It’s become obvious to me that the mission statement of most mid- or large-sized companies in the U.S. is : “Know the price of everything and the value of nothing.” How else to explain the epidemic of underemployed and unemployed people over 40?
A Business Journal contributing writer recently explained why companies don’t want to hire people over 40. Below are the reasons he was given by people who hire:
If they hire an experienced, mature worker at a salary that is clearly below what he/she should earn (should being the operative word here) they’ll be gone as soon as something better comes along
Working Stiffed response: So…pay them what they should earn…duh! How much money do companies lose because of the sometimes expensive mistakes made be less experienced, “cheaper” employees? Besides, wouldn’t it make more sense to have a few mature, experienced workers around who can mentor younger talent?
For that matter, what should companies expect if they underpay anyone, young or old? Do they think people will stick around for the pleasure of their manager’s company or to admire how effectively the CEO spends all the money he/she gets to keep by underpaying their employees??? Good luck with that.
If an experienced, mature worker accepts a lower salary than he/she should be earning (should…there’s that word again) there’s probably something wrong with him/her
Working Stiffed response: There is something wrong with unemployed mature workers; they are out of work for no good reason. I’d argue that there is really something wrong with short-nearsighted hiring managers and business owners who leave valuable talent at the interview table because of greed and ageism.
Job candidates over 40 who don’t get the job may sue for age discrimination
Working Stiffed response: And they should, if that is the only reason they are not being considered for the job, but the reality is they probably won’t sue you. In an environment where unions are routinely demonized and destroyed, few workers expect to find a sympathetic ear in the courts (and recent regulations have only reinforced employer-favored outcomes).
Besides, such an action would dash any hope of finding work, and finding a job when you’re over 40 is hard enough without having a failed age discrimination lawsuit to contend with during interviews.
Companies want someone who will stay for a while, and someone over 40 might retire sooner than they want
Working Stiffed response: As best as I can tell, most companies don’t want people to stick around, unless they’re young, cheap and don’t screw up too much. If a business is sincerely looking for long-term employees, they should prefer generation-Xers and baby boomers; they are more inclined to stick around and work hard, if they can land a decent job where they are appreciated.
Most millennials will tell you that they are not obsessed with money and they also don’t want to spend up to 80 hours a week trapped in an office. Thanks to all the zombie, vampire and doomsday scenario entertainment they grew up with, many are focused on having as many invigorating life experiences as they can before the zombie apocalypse, so good luck with your youth-focused succession planning, Mr. or Ms. Hiring Manager.
Besides, who can afford to retire these days? I swear I saw a former VP I worked with bagging groceries at Publix the other day.
Workers over 40 are too set in their ways
Working Stiffed response: Not necessarily; we’re just used to doing things the right way. What some people call “set in their ways” others call avoiding mistakes learned through trial and error. But don’t worry; we have the maturity to sit on the sidelines and let the young guns try out “awesome” out-of-the-box ideas, even if we know these sparks of innovation will turn into a waste of time and money.
The value of workers over 40
I’m sure the writer of the Business Article meant well; after all he was trying to sell the virtues of hiring mature employees. Unfortunately, the emphasis of the article was to inform companies that they have an opportunity to benefit from hiring experienced older workers at any crap salary they choose by exploiting the fact that many are now broke and desperate after being forced out of the workforce. It’s hard to appreciate such support when your alleged sole virtue is that you’re a bargain who should be fished out of the clearance bin.
Instead of focusing on the reasons to avoid hiring experienced workers, let’s look at the benefits of hiring qualified people over 40 (and, no, saving money by underpaying them isn’t a sound strategy):
If you pay us what we’re worth, we will likely MORE than earn our salary
We’ve already learned from our mistakes, so we won’t make them on your dime. Plus, we can hit the ground running and we’re more likely to have the emotional maturity needed to build relationships with stakeholders and to work well with others (that go-getter ego a lot of young managers have often works against getting the job done efficiently or effectively).
If you hire us at a salary worthy of our experience, you’re also likely to get a hard worker who is less likely to jump to another opportunity
Young people know that the only way they are going boost their pay is by jumping to other companies. And if they’re valued at one company, the odds are they’ll be appealing to another company…maybe even a competitor.
A mature employee is more likely to keep their wisdom and hard work ethic around longer, especially if they are paid what they are worth and are appreciated, because they know their job jumping days are behind them.
You need experienced workers to mentor your young talent
When I entered the white collar workforce after graduating from college, I had the benefit of working in a fully staffed department (back before “economies of scale” shrunk every operation to the bone). I learned a lot from my older, experienced coworkers. I don’t think I would have become as skilled in my field without their guidance.
If you have several employees, it’s a good idea to have at least one seasoned veteran to show them the ropes. And if you have limited resources for staffing, you probably don’t have the budget for costly trial and error, so if it comes down to hiring young and cheap or shelling out a little more for an experienced over 40 worker, you’re better off erring on the side of experience.
You get what you pay for
The last year I was employed as a full-time marketing manager, I generated more than 30 times my salary in revenue for my company. When I lost my position after my company was acquired by a competitor, my job was eliminated in favor of the acquiring company’s young, inexperienced manager.
Because she had little hands-on experience, in the year following my departure, she spent more than four times her salary on outside firms and consultants (which I never needed to do); and not only could she not replicate the success I achieved during my tenure with the company, but she allowed the leads and momentum I was building to evaporate.
In the four years since my departure, several former colleagues told me that the company’s marketing efforts are failing miserably, even as they keep adding more young marketing executives.
So, to all the hiring managers and business owners out there, I say keep hiring (and underpaying) inexperienced talent at your own risk. Sure, youthful innovation has it’s place, but so does experience. And the money you save in salary now may end up costing you your job or hurting your business tomorrow.
