U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Happy Thanksgiving Day!
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Work and Employment
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 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.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-17-2010, 11:58 PM
 
27,708 posts, read 21,724,248 times
Reputation: 25408

Advertisements

[quote=montanamom;12488732]As far as the health care system goes in this country, I'm not happy with either side, but anyone who is ignorant enough to believe our system in it's current form is not broken for many, must be lucky enough to have a great job with affordable coverage - or a lot of independent wealth. But that's another forum thread.

I am going to college outside of my job right now to get a degree towards a career I always wanted (hopefully one that also allows me to afford insurance coverage!). Many of us near or at the 50 year mark are still looking at 15 to 20 more years of working. I think work is a good thing and keeps you vital adn interesting, but only if you continue to learn and get at least some satisfaction and enjoyment in what you do. At 49, I'm at the age where "It's never too late", but I also realize it's Now or Never.[/quote]

Can't rep you again, but that's a great way to put it. I'm 51. Technically, I will be able to retire from my job in four years. I've already got 30 years in. However, in reality I will probably continue working but I will have the option to work somewhere else. I have a few specifics in mind, and I'm also thinking about going back to school.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-18-2010, 12:45 AM
 
3,647 posts, read 2,934,457 times
Reputation: 5731
Quote:
Originally Posted by GypsySoul22 View Post
People in their 50s ARE NOT OLD people. They are the ones with wisdom and experience.

I can't stand this 'obsession' with youth. People of all ages get hired all the time. Same for the neat and pin clean powersuits to the slovely, grey haired beatniks.

Honestly, the first time any "age" reared its head was when I was 43 and I did not look 43. It didn't come up again until the last three years.

I do know many people much older than I who still work, but the key component is they have had the position a long time or retired from the company/ government and have gone back part time. My misfortune is that I had to relocate at 49. There was no choice in the matter simply because there was no else to take care of the family property. I love my home and have made many sacrifices to do what I had to.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-18-2010, 04:53 AM
 
Location: Las Vegas
8,165 posts, read 14,149,500 times
Reputation: 10113
All of the above. I know if I were hiring for my own company, it would certainly cross my mind which candidates were cheap on insurance. I wouldn't necessarily allow myself to make a decision based on insurance but I'd think about it.

I very much believe in the makeover. It can make a huge difference in how you are perceived. Try hard to avoid matronly at all costs! Update everything!

I officially retired in Oct of 2008. I vowed I would only work at fun jobs after that. Nothing in my field. I wanted to do a 180 and be totally different. Today, I am a radio comedian and I work at a high end kitchen store. I'm on the lookout for some other interesting job to try out next. I'm certainly not bored.

As far as getting that job goes, I would say to look in the places most people wouldn't think about trying. Use all the people you know too. See what they think you should do.

Most important, don't give up!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-18-2010, 08:46 AM
 
4,519 posts, read 8,384,467 times
Reputation: 2140
Default One reason why the Most Qualified don't get hired...

Quote:
Originally Posted by yellowsnow View Post
I know if I were hiring for my own company, it would certainly cross my mind which candidates were cheap on insurance.
I wouldn't necessarily allow myself to make a decision based on insurance but I'd think about it.
If you were hiring for your own company, and if hiring one individual whose age would cause your company's health insurance premium to go up,...
It WOULD effect your decision.

It's been a few years since I was an office manager and had to deal with insurance but I know that it greatly influences hiring decisions.
After Payroll, Health Insurance is one of the largest costs to employers. Why do you think so many employers have cut back on benefits to employees?

First, there's a huge difference in what it costs to insure a young man and a young woman. We're talking over $100. increase per female employee - if that female is in her twenties. When you get into the cost for a person over 50, you're talking about adding at least another $325. per month -- per employee -- just for their health insurance.
Bring that down to hourly working 40 hours per week and that's like adding $2.50 per hour to that employee's paycheck right off the bat.
That's an additional $4,000 per year just for one person's health insurance premium before any other costs or premium adjustments to your group.

It's going to be a slow recovery. Baby Boomers have been hit hard by this recession. Many have burned through retirement savings, just trying to survive.
The truth is, employers do look at health insurance as a cost of doing business and it does effect their hiring decisions.

I just got this from a Senator in my state regarding the Health Care reform that has been passed in the Senate.
Because there is so much mis-information out there, I want to share it. The upcoming mid-term elections are going to be very important to the final passage of this bill.

Quote:
Thank you for contacting me regarding health care reform. I welcome the opportunity to update you about what is contained in the Senate health care bill and clear up some wide-spread misinformation.
According to independent analyses of the bill, including the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, the recently-passed Senate health care reform legislation will reduce the deficit, protect Medicare, and stabilize healthcare costs for over 90% of Americans. This reform is necessary because the soaring cost of medical care is crippling our economy, bankrupting our nation's families, and becoming an unsustainable financial burden for American employers. In the last eight years, health care premiums have grown four times faster than wages, and insurance companies have made millions of dollars in profits while routinely denying coverage.
On November 18th, 2009, Senate Majority Leader Reid introduced The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. On December 24th, after five weeks of debate, I voted for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, embodied in H.R. 3590, which passed by a vote of 60 to 39. The Senate bill (H.R. 3590) and the previously passed House bill (H.R. 3962) must now go through a reconciliation process.
I want you to know that I have read The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act thoroughly and plan to read all of the provisions in a final, reconciled health reform bill before casting my vote on final passage. If you would also like to read the full text of the legislation, you can find the complete text of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act at http://democrats.senate.gov/. While there has been an unprecedented amount of transparency during this debate, including hundreds of televised hours of committee work and debate, I disagree with the decision not to have a conference committee to resolve the differences between the House and Senate legislation. I believe that those negotiations should be open to the public.
I supported the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act because it would expand health care coverage to more than 94 percent of Americans, curb skyrocketing healthcare costs, and ensure patient choice of care, all while significantly reducing the government deficit. The bill would also stop insurance company abuses that prevent people from getting the health care they need, such as denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions. In addition to consumer protections, the bill establishes state-based health insurance exchanges where individuals and small businesses can compare and purchase insurance plans online at more competitive prices.
I have heard from some who have concerns regarding certain provisions in the Senate bill. The Senate bill upholds current federal law which requires that no federal funds can be used to pay for an abortion except in the case of rape, incest, or danger to the life of the mother. To ensure this, the measure requires insurance plans to keep federal funds completely separate from private premium dollars, and further requires that anyone purchasing abortion coverage do so with a separate private payment.
The bill also expressly exempts illegal immigrants from any of the health care programs and the ability to participate in the health insurance exchange. Some non-citizens who lawfully reside in the United States and pay taxes on their earnings may be eligible to purchase health insurance in the exchange, provided they meet prescribed eligibility requirements.
In addition, there are provisions that will strengthen seniors' Medicare benefits and significantly reduce fraud, abuse, and inefficiencies in the program, which could extend the life of the Medicare Trust Fund beyond 2022. Let me emphasize that none of these changes would reduce the guaranteed benefits that seniors are entitled to under the Medicare program.
Finally, the bill requires that Members of Congress and their staffs buy their insurance on the same exchange that will be available to those who don't get insurance from their employer. In other words, Members of Congress will be required to be part of the new insurance exchange that we are creating.
I am opposed to any special deals in this bill for particular states. This earmarking process is an ingrained culture in Washington, where every year members go into back rooms and negotiate special deals for their states. This is a problem on both sides of the aisle and I find it hypocritical that some of the same Senators who are criticizing the earmarks in the health care bill were in line for special deals for their states in the annual spending bills passed just a few weeks ago. I'm proud that I am one of the few Senators of either party that refuses to participate in this flawed earmarking process. I'm hopeful that some of these special earmarks will be removed from the bill before our final vote.
This bill is not perfect, but in the end, I supported this legislation because it will reduce the federal deficit and contain health care costs. With one out of every six dollars in our economy going toward health care in the United States, it is imperative that our government work to rein in the soaring cost of health care. The bill will not only reduce the cost of insurance for families but also decrease the national deficit in the long term. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the bill would reduce the federal deficit by $130 billion over the next decade, followed by another $650 billion cut in the deficit in its second decade.
Health care reform holds the promise of lowering government budget deficits, curbing unsustainable health care costs, and expanding access to health coverage. As the health care debate continues, I will continue to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to find meaningful solutions to these difficult and complex problems.
You're very fortunate to be retired.

Those of us that aren't there yet better get out and vote in the upcoming mid-term elections.

Last edited by World Citizen; 01-18-2010 at 09:41 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-18-2010, 11:04 AM
 
2,000 posts, read 2,719,504 times
Reputation: 1567
I would say the larger companies you go to the less health insurance as a hiring factor comes up in the decision.

My company has well over 40k employees. Hiring managers do not think about, "Oh God this person is 56-- they may increase our premiums!!!"

On the other hand, in a small business, I am sure it does come into play. An extra 200.00 - 500.00 a month IS going to be noticed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-18-2010, 11:20 AM
 
4,519 posts, read 8,384,467 times
Reputation: 2140
Quote:
Originally Posted by lovetheduns View Post
I would say the larger companies you go to the less health insurance as a hiring factor comes up in the decision.

My company has well over 40k employees. Hiring managers do not think about, "Oh God this person is 56-- they may increase our premiums!!!"

On the other hand, in a small business, I am sure it does come into play. An extra 200.00 - 500.00 a month IS going to be noticed.
I was an Office Manager for a small company. That is why I'm aware of the actual cost per employee for health insurance.

What you say is true about hiring managers in larger companies.... at least, it once was.
In large companies, the Hiring Managers are not the ones concerned with containing cost. In larger companies, they have things called Memos that are issued by Controllers who look at cutting costs. It's illegal to discriminate because of age and nobody will admit it, but it's a fact of life in Corporate America.

These days big companies do all kinds of other things to avoid paying benefits. I recently worked for a major American company who no longer hires full time employees to keep from paying benefits. They run their business with a small group of long time employees who do have benefits and hire only "seasonal part-time" employees.
Along with that, they've instituted a Point System to legally get rid of their long time employees.

I'm sure that they're just one example of many companies who are now playing dirty games with their benefits - because they can.

It's in the News all of the time about other companies who are "cutting benefits" or who are raising the employee contribution....

No one is immune.

Last edited by World Citizen; 01-18-2010 at 12:04 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-18-2010, 01:16 PM
 
694 posts, read 712,973 times
Reputation: 339
Default This too shall pass

Quote:
Originally Posted by yellowsnow View Post
All of the above. I know if I were hiring for my own company, it would certainly cross my mind which candidates were cheap on insurance. I wouldn't necessarily allow myself to make a decision based on insurance but I'd think about it.

I very much believe in the makeover. It can make a huge difference in how you are perceived. Try hard to avoid matronly at all costs! Update everything!

I officially retired in Oct of 2008. I vowed I would only work at fun jobs after that. Nothing in my field. I wanted to do a 180 and be totally different. Today, I am a radio comedian and I work at a high end kitchen store. I'm on the lookout for some other interesting job to try out next. I'm certainly not bored.

As far as getting that job goes, I would say to look in the places most people wouldn't think about trying. Use all the people you know too. See what they think you should do.

Most important, don't give up!
I definitely would not go overboard spending big money on makeovers.

Just be aware of the little things one could do to present a polished image, such as an easy to style hair cut and shiny hair, a couple of flattering business outfits, a few discreet pieces of jewelry
and calm confidence at your interviews as you know that everything will be alright.

Second hand stores seem to have plenty of business suits and attire.
It might be fun to go and try on a few now and then.

Most important thing you can do though is not to take anything personally.
Do not internalize rejection, it is not about you, there are many people suffering in this so called "great recession".

At 50+ you have much to offer such as work ethics, emotional maturity, work experience, relational abilities, the sincere desire to do good work rather than fulfill one's own upward ambitions, stability, self-motivation and self-sufficiency, to list just a few.

This too shall pass.

Last edited by learningCA; 01-18-2010 at 01:41 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-18-2010, 01:56 PM
 
2,000 posts, read 2,719,504 times
Reputation: 1567
Quote:
Originally Posted by World Citizen View Post
I was an Office Manager for a small company. That is why I'm aware of the actual cost per employee for health insurance.

What you say is true about hiring managers in larger companies.... at least, it once was.
In large companies, the Hiring Managers are not the ones concerned with containing cost. In larger companies, they have things called Memos that are issued by Controllers who look at cutting costs. It's illegal to discriminate because of age and nobody will admit it, but it's a fact of life in Corporate America.

These days big companies do all kinds of other things to avoid paying benefits. I recently worked for a major American company who no longer hires full time employees to keep from paying benefits. They run their business with a small group of long time employees who do have benefits and hire only "seasonal part-time" employees.
Along with that, they've instituted a Point System to legally get rid of their long time employees.

I'm sure that they're just one example of many companies who are now playing dirty games with their benefits - because they can.

It's in the News all of the time about other companies who are "cutting benefits" or who are raising the employee contribution....

No one is immune.
World Citizen-- the point is not whether or not companies are trying to contain costs and are trying to limit benefits for their employees-- the point was that the OP was asking about if her age was of a consideration when looking for employment. This then branched off into how small businesses will more often than not consider many factors when choosing an employee that a larger corporation does not need to take into consideration.

When you have a larger pool of shared risk and benefits-- you don't have to watch each hire and think-- oh dear will they cost me more?

Of course large companies, medium companies, small companies, and even global companies are trying to find ways to absorb costs and contain them. They would be foolish not to.

A company (unless owned by the employees in a coop) is not a charity. They have interests to make profits and increase the wealth of their shareholders (either public shareholders or private ones).

I can tell you in my company new hires are not evaluated on whether or not they will cost more in terms of benefits. We also use seasonal temp employees at the busiest time of the year for us (we hire loads of them) because after that few months of spiked volume we no longer need them. It would make no sense keeping them on the payroll and paying benefits for them when we only need them for one quarter out of the year. This is not the company trying to be mean evil-doer big brother-- it makes business sense to not hire massive amounts of employees for a 3 month spike.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-18-2010, 02:31 PM
 
4,519 posts, read 8,384,467 times
Reputation: 2140
Quote:
Originally Posted by lovetheduns View Post
World Citizen-- the point is not whether or not companies are trying to contain costs and are trying to limit benefits for their employees-- the point was that the OP was asking about if her age was of a consideration when looking for employment. This then branched off into how small businesses will more often than not consider many factors when choosing an employee that a larger corporation does not need to take into consideration.

When you have a larger pool of shared risk and benefits-- you don't have to watch each hire and think-- oh dear will they cost me more?

Of course large companies, medium companies, small companies, and even global companies are trying to find ways to absorb costs and contain them. They would be foolish not to.

A company (unless owned by the employees in a coop) is not a charity. They have interests to make profits and increase the wealth of their shareholders (either public shareholders or private ones).

I can tell you in my company new hires are not evaluated on whether or not they will cost more in terms of benefits. We also use seasonal temp employees at the busiest time of the year for us (we hire loads of them) because after that few months of spiked volume we no longer need them. It would make no sense keeping them on the payroll and paying benefits for them when we only need them for one quarter out of the year. This is not the company trying to be mean evil-doer big brother-- it makes business sense to not hire massive amounts of employees for a 3 month spike.
Hon, the point of this thread is about a 50+ woman who is looking for a job.

I'm happy to hear that YOUR company is a wonderful company who is doing well and still hiring people and paying benefits.
I hope you realize how very fortunate YOU are and how many people in this country are NOT in YOUR situation.

The problem is that you are basing your knowledge on one company. Some of us have been out there dealing with the issues that the OP is facing... and we're looking for full time work with benefits. Some of us have been forced to see more than one company's hiring practices and have more than an outsider's view of the issues.
As someone who's in their 30's, you haven't had that experience.

YOU can be very sure that the company I talked about in my previous post DOESN'T hire ANY full time people. They classify all employees that they currently hire as "part-time seasonal" to keep from paying benefits. It's not my imagination. It's a fact. It doesn't matter how good of a job you do, or if you're always early, or how much experience you have. As a "part-time seasonal employee" for them, you work 10 hour days with a 30 minute lunch and you're paid $7.25 an hour... and then you're gone. The only person who was still there after the holidays was a young woman who happened to be in my training group who told me that "she was a felon, on probation from a drug conviction." The government pays them to hire her. The rest of us were let go the week before Christmas. That's the way they run their business.
Another division of their company uses "part-time seasonal" employees 9 months a year. Those people work full time hours, 9 months a year. It doesn't matter if you work there full time, 9 months a year - for years, you still don't get benefits because you're classified as "part-time seasonal". Personally, I think that's wrong. I'm certain that's another issue that you and I disagree on since you, without knowing very much, are already defending their practices.

and, for your information, I was not the one who originally pointed out that employers consider health insurance when they're considering hiring and that just maybe 'in the interview she should mention that she doesn't need insurance.'

So, please don't tell me what the point is. I can read.

Last edited by World Citizen; 01-18-2010 at 03:39 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-18-2010, 03:51 PM
 
694 posts, read 712,973 times
Reputation: 339
Default Small Business Drives The U.S. Economy

Quote:
Originally Posted by lovetheduns View Post
World Citizen-- the point is not whether or not companies are trying to contain costs and are trying to limit benefits for their employees-- the point was that the OP was asking about if her age was of a consideration when looking for employment. This then branched off into how small businesses will more often than not consider many factors when choosing an employee that a larger corporation does not need to take into consideration.

When you have a larger pool of shared risk and benefits-- you don't have to watch each hire and think-- oh dear will they cost me more?

Of course large companies, medium companies, small companies, and even global companies are trying to find ways to absorb costs and contain them. They would be foolish not to.

A company (unless owned by the employees in a coop) is not a charity. They have interests to make profits and increase the wealth of their shareholders (either public shareholders or private ones).

I can tell you in my company new hires are not evaluated on whether or not they will cost more in terms of benefits. We also use seasonal temp employees at the busiest time of the year for us (we hire loads of them) because after that few months of spiked volume we no longer need them. It would make no sense keeping them on the payroll and paying benefits for them when we only need them for one quarter out of the year. This is not the company trying to be mean evil-doer big brother-- it makes business sense to not hire massive amounts of employees for a 3 month spike.
In 2005, small business represented 99.7 percent of all the nation’s employer businesses, according to this report released on September 28, 2006:

SBA: Office of Advocacy - Small Business Drives The U.S. Economy (http://www.sba.gov/advo/press/06-17.html - broken link)

The cost of health insurance is an important consideration in hiring decisions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $84,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Work and Employment

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:48 PM.

© 2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top