Posted on 06/24/2005 5:53:53 PM PDT by neverdem
The work ethic is alive and well among America's retirees, or at least the ones who bombarded me with letters after I suggested raising the retirement age for Social Security. They said they would be glad to keep working if I could find them a job.
In theory, this shouldn't be a problem because employers ought to be clamoring for workers as baby boomers hit retirement age and the pool of younger workers shrinks. In reality, though, older workers face discrimination. While some companies are recruiting them, many employers are still leery, partly because of irrational prejudice against the old, but also because of perverse incentives in current policies.
Some of the blame lies with the federal government, which has officially outlawed age discrimination while at the same time makes it inevitable. The antidiscrimination law itself is a reason not to hire an older worker. Given a choice between two equally qualified candidates, whom would you hire, a 35-year-old who could be quickly demoted or fired if he turns out to be incompetent, or a 65-year-old who could sue you for age discrimination?
A more immediate reason not to hire the 65-year-old is that he would be more expensive to add to the company health plan. If federal policy were changed to allow older full-time workers to rely primarily on Medicare instead of on their employer, they'd have a much better shot at jobs.
But it's not enough just to change laws. We need to rethink the old assumption that employees keep getting raises throughout their careers.
This seniority system was built on what economists call an implicit contract with workers: we'll pay you less than you're really worth when you're young, but stick with us and we'll make it up to you by paying you more than you're worth...
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Reason not to hire seniors: they can sue you. It's a real, strong, valid reason, brought about by laws that "protect" seniors.
The same laws provide equally real, strong, valid reasons not to hire negroes, women, and homosexuals.
"The same laws provide equally real, strong, valid reasons not to hire negroes, women, and homosexuals"
Problem is, those categories are protected by quotas
bfl
Ever read the comments on the NY Times forum? No shortage of FAR-OUT left whackos out there!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.