results.
The company seems to be in its death throes, a "dead man walking" if you will. Who knows, maybe they can still pull themselves out, maybe not. When I was thrown out of there, I was old enough to take my pension with me. I took it lump sum, knowing this had a high probability of happening. I still have contacts in and out of this company, who keep me informed of what is going on. It looks like a slow motion train wreck and I am tempted to reach for a bag of popcorn and a soda and enjoy the show. But I won't, since I still have friends and colleagues who have to endure that garbage a while longer, and the newbies who are not to blame for this.
I have no specific data to back it up, but I am seeing this happening in many places with many people talking and posting about it. But is there any data backing up the assertion that this is NOT happening?
I'm not saying it doesn't happen. I dislike when anecdotes are posted as if they are fact. I don't know how you arrived at 30 as the dividing line between "old" and "young." Have you seen 30 year olds forced into early retirement and replaced by 20-somethings? That makes no sense.
Edit: If your post had claimed that 60 year olds were being forced out and younger people hired, it would sound totally believable. I just don't believe that 30 year olds are considered too old to hire.
I attest to this as well. 30 seems to be the new 60. Many employers have decided that they want to save money by getting rid of well paid folks and replacing them with cheap 20 somethings. They just want to save on labor costs. They are using new tricks to do so. Another example is the emerging gig economy where employers no longer provide entitlements such as pensions, paid vacation and sick time, health benefits, etc. Employees (sorry, gig workers) are expected to "take ownership" of these things and provide those things to themselves on their own dimes. In the gig economy, employers will only pay for the work done and will not provide entitlements any more, and the work will have short contracts so workers will have to try to underbid themselves and slave away like the dickens to get the employer to renew their contracts again and again. But this information can be further discussed on another thread.
The bottom line is that the employer wants to save money on labor costs and is trying these new practices to do so. They can get away with it because there is a severe glut of job applicants.
I think it depends on the industry and type of workplace you're mentioning. IMHO, a accomplished workplace would what experienced, driven workers in their 30's versus inexperienced, novice workers in their 20's. At the end of the day, it all depends. But we are definitely seeing workplace trends that we probably haven't seen in other countries and previous generations.
... Another example is the emerging gig economy where employers no longer provide entitlements such as pensions, paid vacation and sick time, health benefits, etc. Employees (sorry, gig workers) are expected to "take ownership" of these things and provide those things to themselves on their own dimes. ...
The bottom line is that the employer wants to save money on labor costs and is trying these new practices to do so. They can get away with it because there is a severe glut of job applicants.
I see this happening in the smaller professional-services firms, such as architecture. There's the owner, 1-2 traditional full-time employees, and then a half-dozen of "1099" employees, who rotate in and out. The 1099 employees don't receive benefits or vacation-time, and charge by the hour. Thereby the employers save on FICA, unemployment-insurance tax and so forth.
This works in professional-services, because tasks are easily compartmentalized and commoditized. It works especially well, when there is the occasional higher-skill/complexity task, requiring an expert consultant. Rather than having an in-house employee with such expertise, a specialized consultant is hired by the hour, for a specific task.
But to return to this thread's theme, I don't see 30 as some new demarcation of age and decrepitude. This may be the case in highly dynamic fields, like information-technology. But it's not the case in engineering, and especially in traditional engineering such as civil or aeronautical engineering, where so many of the practitioners are 50+.
Then there's the broader question: is there actually a "glut", in the sense of too many workers chasing too few jobs? If this were so, why would the unemployment rate be so low?
I have gotten 2 jobs , at higher salaries than ever, past age 50. My relatives have the same experience.
At my last office, you needed 5-10 years experience, at minimum, in your field, to be considered, and our median tenure was 15 years. Most of office was 40 and up, many were in late 50s-mid 60s.
That scenario is becoming rare. The current trend is to hire younger workers.
Unless serious action is taken against age discrimination, all Americans will be living in poverty by age 30. Businesses that won't hire people over age 30 should be penalized. It's against federal law to discriminate based on age in hiring.
Remind me of Logan’s Run - life ends at 30 unless renewed in Carousel.
Wait a minute. Is this a Logan's Run reference or are you serious?
Funny - I just posted the same thing. Dystopian indeed.
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.
Logan's Run
