The new 'unemployables - workers over 50

Workers over 50 are the new 'unemployables'
By Annalyn Kurtz @CNNMoney
http://money.cnn.com/2013/02/26/news/economy/over-50-unemployables

Unemployed workers in their fifties are increasingly finding themselves stuck in limbo. On one hand, they're too young to shoot to kill. They may also be too old to get retired.
"Nearly two-thirds of unemployed workers age 55 and older say they have been actively searching for a job for more than one year, compared to just one-third of younger workers, a recent survey by the Heldrich Center for Workforce Development at Rutgers University found... Older workers also have the longest bouts of unemployment. The average duration of unemployment for workers ages 55 to 64 was 11 months as recently as January, according to the Labor Department."
"When you're at 55 or 60, you've had a lifetime of work. You've played by the rules, and the rug has been pulled out from under you," Rix added.

This is a game of musical chairs played on a flying rug. When you reach 55 your chair is removed. To get back in the game you must get a new college degree and accept a fraction of your previous pay.

This sort of things makes me angry and is outright discrimination! It is against the law to discriminate based on several factors including age, but it still happens in a covert way. There is always an excuse like "you don't fit the needs of what we're looking for" or some other lame excuse.

When I first started looking for a new job 5 years ago after being laid off, I thought it was age discrimination. I was 51 at the time. Now, I'm not so sure it is all about age, it is about the length of time you have been unemployed. There is no law about discriminating against that, and recruiters will tell you outright it is a lost cause because of the gap. Most of us who have the "LTU" stigma are over 50, but now they don't have to call it age discrimination and there isn't one thing we can do about it.

50s, heck with that, try the 40s.

There are people I know in their 40s, who have been UNDEREMPLOYED For literally years, they have some work but its not same as regular full time jobs. If you are above a certain age, it's like they do not want to know. I think some of this is savings on health care they want.

Would you file an age discrimination complaint?

I wonder why the age discrimination stuff is never fought anymore. Are those laws on the books? They are not being enforced whatsoever anymore.

I have 3 people in my family who are in their 20's who are newly unemployed. It isn't about age anymore, it's about length of unemployment. I am sure I would have a decent paying job right now if I hadn't been out of work so long. I post my resume without dates, and I get a lot of phone calls about jobs. As soon as I say I haven't worked since 2008, there is silence. Instead of focusing on age discrimination now, we should be concerned about discrimination against the LTU!

I'm in my late 40's and am vastly under-employed. Just got notice from care-giving client that my hours are going to be cut back even more....

DesperateInRI wrote:I have 3 people in my family who are in their 20's who are newly unemployed. It isn't about age anymore, it's about length of unemployment. I am sure I would have a decent paying job right now if I hadn't been out of work so long. I post my resume without dates, and I get a lot of phone calls about jobs. As soon as I say I haven't worked since 2008, there is silence. Instead of focusing on age discrimination now, we should be concerned about discrimination against the LTU!

Desperate is right. It bugs me so much to have potential employers ask why I've been out of work when everyone in the world knows there is a HUGE unemployment problem. Every posting gets hundreds of responses. The employers are holding all the cards to pick and choose. That's why I was desperately hoping to find a job while I had a six month temp job because I don't want to get "cold" again and find myself blacklisted on the market.

DesperateInRI wrote:I have 3 people in my family who are in their 20's who are newly unemployed. It isn't about age anymore, it's about length of unemployment. I am sure I would have a decent paying job right now if I hadn't been out of work so long. I post my resume without dates, and I get a lot of phone calls about jobs. As soon as I say I haven't worked since 2008, there is silence. Instead of focusing on age discrimination now, we should be concerned about discrimination against the LTU!

Liz, just put on your resume that you were captured by aliens, learned many new skills such as Spamish, and that hiring you would sure be better than then washing cars! And use alien symbols as the dates... that'll mess their minds!

DesperateInRI wrote:When I first started looking for a new job 5 years ago after being laid off, I thought it was age discrimination. I was 51 at the time. Now, I'm not so sure it is all about age, it is about the length of time you have been unemployed. There is no law about discriminating against that, and recruiters will tell you outright it is a lost cause because of the gap. Most of us who have the "LTU" stigma are over 50, but now they don't have to call it age discrimination and there isn't one thing we can do about it.

I think it's still age, because I have used my volunteering job as a part time job from the beginning. So, technically, according to my resume, I have never been completely out of work...I just went from full time to part time.

But it could be different in all states...not every employer hires the same way.

I applied for a job that I was completely qualified for....and what I should've done was brought it to court for age discrimination...then I could've found out what the real reason I wasn't hired for. Unfortunately it was a religious organization, and I don't know if the same rules apply to them. But as long as we allow them to continue to use our age against us, it will continue.

Springflowers wrote:50s, heck with that, try the 40s.

There are people I know in their 40s, who have been UNDEREMPLOYED For literally years, they have some work but its not same as regular full time jobs. If you are above a certain age, it's like they do not want to know. I think some of this is savings on health care they want.

Would you file an age discrimination complaint?

I wonder why the age discrimination stuff is never fought anymore. Are those laws on the books? They are not being enforced whatsoever anymore.

You are absolutely correct...we should be filing age discrimination...if we are 100% qualifed for a job, and can prove that someone much, much younger got the job with less experience, I think we should file. This will go on, if we don't take a stand.

I did write a letter to my state rep, and age discrimination was part of it.....of course, she never did respond to that issue

These "reps", elected by us to represent and fight for us, to be our voice, are totally useless!

MarilynL wrote:

Springflowers wrote:50s, heck with that, try the 40s.

There are people I know in their 40s, who have been UNDEREMPLOYED For literally years, they have some work but its not same as regular full time jobs. If you are above a certain age, it's like they do not want to know. I think some of this is savings on health care they want.

Would you file an age discrimination complaint?

I wonder why the age discrimination stuff is never fought anymore. Are those laws on the books? They are not being enforced whatsoever anymore.

You are absolutely correct...we should be filing age discrimination...if we are 100% qualifed for a job, and can prove that someone much, much younger got the job with less experience, I think we should file. This will go on, if we don't take a stand.

I did write a letter to my state rep, and age discrimination was part of it.....of course, she never did respond to that issue

Under these conditions the whole country and it's business's would drown within a month. Are you serious?

Come to the light. Come to reality!

Here is my story - I worked at a very prominent company in Michigan for 12 years. I quit the job at the age of 44 to follow a career change. Then shortly after decided it wasn't for me, then decided to go back to my original career (IT) was applying for jobs for months and wasn't even getting replies. Although I had been in IT for a long time, I wasn't focused on it and had let my skills lapse. After going back to college for 7 months to update my skills I got a job that didn't work out, after 6 months was let go. Then at the age of 45 was looking again this time, having been more experienced at applying for jobs starting getting replies. Then after 4.5 months I started working again, still at that same job. Here is what I learned during this very difficult time. The most important first step is making sure the resume looks the best that it can be. Get advice from job agencies and follow it, it makes all the difference. Second if your skills are no up to date, go back to college, because at the interview they're going to test you and if you fall short then you won't get the job. Third make sure especially for us older candidates that you are in the best physical shape that you can be in. If you're over weight then lose the weight, dye your hair if necessary. You are a product that you're trying to sell. You're not young and pretty any more. But you're competition is young and pretty. We can do all the whining in the world but it isn't going to get us a job. Think outside the box, at the top of my resume I created a webpage for my resume too. The employer clicked on the link then my resume showed up. Another thing the conventional sending off for jobs isn't necessarily the best way to get a job. Sometimes emailing or mailing resumes to companies that haven't advertised can get you a job as well. This has worked for me in the past. Being in your 50s can be a big advantage to some companies because for some jobs you have to be older in order to have had a lot of experience, so don't look at it as always being a disadvantage. Also don't be wishing to be going into a career where there are few opportunities. I hope this has been helpful. One more thing live a good life and pray to the Lord to help you get a job, He helped me and He will help if you too if you live faithfully according to the light that is given to you. God Bless.

MarilynL wrote:

Springflowers wrote:50s, heck with that, try the 40s.

There are people I know in their 40s, who have been UNDEREMPLOYED For literally years, they have some work but its not same as regular full time jobs. If you are above a certain age, it's like they do not want to know. I think some of this is savings on health care they want.

Would you file an age discrimination complaint?

I wonder why the age discrimination stuff is never fought anymore. Are those laws on the books? They are not being enforced whatsoever anymore.

You are absolutely correct...we should be filing age discrimination...if we are 100% qualifed for a job, and can prove that someone much, much younger got the job with less experience, I think we should file. This will go on, if we don't take a stand.

I did write a letter to my state rep, and age discrimination was part of it.....of course, she never did respond to that issue

I wonder if any of the lawyers are even taking the cases. I just do not think they are bothering anymore. They lay people off in their mid40s even to save on health care costs so they can hire someone 20 something right out of school. Yeah I know most 20 somethings now are unemployed too as well.

My own opinion, I believe and know to be true that companies today are global. It use to be you work hard, move up, get raises, get retirement, health insurance, and enjoy the good life. But today companies want to make Wal Street look good, so keeping the workers or new hires coming and going makes the company look good, because they are hiring all these people. Sad thing is most don't stay, due to quitting or getting fired and they never get there benefits when they leave. It looks good on Paper that they are hiring so many people, but they leave, a high turnover rate. Has nothing to do with age. But in reality they would rather hire young people, because they know they won't stay. Companies started trying this and they found out that hiring young people they would get a 5 year or less workforce and not have to pay benefits. That comes from Human Resources. Anmd they also had very little employee sympathy, no respect for work done or how well you did your job. But they also found out that they needed some good workers, so they started hiring older people. But they wouldn't stay either, so in the end it didn't matter whether you were 18 or 68. I know I work for a Global company that does just this. And I have heard them state that they only want young workers because older workers are no more productive than the younger ones and tenure means nothing. Though they won't come out directly and say it. It is true. They just beat around the bush about it.