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.
Age discrimination is a true fact...I'm youthful looking, up to date on all office technologies, don't look "grandmotherly". But as I said before many of the applications I'm required to fill out state if any information is left off it's grounds for not reviewing the application and resume so of course they as HS and College grad dates and these can't be left off. FYI the only jobs in this area right now are the county and university jobs so those are the ones I'm applying to.
My resume only has dates of employment on it not on my college education info.
Just today, I was on the phone with my local DOL and was discussing the age discrimination issue and she told me that it's there and impossible to prove but it is happening she is seeing quite a bit of it...qualified 50+ers are not getting interviews or jobs...so at least in my part of the world it's real.
I'm in my mid-40s. I just finished a Master's degree, and may go for another in a few years. When I sent my resumes out, I show only the last 10 years of experience and I leave the date off my first (Bachelor's) degree. (I figure that because get Master's degrees at any or multiple times in their lives, that is less likely to show when you started out. I haven't had any problem with ommitting dates on the resume. And usually, I've only been asked to complete a job application if they plan to hire me. On the job application, I leave the dates off for the BA degree again. I have had only one company (Citicorp) insist that I complete that field.
As far as slowness... when I'm interviewing other people, I look at the types of applications a person has used. If I see a lot of recent software apps and recent classes taken, that person is usually sharp (regardless of age). If I don't see some evidence of 'a willingness to learn new things,' I won't hire them (regardless of age).
I think it's both age and physical appearance... and both of those lead into insurance costs.
As for the group insurance question, it's my understanding that it varies by state. Even with a group policy, your insurance costs have to be re-negotiated at the end of every contract and that number is based upon what your employees used during that time period.
So, if you have a fit/active staff who barely went to the doctor... your premiums would likely only rise with whatever is the regional average. If you have a staff (one of my last agencies) who had a multitude of surgeries, sick children, maintenance meds, and chronic illnesses, your policy price could rise/double and they can even restrict your company from purchasing insurance.
Even the states with insurance laws guaranteeing a no reject (usually for individuals, not businesses) make NO limits on costs for the policy. As a group shakes out, they make money if most people don't use their benefits... which most healthy people won't use it that often... but when the scale tips, so do the costs, and you better believe I've sat in on more than one negotiation when that happens.
Older employees, younger obese employees, employees of any age with chronic illness or disability, etc... are a financial liability to a smaller business (less than 1,000 employees) if they intend to continue to provide health insurance. That's not even taking into consideration the likelihood of missed days due to illness/complications...
I think it's both age and physical appearance... and both of those lead into insurance costs.
As for the group insurance question, it's my understanding that it varies by state. Even with a group policy, your insurance costs have to be re-negotiated at the end of every contract and that number is based upon what your employees used during that time period.
So, if you have a fit/active staff who barely went to the doctor... your premiums would likely only rise with whatever is the regional average. If you have a staff (one of my last agencies) who had a multitude of surgeries, sick children, maintenance meds, and chronic illnesses, your policy price could rise/double and they can even restrict your company from purchasing insurance.
Even the states with insurance laws guaranteeing a no reject (usually for individuals, not businesses) make NO limits on costs for the policy. As a group shakes out, they make money if most people don't use their benefits... which most healthy people won't use it that often... but when the scale tips, so do the costs, and you better believe I've sat in on more than one negotiation when that happens.
Older employees, younger obese employees, employees of any age with chronic illness or disability, etc... are a financial liability to a smaller business (less than 1,000 employees) if they intend to continue to provide health insurance. That's not even taking into consideration the likelihood of missed days due to illness/complications...
hmmm...you mention children, however, in your post. Wouldn't the fact that older workers generally no longer need to cover their children at all tip the scale at least some in favor of the older worker? Also, no days absent relating to the children.
hmmm...you mention children, however, in your post. Wouldn't the fact that older workers generally no longer need to cover their children at all tip the scale at least some in favor of the older worker? Also, no days absent relating to the children.
Generally speaking the employer covers very little of the family plan for insurance coverage.
Where I work now, this is the cost that the employer has per pay period (two weeks):
Employee under 30: $112.15
50-54: $215.54
60-64 $335.54
It costs roughly $94 per pay period per dependent. The employer pays 100% of the employees health coverage, but the employee pays 100% of the coverage for each dependent. I obviously didn't list all age groups, just wanted to give an idea. Also once the employee hits 65 the cost drops way down, as most will be covered by medicare.
Also, I know that one of the reasons I've gotten my last two jobs was that I'm young enough to not cost a fortune for insurance but am also an empty nester. The only responsibility I have at home is a dog, and if needs to wait an extra hour or two if I get delayed at the office, it's not a problem.
Generally speaking the employer covers very little of the family plan for insurance coverage.
Where I work now, this is the cost that the employer has per pay period (two weeks):
Employee under 30: $112.15
50-54: $215.54
60-64 $335.54
It costs roughly $94 per pay period per dependent. The employer pays 100% of the employees health coverage, but the employee pays 100% of the coverage for each dependent. I obviously didn't list all age groups, just wanted to give an idea. Also once the employee hits 65 the cost drops way down, as most will be covered by medicare.
Also, I know that one of the reasons I've gotten my last two jobs was that I'm young enough to not cost a fortune for insurance but am also an empty nester. The only responsibility I have at home is a dog, and if needs to wait an extra hour or two if I get delayed at the office, it's not a problem.
Yes, that's true, however.... I may be thinking wrongly about this, but still I'm thinkin'....no matter who is covering the premiums, the insurance company would still have to bear the expense of any claims that an employee's child(ren) might represent though? And ultimately, isn't that what drives the cost which is ultimately passed along to the employer?
Yes, that's true, however.... I may be thinking wrongly about this, but still I'm thinkin'....no matter who is covering the premiums, the insurance company would still have to bear the expense of any claims that an employee's child(ren) might represent though? And ultimately, isn't that what drives the cost which is ultimately passed along to the employer?
Not really, as the great majority of kids are healthy and don't have any extraordinary health care expenses.
From a Human Resources Recruiter over the age of fifty:
Age discrimination is very real. You have to be twice as good if you are over 45. I always say the easiest years to find a job is between age 25-40 unless you are looking for an executive position, then you are OK to age fifty.
One of the reason why is it so hard to find a job after age 45 is fit. Because most people in the office are in their 20s and 30s they are afraid older workers will not fit in with the younger people and become a problem. Another reason for age discrimination is most employers want someone who has the perfect number of years of experience. Most jobs want someone with 3-5 years experience so the 30 year old fits in fine. If you have 20 years experience they assume you are burned out and over qualified.
Everyone in my office is over 40. There are 11 of us. The job that most people do in our office requires a minimum of 8 years training experience, 5 years management experience, 5 years classroom delivery, several years of telecom, and some knowledge of Unix and Oracle is important too. Customer support experience is also valued. We couldn't find anyone in their 20s and 30s (among the resumes sent in) who could fill these positions. This was the case at my two previous jobs as well.
My take-away from this is that age and experience can be more beneficial to positions that require a convergence of multiple skills sets (and where there is a high level of competency also needed for each individual set).
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.
you mention children, however, in your post. Wouldn't the fact that older workers generally no longer need to cover their children at all tip the scale at least some in favor of the older worker? Also, no days absent relating to the children.
