Old, Skilled and Overpaid?

Sometimes, it’s because younger folks want the opportunity being held by a senior, and the company just wants to promote them. Other times, the company simply wants to dump an older worker who has accrued too high a level of compensation over the years and replace him or her with a lower paid, younger worker. There’s also the case of an uber-skilled senior worker not exactly fitting in with compatriots in a company who are vastly younger that he or she is, simply an awkward work environment. And some times, the older worker simply has not kept up the required changes in his or her field of employment.

But often when an older worker loses his or her job, that’s really the end of the line. Getting another job just might not be in the cards. “Once older workers lose their jobs, many never regain their former standard of living. On average, those who do find work make 20 percent less than they had in their previous positions, the biggest income loss for any age group, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.” New York Times, December 6^th.

In1967, the feds passed the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (many states have comparable legislation for workers who might not fit the federal mandate), which does not impact smaller employers and does require activity in interstate commerce. It covers workers over 40 but exempts jobs where age is actually a relevant criteria: for example, actors playing younger roles could actually be required to be young, and where physical requirements and acuity are involved (impacted by age) or where services are performed overseas where foreign laws have other requirements, etc. The law covers firing, promotions, salaries, denial of benefits, etc.

But firing someone (or denying them other company benefits), even if their pay has risen too high for the job, primarily because of age does create a pretty well-defined right of the wronged individual to pursue a nasty federal (or state) claim where the burden of proof that the discharge was for justifiable reasons is easily shifted to the employer. And in today’s downsizing priorities, companies are looking to remove or deny benefits to older workers with accelerating frequency… at their peril.

“Age discrimination claims are on the rise as members of the post-World War II baby boom enter their 60s. Last year, 22,857 people filed age-related complaints with the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, compared with 16,548 in 2006.” NY Times. With unemployment at the younger entry-level, even among skilled college graduates, at double the national average, and with the majority of such entry-level jobs falling into the bottom level of pay and economic opportunity (think of a barista at Starbucks), is there a rational basis for clearing out the older workers to allow the next generation to begin to build an American dream that may well be denied if they are unemployed too long or hold lower-level jobs beyond a very short term? Is that a cruel necessity? We see vastly higher rates of unemployment among the young all across the developed world. How do we fix that?

As an older worker myself, I think I have a lot more to contribute before I am stockpiled in the rubbish of my retirement. Aside the fact that I love to work, it also remains an economic necessity. On the other hand, what we should be doing to create massive employment – investing in our nation’s own overall future – is simply being crushed by austerity priorities and overly-generous pension and health benefits doled out in better times in government at every level. I’ve blogged about our rather obvious inability to fund those pensions and maintain the kind of police, fire and other basic local government services we need at the same time.

Our airports are simply not going to be able to support the levels of almost-certain air traffic in the very near term. There are thousands and thousands of roads and bridges that simply cannot hold up under current wear and tear, and given the press of large populations using infrastructure designed for a fraction of current usage, need to be expanded in addition to being repaired. Our educational system, which in theory is training the next generations to compete in a fiercely competitive global environment, keeps dropping in ultimate performance, particularly when compared to the Asian Tigers that want to crush the American competitive domination that once define the global economy. And we have curtailed government-sponsored research (look at the number of programs terminated by The Sequester) and technology programs (like NASA) that are and were the job creators for millions of Americans.

In short, the problems of weeding out older workers is simply because the United States has considerably reduced the economic opportunities in our own world and appears to prioritize further reductions so that our increasingly-under-skilled workforce can battle over the scraps of the lower level jobs, particularly in food services and hospitality, that continue to exist. Hard to understand why this anomaly continues when 90% of the income improvement since 2008 has gone to the top 10% of earners and 1% of America owns 42% of its wealth. The shrinking middle class is a terrible result. If you have money, you can insulate yourself from the negativity. If not, you do or will soon define that under-performing statistic!

I’m Peter Dekom, and I wonder why so many Americans, who feeling the pain, really do not pressure their elected representatives to fix the problem (tea, anyone?).