99ers on 60 Minutes this Sunday!

We're on TV Sunday night, 7pm:

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6979287n&tag=contentMain;cbsCarousel

Check out the preview.

Watched it tonite. The only new thing that peaked my interest is that Scott Pelly opined that Congress wont pass any extensions when it returns in the fall due to the deficit (he cited $100B as the cost of Tier IV) . I assume he means no Tier V as well as no EUC funding extension. Speaker Pelosi promised the latter this summer, (which I took to mean she would bring a motion to the floor of the House in November) . If you recall her comments (the video was posted here and she was laughing when the subject was brought up because of all of the inquireries from the 99ers) I took her to mean they would look at the whole unemployment landscape (inc Tier V). Since November is a week away, we'll see if Madam Pelosi is true to her word (even if she is out of a job after the election) when the lame duck session begins.

The 99 ers in the preview all looked sorta oldish. I wonder if that's part of the problem...age discrimination? Anyway, here's a link to the full episode. http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6987814n&tag=contentMain;contentAux

Jeff wrote:The 99 ers in the preview all looked sorta oldish. I wonder if that's part of the problem...age discrimination? Anyway, here's a link to the full episode. http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6987814n&tag=contentMain;contentAux

That's a HUGE part of the problem! Employers are letting go of their more experienced workers, who make more than the others, and then turning around and hiring either cheap domestic labor, or worse, overseas cheap labor, or worse yet, relying more on technology combined with working their remaining workers to death.

Add to that the added health insurance expense potential of older workers, and they become taboo to corporations. So the person who stayed with his or her company expecting to retire from there, like the program pointed out, ends up with no job and few prospects, yet too young to actually retire in most cases.

nancym wrote:

Jeff wrote:The 99 ers in the preview all looked sorta oldish. I wonder if that's part of the problem...age discrimination? Anyway, here's a link to the full episode. http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6987814n&tag=contentMain;contentAux

That's a HUGE part of the problem! Employers are letting go of their more experienced workers, who make more than the others, and then turning around and hiring either cheap domestic labor, or worse, overseas cheap labor, or worse yet, relying more on technology combined with working their remaining workers to death.

Add to that the added health insurance expense potential of older workers, and they become taboo to corporations. So the person who stayed with his or her company expecting to retire from there, like the program pointed out, ends up with no job and few prospects, yet too young to actually retire in most cases.

Small companies, if they survived and are hiring, are doing the same thing. Talk about being left out in the cold! Growing older is hard enough without these added difficulties.

I would have to say your conspiracy theories on older workers seem to have some meritt. We all could cite examples (including ourselves in come cases).

I can say from experience that people 50 or greater are considered a protected class in Corporate circles, and the usual non discrimantory rules apply, by law employeers cant discriminate by age. Where I worked anybody over 50 that was laid off was either part of a larger company wide lay-off (where 50+ was a sub-percentage of the distribution of dismissed employees, and the Federal plant closing rules applied) . In individual cases they were treated with kid gloves and offered generous severance packages to leave (and if accepted signed a disclaimer saying they wouldnt litigate). All well and good, however if you are a middle age white guy under 50 they often concluded that you served at their pleasure and could be dismissed as such. (I didnt see the 60 Min expose on those guys )

When you walk into a GAP store and fill out a application, do they automatically rule out your elegibility if you are over 50? You make the call.............................

sc4ram wrote:I would have to say your conspiracy theories on older workers seem to have some meritt. We all could cite examples (including ourselves in come cases).

I can say from experience that people 50 or greater are considered a protected class in Corporate circles, and the usual non discrimantory rules apply, by law employeers cant discriminate by age. ...

You're missing the latest installments to the story over the last decade or so. Yes, existing employees over a certain age were handled carefully as far as severance agreements, etc., and tier layoffs. But the discrimination comes when the company hires again; it's extremely difficult for an applicant to prove age discrimination in the hiring process. Unless someone is covered by a union contract for re-hire, once out the door, the senior worker is no longer in that protected status.

This has all be pretty well documented by the DOL, not something I'm just guessing about. From an employer's point of view, not only does the older worker most likely expect a higher salary, but they have the potential to raise the health insurance rates for the whole company, just one more reason our current insurance system that's based on employers is bad for jobs and the economy, and especially bad for seniors who want to work and keep health coverage.

Actually I didnt miss anything. In my opening statement I said your theories had some merrit, and in my fictious open ended example at the end of my post I thought the answer would be obvious.

I provided some hands on knowlege about Corporate practices to inform everybody, not to shoot your argument down. Ive had the habit of posting real life or first hand examples here when I can, that way every post doesnt read "the man is out to get us". I swear if I believed everything I read and viewed I might wrongly conclude that there is a secret boiler room of fat sweaty balding white guys with expensive cigars that have a offical planning meeting every day to figure out how to screw us. I was merely pointing out by example thats not necessiarily the case.

In my ficticious example (Unless in a unique circumstance ) a 50+ person probably would not get hired at your local GAP store at the mall (Im 50+ and havent bought anything at a GAP store in almost 30 years ). I can imagine if I walked in there tomorrow to fill out a application, I would probably grimace from the loud music they would be playing, and I would be talking to somebody half my age. Id bet my clothes would not project the image of a GAP retailer either. Not to mention I dont have a background in retail or clothing. I just looked on their website and they do offer Health Care benefits. Id probably would not be considered for a position there. Would that be the case because Im over 50 or Im just not a fit for the job (Id have to admit that the latter is probably what would be considered ).

It is likely after I was laid off I could of got a position if I had elected to re-locate. (Age would not of been a inhibitor there as there were positions open Id be a perfect fit for) . (I didnt get overly excited because I didnt want to move out of state) In my case, my expertise is tied to the Defense industry, there are several large DOD contractors in my area, Ive applied to them to no avail. Is it because im over 50? Or is it because the positions are few and far between and are posted to attract a specific individual or specific skill/expierence set (which I dont have) . Also these companies have had significant RIFs in the last 18 mo , and the Sec of Defense has been going around the TV calling for a $100B reduction in Defense spending (which injects uncertainty into any DOD related business). In that environment hiring will be under a lot of scrutiny ( its been my experience in such situations they put high hurdles to new hiring , like the Division General Mgr has to sign off any new person, which doesnt make it easy internally to hire people.) I think the latter is why Im not getting any hits.

Over my career Ive interviewed several older folks that were seeking employment (its a small world, we knew how old they were before we brought them in ) some of them we hired, some we didnt. (I didnt observe any dastardly behavior there)

As far as benefits go, you are seeing more cost pressure as a result of O'bama-care contributing to hiring uncertanty than the concept of employee provided health care (see Mac Donalds etc requests for waivers from the law, and other companies shuffling their benefits) . Even if Obama-care is implemented as concepted there will still be a significant cost to employeers. I dont see age as the driving factor there.

Hell yes I am going to be demanding on salery, Im not going to paint a sign on my forehead that says "ill work for food". I doubt that is keeping me from getting a interview (in my case)

Again, Im not refuting that older folks may not be getting a fair shake in job placement, from my experience I dont think its standard procedure. I was in Publix today and saw plenty of geezers baging groceries, they managed to make the cut. I was crusing the appliance section of SEARS recently and I saw more blue hairs working the floor than anybody else.

Im sure somebody else here could site expierience to the contrary. All Im saying is I doubt its a defacto strategy on the part of employeers. (btw, if it is occuring it is illegal)