Getting paid for your age (employment, profit, job, career)

[bpollen]

Originally Posted by jobaba

So ... in my career I have noticed something that happens fairly often. I would say if you have worked in a typical professional, corporate type career, for at least a decade for a few different companies, you are almost sure to have seen it.

I also will admit I have been the beneficiary at least a couple of times.

So, it's what companies typically call 'getting paid for your experience ... what I call ... 'getting paid for your age'.

So, when people switch companies, companies in the same industry, even competitors, sometimes work differently, take on different types of work, and work for different clients.

The tasks that a particular company does can be pretty specific, and the best way to learn them is from working at that company.

To make a long story short, you could have 12 years of experience and be brought in at a higher level and make more than somebody who has 6 years of experience with that company. But in terms of what you can do, be behind that person.

As I said, I myself will admit I have been brought it to a company, 'sort of' knew what they were doing, had highly related experience. But was hired on as somebody who had 10 years of experience. The truth is that people had 5 years solid at that company knew more about most things than I did. I have seen this happen regularly at the companies I have worked for.

I was able to 'play catch up' and nobody really complained about the salary discrepancy because I'm a nice guy and I'm old and a hard worker. Recently my company just hired someone two pay grades above me, and that person has to ask me for help about everything. I remember my boss saying, "We have to pay the person XXX,XXX because they have this much experience."

I have a problem with this, but not for the $.

In my opinion, this kind of 'pay for paper experience' really messes up the system.


1) It creates an odd system where you have people above you who know less than you.
2) People would be more apt to train in new careers if they didn't get 'paid for their age' instead of opting to stay in careers for years just to 'not lose their salary'
3) This would be more productive to the world in terms of producing tangible goods/services/developments that help people.

I don't think the corporate world usually has "pay grades." That's something you see in plants & factories, or in some very structured super large global companies (where employees are just numbers).

I've never heard of getting paid for one's age. But I'm not a white male, so maybe it's different. I'm a white female. It's been my experience that a job pays a certain range, and it requires certain experience. If anyone qualifies for the job, the job pays X (with some flexibility). But an employee doesn't get paid more because she has 4 years more experience. I've never heard of that. In fact, once you reach a certain level of experience, more years than that doesn't necessarily make an employee more valuable. It depends on the kind of experience.

It was my experience that once you reached a certain age, you were at high risk of being laid off...because of your age and your increased salary (after wage increases over the years).

[jobaba]

Originally Posted by macroy

I always say that hiring is a subjective art. Because it's a person making that decision. There are a million different ways you can do it - and none are perfect. And you can't make it completely objective because after all, no one wants to work with/for an a-hole - no matter how smart/capable they are.

Personally - experience is measured in time. So there is obviously a correlation between experience and age. However, too much emphasis is placed simply on how long someone has been performing said discipline rather than what they've actually accomplished.

There is a big difference between someone that has 1 year of experience they've repeated 10 times. vs. someone who actually has 10 years of accumulated knowledge/accomplishment they can share. So the key is determining that.

That said - there is also institutional knowledge and technical/subject knowledge. It would be unrealistic for someone coming into a new company they've never worked at to have any institutional knowledge.

So I'm talking about technical knowledge, not institutional/administrative.

There have been people who have started at my current company and they know a lot about the technical material. Sometimes more than the people who are ahead of them.

And I agree with everything you said.

You should be paid on the tasks that you CAN do, not an accumulation of a bunch of skills repeated year after year, tangential technical skills, soft skills, certifications, resume line fillers, etc.

And I say this as a middle aged person. Other people my age, if they get fired or quit, they can just apply to a series of managerial positions at a similar pay scale, see if someone will bite and see how long they can last.

I really don't think that's a good work structure. People should be willing to take a cut on their pay and be willing to learn new things.

[Citykid3785]

Originally Posted by veuvegirl

It's not being paid for your age, you're paid when you switch companies. I have been with my current company for seven years. Within that time I have received two promotions with a very small salary increase.

They brought in a new manager who is making more than twice than I am. This of course is infuriating. Companies do not pay to retain top talent, they offer the bare minimum, because frankly anyone is replaceable.

So what's happening now? I am job hunting furiously to get what I am worth. I would like to stay with my company, have requested a raise, but doubtful it will come through to what I deserve.

Yes, this. It's not about age, but switching companies. The current labor market incentivises this (which I have been the benefactor of). I've always gotten a 15-40% bump when switching

[turf3]

Well, when I came to my present employer I had zero experience in their technology, and extensive experience in doing a similar job for a totally different company in a totally different industry and totally different technologies.


I came in pretty highly paid. I wasn't being paid for specific experience in the exact stuff, and certainly not "for my age", but for my ability to use generalized experience, knowledge, and skills to apply them to a different field.


One of the most useful characteristics of an employee is the ability to use knowledge, experience, skills, and principles learned in one setting and apply them quickly and effectively to another setting. Some people grasp this early in their career; others never get it. If I interview you and I come away believing that you can rapidly learn the things that are specific to your particular job, and apply general principles to solving my business problems, even if you haven't any experience in our particular field - I'll think you're worth more money than someone who's got the exact experience, but doesn't look like they could learn something new.

[macroy]

Originally Posted by jobaba

So I'm talking about technical knowledge, not institutional/administrative.

There have been people who have started at my current company and they know a lot about the technical material. Sometimes more than the people who are ahead of them.

And I agree with everything you said.

Yea - paying someone more simply on the premise that the've used Excel for 4 more years than i did is BS (And yes, I'm simplifying here...). Especially if all they can do is the basic functions and are always coming to me to help them with macros or pivot tables...

But ... if you are that person... not such a bad deal.

Originally Posted by jobaba

You should be paid on the tasks that you CAN do, not an accumulation of a bunch of skills repeated year after year, tangential technical skills, soft skills, certifications, resume line fillers, etc.

And I say this as a middle aged person. Other people my age, if they get fired or quit, they can just apply to a series of managerial positions at a similar pay scale, see if someone will bite and see how long they can last.

I really don't think that's a good work structure. People should be willing to take a cut on their pay and be willing to learn new things.

That's on the individual though. And some have tried or actually do. But it shouldn't necessarily be on a company to create that environment (which is the perception I got from your comments).

Over my career - what I've seen is that many move up as far as they want/can, decide where they liked it the most - then find an opportunity that works for them, which may be a step or two down. This is why many senior level folks become consultants. They liked the technical work, but not the babysitting. Of course, they also have made the bulk of money and have that option. To your point though - from a job seeker perspective, if you can get a job that does less, but pays the same - more power to you, right? Again, just my .02.

So it really comes down to perspective. You have people who say F the company, do the minimum for the pay, but then turn around and complain that the "management" isn't doing enough...

Everyone's perspective changes depending on which side of the table they are sitting on.

[SOON2BNSURPRISE]

I have been with the same company for almost 22 years. I have moved up during those years but not to the spot that I wanted. When I started that was one of the things that I likes was, if you out your time in and grow with the company you could move in to the Director spot. That is how things had happened in the past.

The reality is that the company changed with the times, especially as we grew from a one hospital 2 clinic organization into a 2 hospital 15 clinic, 4 imaging centers, multiple medical office buildings.

I met one Director that has been at 12 hospitals in 14 years. He had started working in the Engineering department at a large hospital. Within a year he moved on to a Lead position at another hospital. Another year and a supervisor position somewhere else. Each stop along the way brought greater jumps in his income. When he arrived at our place he was making $220K a year as the Director where I was barely at $80K.

It didn't take too long to figure out that most of us had more experience then this guy had. He had learned just enough to get him from one position to another. I started to wonder, if you stay at a place for less than a year how will you know if something you do is even the correct way of doing that thing. Some of the things we do can take more than a year to come out. As it turns out a clinic that we were building, he brought in different contractors than we had used. It turns out these guys were using another contractors license number, as they were not licensed contractors. They took three times longer to get the place built. When it was completed it was all wrong. Medical space is under specific codes. You have to build things a certain way. This guy should have known all that.

Unfortunately for him he did not have the time to abandon ship before the thing sank. The superstar was let go.

I will admit that I made a mistake in staying so long. I should have moved on looking for another position. We have 8 local hospitals. Another 20 hospitals are within driving range. My thoughts, don't hire a job hopper. Hire someone that has put in at the minimum 3 years, and preferably 5 years in a position.

[otterhere]

Where I work, they're paying the young, inexperienced new hires more money to attract and retain them (it doesn't work; they take the money and run). They know we "old folks" are not only creatures of habit and subject to a sense of loyalty that seems to have died out with the years, we're locked in -- or vested --if we want our pensions and won't be going anywhere. It's quite demoralizing!

[veuvegirl]

Originally Posted by jobaba

So I'm talking about technical knowledge, not institutional/administrative.

There have been people who have started at my current company and they know a lot about the technical material. Sometimes more than the people who are ahead of them.

And I agree with everything you said.

You should be paid on the tasks that you CAN do, not an accumulation of a bunch of skills repeated year after year, tangential technical skills, soft skills, certifications, resume line fillers, etc.

And I say this as a middle aged person. Other people my age, if they get fired or quit, they can just apply to a series of managerial positions at a similar pay scale, see if someone will bite and see how long they can last.

I really don't think that's a good work structure. People should be willing to take a cut on their pay and be willing to learn new things.

That is still experience, regardless if it is the exact criteria for the job.

I have been in my field for well over a decade. I excel at it and have learned to work with very complex clients. I would be able to walk into any new job and learn the technical portion of the job very quickly. However my skills of navigating hospital systems, talking to the CIO's and CEO's, understanding how to leverage their goals with the company's road map is a skill that comes with time.

[Tencent]

Originally Posted by jertheber

Modern day labor edicts has advanced the workplace to new levels of labor autonomy, and the "manager" is slowly becoming a threatened species. The relatively new drive toward self directed work teams has upset the cart with regard to "experience" as a readily accepted reason to be payed more.

I think this is true and honestly none of my managers going up to Sr. leaders actually "Manage" because most of them have their own tasks they have to complete as individual contributors themselves. No one here is Dilbert's boss. This is why our hiring takes forever, because basically they need to find people with 10 years experience who can self-prioritize, self-manage and "manage up".

[buenos]

Corporations are run like the communist soviet union, in an egalitarian top-down un-organic fashion.
One feature is egalitarianism. Employees of the non-managerial class are "equal", and instead of each person having equal salary, each person is provided with equal rate of incline in their career, regardless of their talent and contribution. The result of social engineering.
For example John is an expert, while Bob is incompetent. Bob is 50 years old, while John is 35. They both are given the same career path, so currently Bob is making $200k while John is making $130k. 15 years from now, neglecting inflation, John will also receive a $200k salary when he will be 50 years old, just like bob does now. Equal egalitarian career path. Equal path, not equal points in the same time.
This proves that "experience" is really just age. Or experience is how much opportunities you had to learn. While EXPERTISE is how much you actually learned from whatever opportunities you had. Corporations refuse to pay or hire people base don expertise, they instead do "experience". Expertise-based hiring and salaries would be meritocratic and capitalistic in nature, and people who rise into middle management at corporations, and HR people are typically the leftist Trotsky-ite type of persons, they love egalitarianism, they hate capitalism and meritocracy. They can get away with this, as at large corporations people don't do what's best for the company's profitability, rather they pursue interests that are in conflict with the company's profitability, as this is not enforced at all. The whole HR department exists to undermine the company's profitability and competitiveness on the free market of end products and services, but still they exist and collect bonuses.