The characterization of older people not being productive, is a flawed premise. SOME are. Others have a long term expertise that is valuable to the business.If you weren’t the most politest person I’ve ever come across on this site (seriously, your earlier posts set a standard here), I’d say some off-color things. So I’ll just try to one-up you...
One upping me won't be all that hard. You've already made some good points. There are some reasoned points to made, to support your views on this. I happent to share a number of them.
...I believe that I may have mus-intentionally misled a fellow FReeper with an earlier posting. What I had been trying to convey, although not successfully (because of my carelessness, of course), was that there is a subset of older people, some with lots of experience, that are either marginally productive, or not productive at all. I have worked with both. I’ve also worked with a number of very productive older people - and some, definitely are irreplaceable, and I consider myself in that class (although not quite as old as some of them).
Okay. That's more or less all that I was trying to say on the topic. Some of my comments are more or less lamenting what needs to be done. Other parts of it are intended to get folks to think of related matters that I would like to see aired, even if in the end GM does cease to exist. I merely think it's important to contemplate what the unintended consequences will be, even if it is decided that it is overall prudent and necessary to end GM. I will admit to the idea, that ending the production of the Corvette, a car that I have held in high esteme for over fifty-five years, would be a real tragedy IMO. If ending GM was imminent, I would sure hope that devision could be sold to another manufacturer.
The point that I was trying to make was there are often some non-productive people that are very highly paid, due to their past positions. These people, not a lot of people, but some, should be let go, or have their salary reduced to a level commensurate with their present capabilities. It is often very difficult for a company to do without “outside help”.
I don't disagree with your comments here. All businesses have an obligation to remain as lean and mean as they can. That's business.
As far as whether it’s inhumane, that’s a tough call, but I still have to come down on the side that companies must stay lean and competitive.
I agree. My above comment more or less got here before I read this point, but either way, I agree with it.
If an older person working for a big company (for a long time) and making big bucks is broke, then that person, almost always, did not plan ahead, but chose to “live for the day”.
This is an appropriate comment, but I think it is reasonable to point out that people plan for their careers to end at a certain point in their life. Knock a decade or more off of that, and it would make a dent in anyone's monetary plan. You're five years from paying off your home. All of a sudden, you can't sustain the payments. You home is gone. Your hopes and dreams for the future are dashed. Should your planning prior to this have mitigated the fall, made it less painful? Yes, I believe it should have. Is it always going to, even if your game plan was fairly sound? I don't think so. I think many of us underestimate the devistation a complete cut-off of our income would cause to us. And if it took three years to find something paying 25% of what we used to make, we're looking at severe depression and extreme family stresses.
Those people should not be carried, essentially as welfare cases, by companies trying to compete in a world market. There will be some exceptions, but in the corporate world, they are rare, as most deal with health-related problems, of which coverage almost always exists.
I agree with this also. There's only so much you can do, and in truth I think these 'separations' are not as wonderful to either side as it seems they're going to be up front.
People make choices - they can buy cars and houses on extended credit, to keep up with the Jones’s, or they can choose to live on less than what they make.
I think that's a rather rosy depiction of what folks can do to protect themselves. To an extet, I am somewhat inclined to buy into it, but what would happen to your family if you lost your job, and within a month or two your wife lost hers too? If you are situated to ride that out, I'd say you're probably 1:100,000 of people who could.
In some cases, it might mean living in an apartment and driving a (non-union) mid-size, rather than a big house and a Lexus SUV - but it is a choice that they make, and companies should not feel obliged to “help out” people that have made bad choices.
No, the company should not have to play into this scenario. I wouldn't make that case. I'm merely pointing out that even if a family only had moderate home, vehicle, and credit card bills to pay, losing one or two jobs could destroy your financial security. If it didn't, your retirement would be severely deminshed in short order While I am somewhat sympathetic to the idea that some folks over extend themselves, this scenario is not exclusively dependant on that being the case.
I base that on knowledge of a person that I worked with that fit that description and was broke shortly after being laid off. We hired the guy...who was essentially useless, because my boss felt bad for him (and knew him from an earlier day). It was a long time ago, but probably played a small part in my company disappearing.
I would argue against your boss doing that. It's simply not supportable. People do have long standing relationships, and will feel an obligation to help their friend because they would hope someone would help them in the same situation.
I am a firm believer in retraining if it can be done. I also believe in downsizing positions if things are that serious, and that's your ownly option to keep people working.
The supervisor/owner's only obligation is to the business, and making the decisions whether some employees, or all employees lose their jobs, and whether the value of the company is improved, to a certain degree deminished, or even destroyed.
Thank you for the nice response.