In the USA, the usual expected retirement age is 65. During these hard times, Newspapers and TV outlets have been letting go of older workers (those in the 50s and 60s) and hiring newer younger faces. (Cant say Im too upset by this since I am a reporter trying to break out into the field), But anyways, that got me thinking? Does age matter in the workplace? 8 years ago, my dad who at the time was 56 years old was released along with several others due to "budget cuts" being made to facilities of a hospital that my dad had worked at. They then proceeded to hire newer younger and "cheaper" faces. So the question here is, does age matter? In my honest opinion, if you can still do your job then it does not matter. what do you guys think?
Does Age Matter in the workplace?
- Thread starter RBH
- Start date
Completly depends what line of work it is. If for example, it's a job where it's mainly labour, then I can understand them trying to get younger people in, because someone who is 65 is much less physically fit than a 21 year old, so I can see the benefits. However, if it's not a job that requires much labour, like in a hospital, then I don't think it's right. Someone older is just as qualified to do that job compared to a younger person, and probably more qualified because of their experience.
Azrael Cain
The alternative is unthinkable.
I heard just today from a friend that sher grandfather is 91 years old and is still working in a hospital reading cardiograms or something complicated like that. So I think OIS is correct: it depends on the type of labor and the industry.
Physically demanding jobs (e.g.: construction workers, policeman, fireman, I guess) require younger, stronger workers. Jobs that are not as physically demanding (e.g.: teachers, lawyers and doctors maybe?) can be done well into the fifties, sixties and even seventies. Of course there is no guarantee the level of hands on experience will be the same as when one was younger, but there is the ever popular "supervisor" position often given to older employees (common to restaurants, government, etc).
Physically demanding jobs (e.g.: construction workers, policeman, fireman, I guess) require younger, stronger workers. Jobs that are not as physically demanding (e.g.: teachers, lawyers and doctors maybe?) can be done well into the fifties, sixties and even seventies. Of course there is no guarantee the level of hands on experience will be the same as when one was younger, but there is the ever popular "supervisor" position often given to older employees (common to restaurants, government, etc).
Kasey
Connoiseur of the MILF
Depends on the job and on the qualifications required to do that job. I work at a fitness facility in the front office and I typically can't stand dealing with an employee who is not computer-literate. Generally, when it comes to age I don't hire over the age of thirty because most who are over that age are absolutely fucking clueless when it comes to computers (and our sales module is simple as it gets). Of the two I have hired over that age (one 43 and one well into her late fifties), they both fucked up paperwork and sales transactions worse then the average 16-year old with NO experience. When it came to physical labor, there was also a division there as well. We don't have much to do, but I do not hire someone who cannot move equipment well and isn't able-bodied enough to do the requisite daily cleaning tasks that the job requires. But if they're able to do all of the job tasks, I really don't care either way how old they are, just whether or not they can do the job with efficiency and regularity.
Some employers may be different, though. I worked for the government on battleships for a while and they have a typical system in place where the young, cheap, and spry youngsters are generally saddled with the old, fat, out-of-shape and generally immobile sloths who've been there a while. The sad thing is that because the guy I was with had much longer tenure than I, he made nearly $30 per hour for sitting on his ass and basically directing traffic. Meanwhile, I scraped $11.00 per hour while doing all of the physical shit-work. In that case, I think that some qualifications have to physically be met because I can't stand seeing someone bust ass on the same job and get mediocre pay while a lazy fucker rakes in the dough.
Some employers may be different, though. I worked for the government on battleships for a while and they have a typical system in place where the young, cheap, and spry youngsters are generally saddled with the old, fat, out-of-shape and generally immobile sloths who've been there a while. The sad thing is that because the guy I was with had much longer tenure than I, he made nearly $30 per hour for sitting on his ass and basically directing traffic. Meanwhile, I scraped $11.00 per hour while doing all of the physical shit-work. In that case, I think that some qualifications have to physically be met because I can't stand seeing someone bust ass on the same job and get mediocre pay while a lazy fucker rakes in the dough.
I think employees should be able to live up to their jobs. If one can no longer perform tasks at an adequate level they must either be relocated within the company, or relieved of their duty. That is the way within the western world. Though if an employee has worked for that company for a set number of years, I would recommend at least 10, then that employee must be relieved with a pension. This of course does not count for employees that are released from their position due to things that the employee controls. The only problem with this is employers could seek to release employees before they reach 10 years, so a solution would have to be constructed to prevent this.
