Retired people taking jobs from people who could use them

[telecom_goddess]

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

I was born in 1965 so I think I'm just past the whole "baby boomer" generation. But it's going to be interesting to see what happens when this huge swell in the population gets old and eventually dies off, and what will happen when they are done using the resources up in jobs and social security.

No offense to anyone, I am not implying you should all die off now

[kiwi]

I agree that the majority of blame should be had by the hiring manager, at my last job we had older people come in looking for a job and we were very clear that the job was physical. We were up and down ladders all day carrying boxes, we sold heavy and awkward items and offered carryout to the car as standard.

It was a fast paced, physical job. We had one woman argue with our manager that she could do all the light work and have the "younger ones" do all the heavy lifting to make up for it. So she knew, after being told that the job required physical ability that she could not manager the job but wanted allowances for age anyway.

That's not the first job where I have personally witnessed ageism from the old toward the younger staff. Where they couldn't phyically manage the job that EVERYONE was expected to do, so they wanted to cherry pick the nice and easy jobs and leave the crap to everyone else simply because the were too old to manage.

If you can not do the job, do not take that employment from someone who can then expect other staff to pick up your slack. That is what Ree is saying (I think) that these people are unable to complete the physical aspects of the job - heavy lifting, computer literacy etc and so they are expecting the other employees to do it for them and in turn preventing a person who is able and willing to complete these tasks from having paid employment at that store.

[BlaqueKatt]

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).

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

actually I used the wrong word, because I don't remember word for word a conversation that was held back in 1998 or 1999(over 13 years ago), I used the wrong word and horrors, didn't use the internet(and didn't think anyone would nitpick typing the wrong word from a 13 YEARS PAST CONVERSATION FFS!) to verify that my 30 second post was 100% accurate.

[protege]

At least you didn't refer to ignition *points* BK. Those haven't been around in most cars since the '70s. Points have largely been succeeded by electronic setups. Relax, I'm just picking on you

Seriously though, when I first put the MG back on the road, it was hard to find someone that could work on it. Nearly everything on that car is mechanical. Instead of fuel injection, it runs a pair of carbs. Originally, the car would have had a points-based ignition system. After that failed...I fitted a modern electronic ignition instead. Uh, where was I going with this?

Oh yeah. I had the car in for one reason or another, and the young-ish mechanics couldn't figure out what was wrong with it. At the time, the garage had an older (retired) guy who worked part-time. He had retired from teaching auto shop, but still enjoyed working on cars. He was a great help in getting the pair of SU carbs on my MG to behave themselves. Only took a few minutes with a screwdriver--one of the float chambers had come loose. The reason that the younger guys didn't know that, is that they weren't as familiar with carbs. Considering that nearly all newer cars come with injection, it wasn't surprising. He was able to get the job, simply because he had the experience.

I'm not trying to say that the younger guys were stupid--far from it. They knew what they were doing, but I'm sure that they weren't as well versed on the inner workings of an SU, let alone a pair. It's hard to get one's hands dirty on one when they're not very common now

...and now for the 'other' side of the coin. Specifically, computers. Some older people just can't get their heads around them. My grandmother is one of them. She can handle checking her email, processing some words, but that's about it. Even though she's worked on computers since the '70s, Windows 7 is way over her head. Again, not her fault. Most of what she was doing then, was simply typing up reports and filing things. So most of the features provided by Windows 7, wouldn't even interest her. Neither would the inner workings of her printer. She's not a technician, and anything other than adding ink and paper...she can't handle. So I'll get a phone call

[HYHYBT]

I know that there were cars being made with carburetors though most of the 80's, though fewer and fewer of them. If they stopped using floats in the 70's, what did they use instead?

[Ree]

I used the wrong word and horrors, didn't use the internet(and didn't think anyone would nitpick typing the wrong word from a 13 YEARS PAST CONVERSATION FFS!) to verify that my 30 second post was 100% accurate.

Besides that, I'm just a bit annoyed at the totally off topic, irrelevant thread drift.
I know it happens from time to time, but seriously, it was an offhand comment used to illustrate that older people are not always current on newer technology.
So she used the wrong term. It wasn't about the stupid car engine.

I didn't start the thread to discuss car engines. I don't even drive.

[Shangri-laschild]

It was a fast paced, physical job. We had one woman argue with our manager that she could do all the light work and have the "younger ones" do all the heavy lifting to make up for it. So she knew, after being told that the job required physical ability that she could not manager the job but wanted allowances for age anyway.

I agree that hiring old people flat out over young people without looking at who can do the job better is a bad hiring stance. I would be pissed as hell at a boss who did that even if the resulting coworkers were qualified because something like that would be wrong. So I agree with being pissed at the hiring process here.

I also can see being irritated at the workers who don't do the job. Honestly I'd be pissed at a young person who took a job when knowing they wouldn't be willing to meet the job requirements as much as with an old person. If you know that you aren't going to be willing to do it and then I as your coworker will have to cover your job duties then that's not right. I see nothing wrong with Ree being as frustrated with them as with management.

[Andara Bledin]

I see nothing wrong with Ree being as frustrated with them as with management.

Yes, but that's not a 'retired person' thing, that's an incompetent thing and can be found in all ages.

^-.-^

[bara]

A similar occurrence at a place I used to work at.

Girl has a bad back but liked to work in lay-away. Well, she had an excuse from the doctor that she cant do heavy lifting. I assume it was legit as I had no way to check. So they put her on the phones since she wasnt supposed to do anything except breath at her own pace.

She kept bitching and bitching about being on phones so they put her back in lay-away.
Cue her constant paging for help every time something more than 10lbs showed up. I was pissed at both her and the managers.

So there are now at least two parties at fault. (I would like to note that her bad back did not prevent her from carrying any of her 5 kids all under the age of 6 and none less than 20 lbs when she came in shopping nor did it prevent her from moving items that she wanted to buy that were over 10lbs). Because of that last bit, I was more pissed at her than management since clearly she wasn't hurt as bad as she claimed.

[blas87]

I've posted about it on CS, but we have a few sitting only type jobs at my work (due to new policies, we do not classify anything as "light duty" anymore, and HR has to "approve" restrictions people might get, thanks to all the abuse of people past and present), and some people will do just about anything to get out of doing the standing/physical work and just want to sit all night.

We can't lift more than 25 lbs in most areas. It's not that hard. I'm a pretty small person (not that skinny, but I'm pretty short, and obviously not very strong), and 25 lbs is not that hard to lift. That's like lifting my cat.

It irritates me that people keep increasing our insurance costs with their phony illnesses and being adament that they aren't going to do certain jobs, while everyone else gets harrassed to work harder.

[Ree]

This lady they hired keeps telling me she wants to come and work in my department because she doesn't think she will ever catch on to the cashier job.

Pretty much everyday she calls me over and says, "I'm serious. I want to work in your area. I really don't think this is going to work out. There's just too much to remember and I seem to have some kind of mental block. It just isn't sinking in."

I just smile and say, "Give it time. There's a lot to remember but after a while of doing it over and over you'll catch on."

To myself, I just think, "Oh, yes, please give me another older woman who is barely able to lift and afraid of the computer system to match the three I already have working for me."

[siead_lietrathua]

last time i checked being a supervisor required MORE computer use and memorization than a cashier, unless it's diffrent where you are. she's begging to go from pan to fire? haha.

i find in our store it's the opposite problem. we only tend to hire teenage girls that still don't meet the weight-lift requirement and aren't willing to do the job right, because they are the daughter or something of another employee.
you mentioned in the op that the older woman hired was the wife of another employee. maybe your problem is the same as mine: nepotism. just a thought.

[Nekojin]

last time i checked being a supervisor required MORE computer use and memorization than a cashier, unless it's diffrent where you are. she's begging to go from pan to fire? haha.

i find in our store it's the opposite problem. we only tend to hire teenage girls that still don't meet the weight-lift requirement and aren't willing to do the job right, because they are the daughter or something of another employee.
you mentioned in the op that the older woman hired was the wife of another employee. maybe your problem is the same as mine: nepotism. just a thought.

In a retail environment, a properly-trained Manager should be able to do ANY of the tasks that ANY of the positions require, so that they can adequately demonstrate while training. Sadly, reality often falls short of the ideal. I've worked with Managers who didn't understand the Point-of-Sale registers that we were using.

[siead_lietrathua]

In a retail environment, a properly-trained Manager should be able to do ANY of the tasks that ANY of the positions require, so that they can adequately demonstrate while training. Sadly, reality often falls short of the ideal. I've worked with Managers who didn't understand the Point-of-Sale registers that we were using.

our manager that does the hiring has a list from each department of the technical and labour skills needed. but she disregards them and still hires relatives/friends of staff members, even if they are less qualified. hence, nepotism.