Age Descrimination

Ask any young adult what they need more from their employer and they will most likely tell you ‘money’. After all they need it the most: Money to buy or build a house, money for a new family car, for the children’s upkeep and education, for paying their taxes and extra insurances, just in case they die before they get old.

When you think about it, our EU remuneration rules are really upside down.  When you turn fifty the demands on your cash seem to die away. One day you look in your bank account and notice some money in there! And when you look more closely, your monthly statements indicate that you have a steady trend of more cash coming in than going out! So what do us middies do?  We look for wonderful things to buy like Mont Blanc fountain pens, and Luis Vuitton bags for our partners. We take weekend city trips and look for ways to compensate for the fact that we’re getting older.

But seriously, there is a kind of discriminatory madness that lingers on from olden times, the Belgians call it ‘Ancieniteit’ or ‘length of service’ or ‘seniority’ as some Brits like to refer to it.  Basically it means getting paid more for the length of time you have been doing it.  I have no problem paying people for the job they do but what is the sense of paying people more, simply because they have been doing it for longer?  If the tasks you do and the responsibilities you have are the same as a younger person, why would you pay an older person more?  And then there are the mad redundancy terms.  The longer someone works for a company, the more expensive it is to release them.  We make our older employees too expensive to replace, while the young ones struggle to make ends meet. 

In my next company I want to employ loads of young people and pay them over the top wages, thereby getting the very best choice of the bunch.  They won’t care about a thirty year career path and they shouldn’t need to anyway.  Who knows what the world will look like in thirty years and what company today can honestly guarantee anyone a ‘secure career’.  Even the words ‘secure career’ fill me with dread.  

Young people have piles of energy, enthusiasm and open minds for change and new ideas. To manage them I’ll find some retired managers (preferably in their late sixties to mid-seventies) that do not want to sit on the scrap heap but would rather be out there demonstrating their management and motivational techniques.  Who knows they may even have some wisdom to share?

But what should we do with the forty five to sixty five year olds? Perhaps we should give them early retirement, so they can go out and explore life before they are too old; doing what they always dreamed of?  Or perhaps we should encourage them to do voluntary work oversees in under developed countries?   In any case, when they are ready, they can re-apply for open positions, safe in the knowledge that they will not be priced out of the job market because it will be the youngsters getting the high salaries.

Not sure how all this would work in practice, but I am ready to give it some thought over a nice bottle Pomerol this Christmas.  In any case it’s bound to create a lively debate at the dinner table!

Enjoy your Christmas break,

Harley

Comments

Given the demographics evolution of the world, fewer members of the young generation will have to support a growing group of senior people, who live longer (and healthier!) lives. Even in Asia. Dealing with this "Silver Tsunami" is one of the challenges we are facing as a society and a civilisation. Not all of us will have the level of savings and pension plan, let alone the skills or desire, to become the volunteer managers heading up your dream company. Chances are your "over the top wages" for the young will be simply be taxed away to support the "early retired". Your statement that an ageing workforce is more expensive and less effective may be questioned too. BMW invested 50K$ to adjust one production line of their Dingolfing plant to accommodate the needs of an ageing workforce (average age 47, like will be the case for their entire workforce in 10 years time). This resulted in a 7% efficiency increase over a regular production line with younger workers. The "ageing workforce" project has since been re-coined to "efficiency" project. (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/09/05/sunday/main6837469.shtml). To those who would like to read more about the subject, I recommend reading "Remotion" (www.remotion.be, Tanja Verheyen and Bob Vermeir, published by Kluwer, ISBN 978-90-4653-580-6 ) and "Free to Work" (Jan Denys, published by Houtekiet, ISBN 9789089240729). Or get the brochure "Samen Werken, Zelf Sturen" published by Flanders Synergy (order free of charge from www.flanderssynergy.be). After reading this, one may realize that there simply will not be enough money in the world to recruit those "young wolves" you are so eager to employ, if employment is restricted to that age-group. Or as the ceo of a major global company recently said: "The war on talent is over. Talent has won." And I might add: No matter the age, gender or origin.

I can't agree more with the full content of this post Harley. Experience still has to be valued somehow but certainly not in terms of years only. It is an over-simplification and a too simple indicator of what experience truly is. With a generation of people that have likely been exposed at 30yo with far more work places, work experiences, people, changes, situations, challenges than many more "experienced" and older people, it is indeed time to consider the way we reward "seniority" very differently. As you describe it, both the so called "juniors" and "seniors" have to be managed differently, be given different roles and/or their work be valued far differently than they are today.
There's another point I'd like to add and that is especially true in France, more than in Belgium: the importance given even after years of experience to the school / university you once belonged too. There's nothing that annoys me more than a job ad looking for a 40+ professional and still asking that she/he comes from a top university/school, a place she/he left approx. 20 years ago. There are differences between universities for sure and they do affect to a certain extent the professional their students are to become but does it still is the case 5, 10, 20 years later? Is it not also trying to over-simplify things and considering things less from the true competences and added-value and too much from the appearances sides of things ?

What a wine-snob :-) , but I agree it can be a good choice...

So you think of yourself as ready for retirement?

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

Type the characters you see in this picture. (verify using audio)
Type the characters you see in the picture above; if you can't read them, submit the form and a new image will be generated. Not case sensitive.

Content subject to copyright, Harley Lovegrove 2011