Retired people taking jobs from people who could use them

[Seifer]

Tempting though it may be, it's probably best in general not to give preferential treatment in hiring based on who needs the job the most. For one thing, if you *hire* somebody based on (your perception of) how badly they need the job, it will be all the harder to fire them if that becomes necessary. Also: how much of a potential hire's financial situation is the person doing the hiring likely to know about before making that decision anyway? Much of it depends on questions you're not allowed to ask in an interview, and the rest is still nobody's business. And of course many people who do really need the income (for whatever reason, and perhaps even moreso if what they have appears to others to be ample) are likely, if asked why they want the job, to frame it as wanting to get out of the house, feel useful, etc. Many people don't like airing their problems to strangers, and many more don't want to show weakness at a job interview.

Good point. It's a bad idea to air your dirty laundry in a job interview, because I can say from experience that it just angers the interviewer. They don't want to hear about each potential hire's problems - they want to find the person who can perform the duties the job dictates. If they can do that, they're happy.

[Imprl59]

I realize you are just saying that for shock value because you can't think of anything else of any actual value, so I will let that pass.
She's actually more of an acquaintance than a friend, so I'm not taking offense on her account, but she's actually a lovely young woman.
I mentioned the fact that she had a child and she is a single mother who is trying to provide for her child rather than go on social assistance because I think that is relevant.
Aspersions on her character and sexual history are not, but if it works for you because you have trouble forming an argument, then I can forgive that.

You should catch on sooner or later. Dismissing the other persons argument doesn't mean you win. It just points out that you know you lost and don't want to admit it. So please, for my sake, don't just let it pass. Tell me why you think that your friends ability to get knocked up somehow makes her more deserving of a job.

By the way, you keep referring to the woman who got the job as "Grandma".
She doesn't actually have any grandchildren.
Talk about stereotyping and "ageism".
Apparently, though, that's OK as long as it's only you who is doing it, and it only goes one way in favour of the elderly.

Ahh.. a different tactic. Ignore the argument and throw up a straw man. Do you really think that's going to work? Come on Ree… You can do better than that.. I'm glad you told us though. Now I think she deserves the job even more as she needs to squirrel away more money in case she needs help in the future as she doesn't have any kids to rely on.

[blas87]

Sorry, but you're sinking really low, here.

Ree didn't pull any strawmen, and she's certainly gone above and beyond trying to prove a point to you.

In my opinion, Ree comes across as very eloquent and mature in her arguement. She never worded anything about a "knocked up woman" being "more deserving" of a job than a "Grandma".

[Ree]

Tempting though it may be, it's probably best in general not to give preferential treatment in hiring based on who needs the job the most. For one thing, if you *hire* somebody based on (your perception of) how badly they need the job, it will be all the harder to fire them if that becomes necessary. Also: how much of a potential hire's financial situation is the person doing the hiring likely to know about before making that decision anyway?

That's true, but in this case, the job was given to a family member of an existing employee, so there was already a familiarity with the person and their circumstances.

Your company has X number of supervisor hours that have to be filled. They have Y number of supervisors to fill those hours. If you can no longer fill your part of Y hours they hire another person to fill those hours. I would guess that supervisors make more money than cashiers in your place of employment as they do in most places. This is good news for your friend! Now she doesn't have to be a cashier, she can apply for the part time supervisor position!

Yeah, it would be great if I could make change by offering my hours, but the reality is that nothing would change. But it's a noble thought.
Thanks.
My company does not hire part time supervisors. All supervisor jobs are filled by full time staff. When a supervisor post becomes vacant, they promote from within unless there is nobody who can fill the job, and then they advertise it as a full time position. My volunteering to give up hours would make absolutely no difference as this is the policy that has been in place for 25 years.
It's a moot point anyway because I worked my way to my position through 25 years with the company since the beginning. I have very specific skills, knowledge and tasks that could not be filled by a part time person.

If I was to retire and apply at a restaurant, factory, bank, or offiice job, my age would make me no more qualified or knowledgeable about any of those jobs.

The job to which I referred was a part time cashier position that was already vacant and needed filling.

Dismissing the other persons argument doesn't mean you win. It just points out that you know you lost and don't want to admit it.

No. It means I refuse to rise to your disgusting aspersions on the girl's character simply because she has a child and isn't married.

Tell me why you think that your friends ability to get knocked up somehow makes her more deserving of a job.

Again, I know you are just needling for a reaction, because I have already stated that this girl is a hard worker with a strong work ethic. She has worked as a cashier before. The woman who was hired for the job has never worked retail. I think that's pretty relevant.
This girl is now collecting unemployment benefits and mother's assistance because jobs aren't exactly plentiful in our area, and the numerous resumes she has dropped off have not yielded any results. (They're all hiring retired people. )

Ahh.. a different tactic. Ignore the argument and throw up a straw man.

How is that a straw man?

You have repeatedly accused me of bias and ageism, and yet you use the term "Grandma" to refer to a woman I only described as "retired"?

You have also repeatedly admitted that you will always assume that the older person is more knowledgeable and more qualified for the job.

That is not a straw man.
That's a double standard in your argument.

[protege]

So, what, are retired people supposed to stay in their retirement homes wasting away to keep from offending people's sensibilities?

Add me to the people who have a problem with that. Why should someone be forced into a retirement home because they'll "take away" a job? If they can handle it, who cares?

I thought it was pretty much commonly accepted at this point that old people need a purpose just as much as young people. For some, that job can make a massive difference to their overall quality of life.

My grandmother is one of those people who retired...and sits on her ass about 99% of the time. She volunteers a few hours a week at the hospital. However, when she's not volunteering, she's sitting at home watching Faux News. Now, multiply all of that over 35 years. Sure, she gets my granddad's pension (he retired at 65 after a massive heart attack in '89...and died in 2001), her pension and social security. She really doesn't need to work, in other words. But, because she doesn't really do much, her mind is turning into mush. She has no 'purpose,' in other words.

Compare that with my dad, who is retiring in 2 weeks. He's only been with his school district about 15 years, but he's had a hard life otherwise. Dad has never been one to sit on his ass, even with his health issues (cancer and a serious auto accident last year). Still, he's fed up with what his district is doing, and since they're cutting up his department...he's retiring. He'll get his pension, and won't really have to worry about money. But, he's not going to sit on his ass. He's said that he'd like to give guest lectures at local universities. He might even write a book as well.

[Ree]

Add me to the people who have a problem with that. Why should someone be forced into a retirement home because they'll "take away" a job? If they can handle it, who cares?

I would be inclined to agree if my own personal experience was not that they are hiring retired people who are not up to the challenge of the heavy lifting involved.

In some cases, they have no computer experience and are afraid of the computer system, so, rather than actually look things up, they are coming to me (or other people in the warehouse) to deal with what they should already know.

Even in my own department, I have 3 retired women who can't do any lifting, and are also afraid of the computer. I have one woman who will only work 15 hours a week because it screws up her pensions. (Her words.)

[protege]

I would be inclined to agree if my own personal experience was not that they are hiring retired people who are not up to the challenge of the heavy lifting involved.

In that case, the person shouldn't be there. If they can't handle the tasks of the job, they should be let go. Unfortunately though, too many people are afraid of risking a discrimination lawsuit, and this shit is tolerated.

[Imprl59]

OK. Let me try to phrase it differently. Please explain to me why you think that a persons status of "young single Mom" with a dead beat dad is more deserving of a job than the "wife of one of the old retired guys " If another woman comes in with two kids and a wooden leg are we now supposed to get rid of the first one?

You have repeatedly accused me of bias and ageism, and yet you use the term "Grandma" to refer to a woman I only described as "retired"?

Actually that isn't correct. Even though you continually snip my quote of your actual words which includes your description of her as the "wife of one of the old retired guys" those words are still yours. You told me she was old. I called her grandma. If it makes you feel better I'll refer to her as WOOOTORG in the future.

You have also repeatedly admitted that you will always assume that the older person is more knowledgeable and more qualified for the job.

I thought I only admitted to looking for them once but I'll give you that one as I'm tired and don't want to go back and look for it. I never said they were always more qualified Hardware store I look for the old guy. Electronics I'm looking for the young guy. I'm sure I'm sexist and ageist in other situations as well but you won't see me suggesting that anyone not be hired because they "have enough" or not being hired because they are old.

That is not a straw man.
That's a double standard in your argument.

Again incorrect. When you snip the actual argument and pretend you never said things you said while diverting the focus on to something else that is a strawman. The only thing I can think of that you haven't tried is going after my spelling.

[Ree]

OK. Let me try to phrase it differently. Please explain to me why you think that a persons status of "young single Mom" with a dead beat dad is more deserving of a job than the "wife of one of the old retired guys " If another woman comes in with two kids and a wooden leg are we now supposed to get rid of the first one?

If that was the scenario, why would we get rid of the one who was already hired?

If all 3 candidates were competing for the job, then that would be different.
The job should go to the person who is better suited.
I would think the young, single mom with experience in the field would take precedence over the retired person with no experience, or even the person with the wooden leg if she has no experience or is not physically capable of the demands of the job.

Now, if all three do have work experience related to the job, then it should go to the person who comes off best in the interview.
But to only offer an interview to the retired person because they are available to work part time without even considering the other applicants isn't right either.

Actually that isn't correct.

Yes, it is. I referred to her as the wife of the old retired guy, and you jumped to "grandma" which is rather demeaning, in a way.

When you snip the actual argument and pretend you never said things you said

Excuse me? I know what I said. I wrote the OP and the title for the thread. I am denying nothing. It irks me when someone who has worked for years and is retired and very clearly does not need a job for financial reasons applies for a job and gets hired over someone else with no financial backup who could use the work experience as well as the money.
That's my opinion and I am not apologizing for it.
I am tired of carrying the burden for older retired people who only got the job because they have spare time and don't mind working part time, but have no actual experience related to the job, nor the physical strength to handle it.

The only thing I can think of that you haven't tried is going after my spelling.

I don't mock people for spelling errors. That would be rude and irrelevant to the discussion.

[Anthony K. S.]

I referred to her as the wife of the old retired guy, and you jumped to "grandma" which is rather demeaning, in a way.

"Demeaning" is one word for it.

"Illogical" is another.

Some people choose not to have children. Others can't have children, for one reason or another. And among people who are parents, there are some whose children can't have children of their own, or choose not to.

There is no real reason to assume that a woman must be a grandmother simply because she's old.

Frankly, referring to this woman repeatedly as "Grandma" comes across to me as a rather transparent attempt to manipulate people's emotions.

Imprl59 could have chosen a neutral term, like "the retired woman" or "the older woman," but instead went with "Grandma," a term of endearment that would instantly make the woman look sympathetic ... despite not even knowing whether the woman in question had any grandchildren.

I would think that most perceptive people would be turned off by such a manipulation.

[Rapscallion]

Ah. Well I was born in 1960, so I am technically part of that generation, so I guess I misunderstood.

I'd have guessed you to be in your early twenties, actually.

There's an element in here where I have to think the issue isn't the retirees taking jobs, it's that the people hiring are giving them to retired folk.

I don't mind the concept of keeping some people around who have the experience of many years, because while it's not always true that age brings wisdom it's fair to say that they've seen it all before and will have a reasonable idea about how to fix things. However, if you're only hiring retirees, you're going to run into Ree's situation whereby too many of the staff are no longer capable of performing basic functions required by the job - such as medium-weight lifting etc.

You need a reasonable mix - people with experience to pass on their knowledge, and younger people to learn to become the next generation's tutors.

I can't blame the retirees for applying for the jobs. If I get to my retirement, I'm going to be bored out of my tiny mind. If I had the income built up by then I'd volunteer at a charity shop or similar. If I didn't, I'd have to apply to work somewhere. However, the fundamental concept for me is that when I get to that sort of age I'd really like to be able to take time off if I like - I've earned a long, long holiday by then.

Rapscallion

[wolfie]

And I know quite a few older retired people that will tell you how they did something 20 years and 15 changes to the housing electrical code ago, or just out and out make something up rather than "lose face", but because they're older "they must be knowledgeable", which is total BS. Hell I know a retired mechanic that tried telling a friend of mine he needed to "check his ignition coil, and adjust his carb floats" when his 1997 geo was running rough, cars haven't had either of those since the 1970's.

Ironic that in an attempt to show that someone doesn't know modern technology, you are showing the same lack of knowledge. While cars haven't had carb floats since the '70s, they still have (assuming gasoline engine) ignition coils - in fact, it's now common to have MULTIPLE ignition coils (distributorless ignition - sometimes one coil per cylinder, sometimes one per pair, with the cylinder at the end of the exhaust stroke getting a harmless spark at the same time its partner is firing). An ignition component that DID go away back then was the ignition POINTS (due to transition to electronic ignition).

[Boozy]

I think she was referring only to the carb floats in her post, wolfie.

There's an element in here where I have to think the issue isn't the retirees taking jobs, it's that the people hiring are giving them to retired folk.

I agree. I suspect Ree's major problem with her company's hiring practices is that it's not working out for the company, and so it feels like charity. After all, if someone is hired to do a job, shows that they cannot do the job, but still remains employed, then what else do you call it? It's certainly not good business practice.

And obviously, folks who have enough income coming in to support themselves comfortably are not in need of charity. If Ree's employer treats their cashier positions as rewards for people they like and want to "help" -- then absolutely, the question of whom is more deserving enters the picture.

Before someone jumps down my throat, I'm not saying that older folks can't do a good job. It just sounds as though the ones they've hired at Ree's workplace can't. It is certainly more likely that an elderly person will have trouble hauling boxes or operating a computer.

Employers shouldn't be looking at things like financial need in hiring for positions. That's not a good business decision, and it is absolutely discrimination. I'd never be able to work if someone asked to see Mr. Boozy's income statement before hiring me. Which would be a damn shame, because I love my job, I'm good at it, and I'm valuable to the company.

[Ginger Tea]

Hypothetically speaking, say one of the younger males was working tills, no one was free in the back room and each time someone wanted a box of a high shelf, legally customers cannot get it themselves, he had to close his till after serviing his current customer, forcing others to join another queue if no one covered him.
And say this happened alot, perhaps within the same customers shop.

Who would get the most complaints?
The cashieer for causing delays or the older employee for taking him away from his rota'd duties.

If I was in that situation, I'd be more inclined to tell the other guy to do my job whilst I finish up there.

[Andara Bledin]

It just sounds as though the ones they've hired at Ree's workplace can't. It is certainly more likely that an elderly person will have trouble hauling boxes or operating a computer.

But that's not really the old people's fault.

If there's an issue over who is getting hired to fill positions, it's the fault of the person doing the hiring so she should be mad at them. The fact that old people who don't "need" the job in a strict financial sense are applying is completely irrelevant. People who aren't qualified apply for jobs constantly; any time one of them gets hired, it's a failure of the hiring process.

That's my problem with the focus of the OP and subsequent posts. Everything in the world is done to avoid the fact that the HR person is failing at doing their job at hiring the best qualified individual and instead blaming the people filling out applications, and that's not right or reasonable.

^-.-^