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 health insurance issue is really the key one here. Yes, you could take contractual work, and this could work well,even leading to extensions, if you have your own individual insurance policy. Lacking that, contractual work is less attractive, but still perhaps worth a look, if for no other reason than a (temporary) steady paycheck.
There's always the possibility of combining two part-time jobs, as long as one of them might offer health insurance benefits ( hospital employment comes to mind)..
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.
Are you applying for the kinds of roles that an under-35 would often fill?
Are you applying for the kinds of roles that an under-35 would often fill?
What size companies?
It's a field with strong prejudice towards the young; experience means you're old and set in your ways. I understand that bias completely.
I have applied to every size company, from one or two man shops to national corporations and local government. That's a lot of what makes this so very frustrating: I am very very flexible about the job situations I'm seeking. I am not trying to find some micro perfect niche.
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.
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.
Not too political, at all. You're safe.
The last two companies I've worked for (including current one) both Fortune *10*, are of such the size that they are self-insured. They use an insurance carrier for their network and pre-negotiated rates to control costs, but the company is actually paying out the insurance benefits to providers, not BCBS or whomever is on your card. It's a way of saving money because they're eliminating the margin the insurer would normally take.
This is why insurance for SMALL business is so darn expensive. This is what it costs to have the insurer pay benefits from their own pocket. The actuaries are incredibly risk-averse, and this is why I say that it's so hypocritical to preach against fraud, waste, and abuse when in this new system, EVERYONE pays rates as if they're the WORST risk. We're FRAUDulently disincentivizing being healthy, WASTING your employee's money as well as the company's, and ABUSING this new system by letting providers (and their suppliers) set market rates for services that directly affect your premium, whether you personally need any care that year or not.
It's a field with strong prejudice towards the young; experience means you're old and set in your ways. I understand that bias completely.
I have applied to every size company, from one or two man shops to national corporations and local government. That's a lot of what makes this so very frustrating: I am very very flexible about the job situations I'm seeking. I am not trying to find some micro perfect niche.
Have you tried contract work or consulting?
I'm in IT, went from being a young turk to a middle-aged guy with graying hair and while there may be bias I've not found it fatal.
The last two companies I've worked for (including current one) both Fortune *10*, are of such the size that they are self-insured. They use an insurance carrier for their network and pre-negotiated rates to control costs, but the company is actually paying out the insurance benefits to providers, not BCBS or whomever is on your card. It's a way of saving money because they're eliminating the margin the insurer would normally take.
That's not uncommon, I think even Fortune 500-1000 do it that way.
I'm in IT, went from being a young turk to a middle-aged guy with graying hair and while there may be bias I've not found it fatal.
My limiting issue is health coverage. If I make more than a token amount, I get pushed out of the affordable tier of exchange insurance. I have to go from that to full employer coverage - or an income level that will let me buy insurance at a higher tier - with no middle ground.
I have more factors than age making things difficult, mostly two relocations in eight years that have left me without a network of contacts, clients etc.
I'm not in any way saying there aren't reasons for my poor response rate. But I'm only looking for one job, at any reasonable compensation, across a very broad spectrum of roles. Nothing but evident age is keeping me from even being interviewed for many of these positions, especially those that are relisted repeatedly.
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.
