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.
The contractor I worked for had benefits you could purchase at a group rate, health insurance, life insurance, 401K, etc. I didn't need them because I had retiree benefits, but the younger guys used them.
That's quite rare, in my experience. I'm sure that there are major corporations that use a lot of temps and contractors who have better policies in place.
Quote:
As another poster said, this is a risk free option for the employer, so there's no need for ageism. If you work out it's a win win. No politics, no games, just performance is all that matters.
I don't think it's 'risk-free' in that older workers do have higher health coverage costs. As an employer, we were lucky to have a workforce of almost entirely young women, who were dirt-cheap to cover. As the rates rose, we went to a 50-50 plan, and then skyrocketing coverage costs were one factor that made us finally decide it was time to move on. But our older employees could be 4-5-8X the cost of the 20-somethings.
If I get to any point in an application process where I can say it, I emphasize that I am looking at overall or total compensation - that I know my health coverage will be expensive and I'm willing to take a corresponding hit in salary, whether that's completely kosher or not. Hasn't helped yet.
I think many small to medium employers have an exaggerated idea of the costs, and assume a 50-something employee will demand max salary along with the same healthcare terms as the scrubs. So the problem is likely real on that level, whatever the actual legal/economic situation.
This was my experience. If you were a fast learner and good performer and was just interested in doing the work and getting paid, it was a win win.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Disgustedman
I'm wondering if those who have great experience, vast knowledge of the market and have an intuitive ability might not be better off going contract work instead of applying for the jobs available.
This would give the company a chance to bring them in, but with no "Employment" tangle of benefits and such, then when done, the contract can be extended or ended...
Not to get too political, but this is something to consider when you vote on policy stances in the future.
See, companies don't just pay your salaries, they also pay a large portion of your employee benefits (i.e. health insurance, LTD, STD, etc.). According to my recent research as someone working in the actuarial realm, it's somewhere at about 70% of the premium that your employer pays. You're not just more expensive because of your experience and skills, but you're also a greater liability to their insurance risk pool. I'm not saying that this is a major factor in hiring decisions, but it sure is a concern each year when they get their renewals or go out to bid from their carriers.
Keep that in mind the next time you're thinking about how you don't want the government meddling in your health affairs. Sorry to break it to you, but your employer is already doing exactly that, and they are indeed making hiring/retention decisions as a result of bigger risk pools and higher premiums that come along with hiring older workers.
Source: I work in employee benefits consulting from the actuarial/financial perspective. We talk to CEOs/CFOs for a living about this stuff.
That's quite rare, in my experience. I'm sure that there are major corporations that use a lot of temps and contractors who have better policies in place.
....
Temps and contractors are not the same. Contract work is generally on a 6 month contract basis, is full time, and pays well. It is generally skilled work, so work experience and ability and willingness to learn quickly and perform well is expected. As an independent contractor you get paid on a 1099 so you have to make your own tax depostits with the IRS and state as there is no withholding. It's not the same as clerical or office temps or part time work.
The movie industry has used this model for generations now. People don't work for a studio, they come together as independent contractors on a project by project basis.
Temps and contractors are not the same. Contract work is generally on a 6 month contract basis, is full time, and pays well. It is generally skilled work, so work experience and ability and willingness to learn quickly and perform well is expected. It's not the same as clerical or office temps or part time employees.
I'm aware of that.
Long-term (at one employer or serial positions) temp situations often include benefits, usually through the agency rather than the employer.
But in general, I can't afford to do direct client or contract work because it would unbalance my very delicate health coverage situation.
Health coverage is a very big consideration. Even as retirees with medicare it costs me and my wife close to $10K a year for medical and prescription coverage and copays. But you must have it. Three years ago I was circling the drain in the hospital for 23 days. The bill came to roughly $375K. I paid $1,700 out of pocket.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietude
I'm aware of that.
Long-term (at one employer or serial positions) temp situations often include benefits, usually through the agency rather than the employer.
But in general, I can't afford to do direct client or contract work because it would unbalance my very delicate health coverage situation.
Before anyone claims age discrimination, I'd like to see their resume first. Just because one has worked for a certain number of years doesn't mean they've built a marketable career.
I'm sure there is some of this.
Let's say a company is looking for a claims processor. It's the kind of job you could potentially learn fairly quickly, but take a few years to master.
One candidate is 55, and has 30 years as a salaried claims processor.
One candidate is 30, and has 5 years as a salaried claims processor.
Does the extra 25 years experience matter? It may, or it may not. But it's likely that the younger candidate is cheaper. That does make a difference.
I've told people before that 20 years experience means 20 years of experience, not 2 years of experience that is repeated for 20 years.
Take another situation, looking for a general manager of a division.
One candidate is 55, and has 20+ years in progressive leadership roles including SVP at a competitor.
One candidate is 30, and has 5 years in leadership roles, including for 1 year SVP at a competitor.
This one would be tougher. Is the 30 year old super brilliant that he/she got to the SVP level that quickly? Are they mature and seasoned enough to run an entire division? Maybe or maybe not. But if the 55 year old has a solid resume with the things the company is looking for - including experience - he/she might be a better hire.
Does the extra 25 years experience matter? It may, or it may not. But it's likely that the younger candidate is cheaper. That does make a difference.
This is getting repetitive, redundant and repeated, but...
My situation is that employers will not call me, because of age. They list the job three or four times in six weeks and are clearly not interested in someone evidently past 35, even though the job goes unfilled. They only review the top-metascreened candidates in each batch and never look further. They'd rather cast the net again, looking for someone qualified and of a "suitable" age, than work through qualified candidates who don't meet other arbitrary benchmarks... such as age.
I am not (always) in some kind of head-to-head competition as you sketch out; I am not being considered worth hiring, at all. Even if the company is hurting for the slot to be filled.
This is getting repetitive, redundant and repeated, but...
My situation is that employers will not call me, because of age. They list the job three or four times in six weeks and are clearly not interested in someone evidently past 35, even though the job goes unfilled. They only review the top-metascreened candidates in each batch and never look further. They'd rather cast the net again, looking for someone qualified and of a "suitable" age, than work through qualified candidates who don't meet other arbitrary benchmarks... such as age.
I am not (always) in some kind of head-to-head competition as you sketch out; I am not being considered worth hiring, at all. Even if the company is hurting for the slot to be filled.
How do they know you're over 35 prior to the interview?
How do they know you're over 35 prior to the interview?
Oh, that's right, you've been on hiatus the last year and haven't followed every single freakin' discussion in this area.
My resume cannot hide that I am somewhere quite north of 45 or so... and that's the stripped, polished and not-quite-fictionalized version. My complete c.v. would make me look even older than I am, since my significant career milestones begin at 17-18.
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.
