SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Employers can't afford to ax mature workers, say researchers:
In a new article in the Australian Journal of Management, researchers warn employers not to make hasty decisions in either dismissing or discounting the input of older workers.
"Employers are well known for targeting mature workers when downsizing their workforce—but this might be a costly mistake," says Dr. Valerie Caines.
She notes that governments can also overlook the value of older workers, as shown by the SA Government recently pulling its funding to DOME (the Don't Overlook Mature Experience training organization), which provided valuable support services to mature job seekers.
"A common mistake is to think of mature workers as all being the same," says Dr. Caines. "There is huge variation among mature workers' motivations, capabilities and needs. Their experience is especially valuable now, because mature workers can offer considerable value to an organization during a crisis and play an important role in helping a business progress to the 'next normal.'"
Dr. Caines says older workers may also hold the solution for filling employment gaps in organizations, due to diverse skill sets they have developed through their working life.
"Mature adults demonstrate considerable resilience," she says. "The aspect of role modeling resilience is an especially important influence on younger workers. It includes mature coping strategies, emotional intelligence and empathy—and these attributes have never been more important in the workforce."
Journal Reference:
Valerie Dawn Caines et al. Older workers: Past, present and future, Australian Journal of Management (2020). DOI: 10.1177/0312896220918912
(Score: 2, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 30 2020, @03:24PM (18 children)
Individual insurance rates in general:
age 20-29: $x/month
age 30-39: $(2 * x)/mo.
age 40-49: $(4 * x)/mo.
age 50-59: $(8 * x)/mo.
age 60-65:$(16 * x)/mo
age 65-: $infinity aka so expensive we make it Medicare's problem
Imagine what happens to group insurance rates when a business continues to accumulate older workers in its group.
This cost model only makes sense when older workers are forced upward through ever higher and more rarified levels of management, or culled. Keep the lower levels young and cheap.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 30 2020, @03:33PM (7 children)
Is this a clever argument for single payer? To take that factor out of the hiring decision? Because it seems like a good idea.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday June 30 2020, @03:35PM (6 children)
Single payer is the only kind of insurance that makes sense, period. And, for health insurance: mandatory buy in (through taxes).
A small insurance company is a bad insurance company, no way around it - that is the nature of risk spreading.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 30 2020, @07:49PM (5 children)
Single-payer will never work in the USA unless doctors are allowed to ticket/fine people (% of income fines, that is) who refuse to take care of themselves. Fear of bankruptcy is literally the only thing keeping many Americans from drowning their misery in eating all the steak, butter and banana splits they can afford.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by sjames on Tuesday June 30 2020, @09:29PM (1 child)
Nonsense. It works everywhere else in the 1st world, even in the UK where beer drinking is a national sport.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 01 2020, @03:02PM
FCVO "beer". I'm sure you consider it a sport, but your ale is to real beer what curling is to ice hockey.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 01 2020, @02:56AM
Seriously, that is some stupid reasoning.
Many Americans drown themselves in alcohol and unhealthy food because they are terrified for their future. Lack of healthcare is a rather big point for many, and a painful expense if they don't have employer coverage. Even with insurance people end up paying quite a bit.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but you've fallen for some grade D bullshit propaganda.
(Score: 2) by DeVilla on Wednesday July 01 2020, @06:52PM (1 child)
We can also use insurance as a lever to take care of other social issues. Got a beef with someone's lifestyle? Spirituality? Landscaping? Well, they can fix it or lose their safety net. Your naive if you think it won't be abused that way. Idealistically, tax funded single payer insurance is great. It reality it will become another tyrant's tool. Like federal money for the interstates. It will be used to "change minds" when someone in government chooses to unilateraly "alter the deal".
(Score: 2) by sjames on Thursday July 02 2020, @07:52AM
You mean like rigging employer provided insurance to not cover family planning because that might lead to employees having sex without intending to have a baby?
It hasn't been a problem elsewhere, are you asserting that the U.S. is uniquely corrupt?
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday June 30 2020, @03:33PM (2 children)
I've noticed several of our older workers being retained "on a part time basis," meaning that they no longer receive benefits.
It's consistent with the HR messaging of "adjusting our compensation package to remain competitive with the current business environment" - code for: anywhere else you go is going to screw you just as bad, so we've got to screw you too to stay competitive. Meanwhile shareholders continue to receive their expected 7+% CAGR, and our bonuses drop to 0 if we fail to deliver at least 6.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 30 2020, @03:47PM
Fortunately many of our older workers were able to buy a house and got pensions for when they retire. These new fucks, they don't stand a chance.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 30 2020, @08:59PM
Ah yes, they tried that one on me after they'd made me redundant...I got the phone call when someone pointed out to manglement who'd been complaining about idle machinery and outstanding orders that they'd just 'let go' the only person that they had working for them who knew how to operate and maintain their ancient CAD/CAM system, and who'd designed all the products they churned out.
I told them, literally, to go to fuck and never bother me again. Burn bridges?, fucking nuke them from orbit with dirty warheads....
11 months or so later, ran into someone who still worked there..was told that the CNC equipment had lain idle all that time, despite attempts to get one of their bright young things to run it.
(Score: 3, Informative) by c0lo on Tuesday June 30 2020, @03:45PM (3 children)
What are those "group insurance rates" that you speak about? We don't have those in Australia, the country TFA is about.
To put this in perspective, an "overseas visitor hospital care" plan for over 70yo can be had for AUD200 a month/person. The govt requires AUD1000000 global annual benefit limits as a minimum [homeaffairs.gov.au] - I insured my visiting parents for a limit of AUD$2M each.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 30 2020, @04:07PM
If you don't have them, it's because you don't know about them. Kind of like the dumbest person in the room - if you don't know who it is, guess what?
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday June 30 2020, @06:29PM (1 child)
I also just read that your real estate agents will sell a property for a mere 2% commission (as opposed to 6% in the US), stop waving your drunken rationality in our faces - we already know that a bunch of rowdy ex-cons can run their business better than a bankrupt casino.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 30 2020, @08:06PM
Ahh real estate agents. The original MLM.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Tuesday June 30 2020, @08:56PM (1 child)
If the employer was smart, at 65 they'd offer medicare supplement insurance instead. Back down to x/month or less.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 01 2020, @08:13PM
They can't. An employer has to offer all ages in the same CBU or similarly-situated employment the same ECEB insurance. Doing otherwise is age discrimination and illegal. In addition, when you are a large enough (50 or more employees) employer, you cannot discriminate against an employee due to Medicare availability.
(Score: 2) by fido_dogstoyevsky on Wednesday July 01 2020, @10:22AM
You really REALLY need to fix that. It's not rocket science. You really should do something about it. Stop saying less than third rate is OK.
There won't be just two to choose from in November.
It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.