By Joe Redshaw
There has been a ton of traffic on sites about ageism. With retirement extending, the large number of over 40 people unemployed why aren’t businesses interested in experienced workers? I have to think the salary savings is short sighted – why don’t employers think of the opportunity cost of getting the more inexperienced worker trained and up-to-speed?
This is a tough one. I am just offering up some suggestions and maybe playing some devil’s advocate here. I don’t necessarily believe all of the following, but some might…
Inexperienced workers (which I think is the PC way of saying younger) may work longer hours, be willing to learn new things and of course are paid less than more experienced workers (PC for older individuals). Some experienced workers (in some people’s opinions) are not willing to learn new things, can be set in their ways, often more demanding with money, time off and other things around the office. Often experienced workers have stayed too long in one technology or skill. Therefore they are going to need to be trained as well. So from a company’s perspective, if both need to be trained, get the lower paid individual. Companies should really be looking at best fit for the job and not age. And I think most do this
Will the pushing out of retirement by both the government and workers who can no longer » Read more: Q & A: The Old Ageism Debate





