3424 Too young to retire?

Sheryl McCarthy in the Forum section of USA Today (1-31-07) writes about the woes of being a pushed-out, down-sized journalist living on income from part-time jobs and free lancing who wants a "real job." She writes,

". . . we're being prematurely marginalized, even though we have skills that are useful to the economy" and she wants "U.S. companies to stop discriminating against willing and qualified older workers for the jobs that are available."

No, Sheryl, your journalism skills, your network of contacts, your technological know-how, and your cultural mind-set are no longer useful to U.S. newspapers, magazines, and the publishing industry in general. Even some of the facts you supply for your article, don't support your argument, such as there are more people over 55 working full time today than a decade ago, and that the search time to find a job for 50+ is only 15 days longer than younger workers. And lack of mobility could have a lot to do with that.

You mention in your article that before age 58 you worked 17 years for the same newspaper, watching others being shown the door, then it happened to you. You've known this was coming for almost two decades, and what did you do? How long did you think the party would go on before the bar closed? You are a baby boomer. From the time you entered kindergarten, every public service, agency and church in the country from your public school, to the college and universities, to the county and state agencies to the federal government have been looking out for you, opening doors for you with new rules and regulations and adjusting projections and benefits.

When you were 35, how many younger workers, the new grads, did you mentor? How many older workers were you including in your lunch get-togethers or focus groups? Were you adding your older co-workers to task groups you chaired, or helping them in workshops, or stepping aside so they could get the career advancement at your expense? I doubt it.

Step into the shoes for 5 minutes of the HR person (whose job is also on the line daily). MPOW employs 20 people in the writing and communications department, and one person retired whose salary and benefits cost the firm $75,000. The HR reviews 3 candidates, all with strong resumes.

• 1) New college grad (2006), salary range begins about $35,000 + benefits, has huge college loans to pay, still young enough to want to pursue other goals and locales if the opportunity were to come up--maybe Mumbai or LA.
• 2) Recent college grad (ca. 2001) with four solid years of work experience, some post-graduate courses, no unexplained absenses in the work record with former employer (which could indicate health problems or lack of commitment to the career); glowing references including names known to HR person (similar age), and some web and software design experience; salary range begins at about $43,000.
• 3) 58 year old who graduated from Columbia in the early 1970s, very strong resume with reputable journals and newspaper all in the metropolitan Northeastern U.S., now all defunct; can use a laptop and PC but has few other computer skills; no recent course work or foreign assignments; wants $60,000 to even start talking, because "I'm worth it" attitude.

Well, I'd choose #2--she's not green or showing up for work still in party mode, but has useful work experience with a solid network and HR hopes she'll stick around and help the company grow. There's enough money in the piggy bank to hire her with some left over for a part-timer or free lancer who won't require benefits--maybe that #3 candidate who also applied for the job. HR gets a bonus for hiring smart.

older workers
employment discrimination
ageism