Right now I’m getting quite a few “we’re looking for someone we can train up in our way of doing things” type comments, which I’m interpreting as “we think you’re old and inflexible”. Recent qualifications in new areas notwithstanding…

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/2336725/Call-centre-job-applicants-rise

But employers are just as reluctant to accept an over-qualified candidate as they are an under-qualified candidate. To the employer, a senior candidate in an intermediate role is a risk because they are thought to be using the role as a short term solution until a position at their level becomes available.

Given most companies in NZ are small the scope for keeping people is limited as opportunities are. I wonder what average tenure is?

I think it in part dependson the type of role. If you want dynamic and creative you may think an older person is less able to redefine the business they work in to stay ahead. If you value precision and process, you may find and older person is better (and happier as they may have fewer other worries in life). Their experience may also help in refining processes.

I wonder if there is also an issue of managers feeling threatened by people who may know a lot more than them?

I think another thing some employers could worry about is the cost of turnover. So if they believe the person is better but will leave in 6 months (because they are underpaid and are qualified for higher paying jobs) they may be reluctant to hire. So it can be that the great experience is actually a negative factor. Now I think that is most often not a huge factor (the added value of more experience may well be more than the extra predicted cost of turnover) but it could be seen as a negative in that way (when they believe the candidate needs the job now, but as soon as the market picks up a bit they will find another job and leave).

Think about it another way – let’s say Jack Welch came out of retirement and wanted to work for you. Even if his salary expectations were reasonable, I’d still hesitate to hire him – he has a tremendous amount of “GE baggage” that would make it hard for him to fit in to other companies. And he has a similarly large amount of “CEO baggage” that would make it hard for him to adapt to a less senior role. Lastly, I’d worry about his “80s baggage” that would make it difficult for him to adapt to a 21st century business.

This is not to say I wouldn’t consider hiring someone because they are older. But I would be very careful to make sure that they were more or less “up to date”.

However, I suspect what she’s getting at is that older people:
a) are less elastic with respect to wages, perhaps because they have been earning steadily increasing wages most of their life and thus feel like they are losing more
b) are perceived as less open to change and innovation
c) aren’t perceived as being in it for the long term, so presumably carry higher average transaction costs (because in the long term you have to hire more of them as they retire).

I am not sure that any of those are true or fair, but some combination of them might be what motivates employers to hire younger people on average.

But this is speculation, I have never hired anyone!

I have a fairly wide range of skills and my circumstances are now such that I am much more flexible about pay (particularly when vs. other aspects, such as security) than I was when I was younger, but I would not even get a look in at many jobs out there. Getting recruiters to consider me for roles that are “beneath me”, or consider skills I haven’t used in a while but can still do – fuggedaboutit. Forget about hiring managers paying attention to attitude, work ethic and maturity. Or thinking of me outside of a very narrow range of my recent, specific industry, experience. And I am motivated to work, not overly fussy about what I do, and (within reason…) a comparative bargain. Although 30 is a distant memory, I’m not old, and retirement is still a long way away…

I have several friends in the same age bracket who have been made redundant, and they have only found employment way further down from where they were, and usually in unrelated fields. Some have formed consulting businesses but often that’s just a way of doing the same stuff as before but at lower pay and with fewer hours 🙂

This may sound like an irrelevant question, but how old are you guys? Anyone here over 50? 40? 35? Reason I ask is because, when I was younger, I didn’t get it either…

I would also note that employers can see an employee as a long-term asset – and older workers probably depreciate more quickly on average.

Also there may be skills which, on average, are age specific – and choosing employees based on age may be the result of the “age signal”.

Overall – I agree that saying older people are “too skilled” isn’t an argument that holds water …