August 14, 2006
A.D. FOR NIGHTCLUBS WITH 21-OLDER POLICY?
Boston.com
August 13, 2006
NEWPORT, R.I. --A nightspot's 21-and-over policy has prompted an age discrimination complaint winding through Rhode Island's Human Rights Commission.
The case began in February when Brian Alber Jr., 19, and his parents were kicked out of POP, a nightspot, because the establishment has a 21-and-over policy, according to documents filed with the commission.
Alber's family later filed a complaint with the Human Rights Commission, which is expected to hold a meeting on the case this week.
Alber's mother, Robynne, said her son only ordered a hamburger and was humiliated in front of his parents and their friends, she wrote in a letter filed with the commission. After Alber's mother protested, she too was asked to leave.
She declined to comment on the case when contacted by The Providence Sunday Journal.
Dan Puerini, POP's owner, said he won't stop his 21-and-over policy. He said the rule is part of the restaurant's attempt to enforce liquor laws.
"If you are underage, you are going to drink," he said. "It's impossible to keep track of minors in a bar where it's like POP and its jampacked."
At conflict is a state law prohibiting a place of public accommodation, including inns, taverns, barrooms, salons and restaurants, from discriminating against a person because of his age, so long as that person is at least 18.
Human Rights Commission Executive Director Michael Evora wouldn't comment on the case, but he said the commission hasn't previously analyzed 21-and-over policies.
"If you have a restaurant that is open generally to the public but also happens to serve alcohol, you cannot discriminate," he said.
But Evora said he wondered if a tavern could keep out those under the legal drinking age because its primary purpose is to serve alcohol.
August 13, 2006
NEWPORT, R.I. --A nightspot's 21-and-over policy has prompted an age discrimination complaint winding through Rhode Island's Human Rights Commission.
The case began in February when Brian Alber Jr., 19, and his parents were kicked out of POP, a nightspot, because the establishment has a 21-and-over policy, according to documents filed with the commission.
Alber's family later filed a complaint with the Human Rights Commission, which is expected to hold a meeting on the case this week.
Alber's mother, Robynne, said her son only ordered a hamburger and was humiliated in front of his parents and their friends, she wrote in a letter filed with the commission. After Alber's mother protested, she too was asked to leave.
She declined to comment on the case when contacted by The Providence Sunday Journal.
Dan Puerini, POP's owner, said he won't stop his 21-and-over policy. He said the rule is part of the restaurant's attempt to enforce liquor laws.
"If you are underage, you are going to drink," he said. "It's impossible to keep track of minors in a bar where it's like POP and its jampacked."
At conflict is a state law prohibiting a place of public accommodation, including inns, taverns, barrooms, salons and restaurants, from discriminating against a person because of his age, so long as that person is at least 18.
Human Rights Commission Executive Director Michael Evora wouldn't comment on the case, but he said the commission hasn't previously analyzed 21-and-over policies.
"If you have a restaurant that is open generally to the public but also happens to serve alcohol, you cannot discriminate," he said.
But Evora said he wondered if a tavern could keep out those under the legal drinking age because its primary purpose is to serve alcohol.
ADVICE FOR THINKING YOUNG
SCRIPPS HOWARD NEWS SERVICE
By MARVIN WALBERG
Dear Mr. Walberg: You often respond to readers who complain of age discrimination in the workplace, and, in particular, the hiring process. Granted, there is no doubt that age bias exists out there, but if I may, I'd like to tell you a true story.
I am 70 and still working full time, 35 to 40 hours per week, and the work that I do is rather physical for any age. Yet three weeks after my 70th birthday, I was offered a job with a competitor! Why? I think because of some of the following:
_ I'm good at what I do, and can document my accomplishments.
_ I have an "old school" work ethic.
_ I am a team player and pull my weight rather than sit back and use my years to my advantage.
_ I stay as young as I can, physically and mentally.
_ I am aware of my grooming and dress, and think of myself as ageless in those respects.
_ I respect the education and skills of my younger co-workers, and I believe that we can learn from each other.
_ I make a concerted effort to stay current with trends and new developments related to my field, and life in general.
_ If a co-worker seems to disrespect my age and maturity, I don't fight back. Instead, I attempt to prove my worth through example.
_ If, on the other hand, a younger co-worker is willing, I believe in mentoring and offering the wisdom that comes from years of exposure.
_ When I'm off, I like to walk, read, listen to music and, if you promise not to tell, nap as much as I can!
I don't disagree. There is a major problem with age discrimination in our workplace, and I don't doubt that it plays a big part in the hiring process. I also believe that if a person truly believes in his or her abilities and is prepared to demonstrate accomplishments, discrimination can sometimes be overcome. You simply have to believe in yourself and make the effort to sell your accomplishments. I applaud your efforts to communicate your beliefs and sincerely hope that my true story will help you in your efforts.
_ An e-mail from "Anon" in Alabama
Dear Anon: Fortunately you didn't ask a question, because my only response to your letter could be, "Thank you!" Think young, be young!
(Marvin Walberg is a job search consultant based in Birmingham, Ala. He can be contacted at P.O. Box 43056, Birmingham, AL, 35243. E-mail him at mwalberg(at)bellsouth.net.)
Published: Wednesday, 09 August 2006
Distributed by Scripps Howard News Service
By MARVIN WALBERG
Dear Mr. Walberg: You often respond to readers who complain of age discrimination in the workplace, and, in particular, the hiring process. Granted, there is no doubt that age bias exists out there, but if I may, I'd like to tell you a true story.
I am 70 and still working full time, 35 to 40 hours per week, and the work that I do is rather physical for any age. Yet three weeks after my 70th birthday, I was offered a job with a competitor! Why? I think because of some of the following:
_ I'm good at what I do, and can document my accomplishments.
_ I have an "old school" work ethic.
_ I am a team player and pull my weight rather than sit back and use my years to my advantage.
_ I stay as young as I can, physically and mentally.
_ I am aware of my grooming and dress, and think of myself as ageless in those respects.
_ I respect the education and skills of my younger co-workers, and I believe that we can learn from each other.
_ I make a concerted effort to stay current with trends and new developments related to my field, and life in general.
_ If a co-worker seems to disrespect my age and maturity, I don't fight back. Instead, I attempt to prove my worth through example.
_ If, on the other hand, a younger co-worker is willing, I believe in mentoring and offering the wisdom that comes from years of exposure.
_ When I'm off, I like to walk, read, listen to music and, if you promise not to tell, nap as much as I can!
I don't disagree. There is a major problem with age discrimination in our workplace, and I don't doubt that it plays a big part in the hiring process. I also believe that if a person truly believes in his or her abilities and is prepared to demonstrate accomplishments, discrimination can sometimes be overcome. You simply have to believe in yourself and make the effort to sell your accomplishments. I applaud your efforts to communicate your beliefs and sincerely hope that my true story will help you in your efforts.
_ An e-mail from "Anon" in Alabama
Dear Anon: Fortunately you didn't ask a question, because my only response to your letter could be, "Thank you!" Think young, be young!
(Marvin Walberg is a job search consultant based in Birmingham, Ala. He can be contacted at P.O. Box 43056, Birmingham, AL, 35243. E-mail him at mwalberg(at)bellsouth.net.)
Published: Wednesday, 09 August 2006
Distributed by Scripps Howard News Service
IBM CLEARED IN A.D. CASE
By Caroline McCarthy, CNET News.com
Published on ZDNet News: August 7, 2006, 3:26 PM PT
A federal appeals court has ruled in favor of IBM in an age discrimination suit concerning a change in pension plans that the plaintiffs said favored younger workers.
The case, Cooper vs. IBM, was filed on behalf of 140,000 older IBM employees in the wake of Big Blue's 1999 decision to switch its pension coverage to a "cash-balance" plan. In the new plan, all IBM employees receive the same pay credit (5 percent) and interest credit each year regardless of age. The change to a cash-balance system has proven controversial among older workers--as well as shareholders--because a dollar earned by a younger worker has more time to accrue in value. In more traditional pension plans, the value of benefits increases at a faster rate for older workers.
A federal judge ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, led by now-retired IBM employee Kathi Cooper, in 2003. IBM simultaneously negotiated a settlement and filed an appeal with the Chicago-based 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
The American Benefits Council, a nonprofit organization that supports privately sponsored pension plans and had filed an amicus brief on behalf of IBM in late 2005--cosigned by such corporations as Honeywell, AT&T and Wells Fargo--applauded the court's decision. Council President James A. Klein said the verdict "should settle this matter once and for all," adding that "cash balance and other hybrid plans are--and always have been--perfectly legal and not age discriminatory."
Klein cited the apparent success of the Pension Protection Act, a bill that recently passed the Senate and which he says "clearly affirms the legitimacy of hybrid pension plan designs."
Now that its settlement is void, pension plan controversies may be over for the Armonk, N.Y.-based IBM. Earlier this year, the company froze its pension fund and announced a transition to 401(K) plans. "We are gratified that the Court of Appeals has vindicated IBM's long-held position that its pension plan formula is both lawful and age-neutral," the company wrote in a statement. "Treating the time value of money as a form of discrimination is not sensible."
Cooper, however, claims that the case still has momentum and has no plans to give it up.
The plaintiff's counsel was unavailable for comment.
Published on ZDNet News: August 7, 2006, 3:26 PM PT
A federal appeals court has ruled in favor of IBM in an age discrimination suit concerning a change in pension plans that the plaintiffs said favored younger workers.
The case, Cooper vs. IBM, was filed on behalf of 140,000 older IBM employees in the wake of Big Blue's 1999 decision to switch its pension coverage to a "cash-balance" plan. In the new plan, all IBM employees receive the same pay credit (5 percent) and interest credit each year regardless of age. The change to a cash-balance system has proven controversial among older workers--as well as shareholders--because a dollar earned by a younger worker has more time to accrue in value. In more traditional pension plans, the value of benefits increases at a faster rate for older workers.
A federal judge ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, led by now-retired IBM employee Kathi Cooper, in 2003. IBM simultaneously negotiated a settlement and filed an appeal with the Chicago-based 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
The American Benefits Council, a nonprofit organization that supports privately sponsored pension plans and had filed an amicus brief on behalf of IBM in late 2005--cosigned by such corporations as Honeywell, AT&T and Wells Fargo--applauded the court's decision. Council President James A. Klein said the verdict "should settle this matter once and for all," adding that "cash balance and other hybrid plans are--and always have been--perfectly legal and not age discriminatory."
Klein cited the apparent success of the Pension Protection Act, a bill that recently passed the Senate and which he says "clearly affirms the legitimacy of hybrid pension plan designs."
Now that its settlement is void, pension plan controversies may be over for the Armonk, N.Y.-based IBM. Earlier this year, the company froze its pension fund and announced a transition to 401(K) plans. "We are gratified that the Court of Appeals has vindicated IBM's long-held position that its pension plan formula is both lawful and age-neutral," the company wrote in a statement. "Treating the time value of money as a form of discrimination is not sensible."
Cooper, however, claims that the case still has momentum and has no plans to give it up.
The plaintiff's counsel was unavailable for comment.
FERTILIZER COMPANY ACCUSED OF A.D.
Oregon Public Broadcasting
August 4, 2005
By Krisitan Foden-Vencil
PORTLAND, OR (2006-08-04) The federal government is suing Woodburn Fertilizer -- alleging age discrimination. As Kristian Foden-Vencil reports, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission says such cases now make up 20% of its caseload.
-----------
55-year-old Carolyn Arzino worked at Woodburn Fertilizer for 10 years before the president's stepdaughter, who was in her 20s, was promoted to the position of office manager.
Joan Ehrlich, the regional director of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, claims the new manager made Arzino's life a misery.
Joan Ehrlich: "In one case the supervisor said: 'Turn up your Miracle Ear.' Well, she wasn't hard of hearing but she didn't understand something that was being said to her. Or: 'Why don't you try ginkgo bilboa, it'll give you more energy,' or 'Look at me as a role model, I'm young and vibrant.'"
The lawsuit is seeking back wages and compensatory damages for the humiliation Arzino says she suffered. Ehrlich says her agency also wants to send the message that age discrimination will not be tolerated.
A spokeswoman for Woodburn Fertilizer declined to comment on the lawsuit.
August 4, 2005
By Krisitan Foden-Vencil
PORTLAND, OR (2006-08-04) The federal government is suing Woodburn Fertilizer -- alleging age discrimination. As Kristian Foden-Vencil reports, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission says such cases now make up 20% of its caseload.
-----------
55-year-old Carolyn Arzino worked at Woodburn Fertilizer for 10 years before the president's stepdaughter, who was in her 20s, was promoted to the position of office manager.
Joan Ehrlich, the regional director of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, claims the new manager made Arzino's life a misery.
Joan Ehrlich: "In one case the supervisor said: 'Turn up your Miracle Ear.' Well, she wasn't hard of hearing but she didn't understand something that was being said to her. Or: 'Why don't you try ginkgo bilboa, it'll give you more energy,' or 'Look at me as a role model, I'm young and vibrant.'"
The lawsuit is seeking back wages and compensatory damages for the humiliation Arzino says she suffered. Ehrlich says her agency also wants to send the message that age discrimination will not be tolerated.
A spokeswoman for Woodburn Fertilizer declined to comment on the lawsuit.
August 03, 2006
ANOTHER FRIEND FACES UNEMPLOYMENT
I learned yesterday that one of my colleagues was "let go" of her senior position in a Fortune 500 corporation. The entire PR department has now been outsourced and she finds herself without a job and in her early 50s.
Needless to say, she is in shock, anxious and worried. Her six-figure salary, bennies and prestigious corporate office are gone. She knows how challenging it will be to find work (her husband has a great job, so relocation is near impossible) and the Mid-Western city we share has fewer and fewer senior communications positions even left in the region. Corporate consolidations, headquarter migration and businesses just plain closing have contributed to far fewer opportunities.
I asked her what she planned to do next. She paused and said she just was not sure what the next step would be. She has some "feelers" out there, but generally speaking, we know 90% of the senior communications jobs that are out there in town. And right now, there is not much.
With two kids in college, my friend is facing some serious lifestyle changes -- which can be very hard on the ego and the family. The American Dream gets reigned in hard and it can be very tough on marital relationships, happiness with the kids and keeping up with successful (and less limited) friends who can still take cruises, buy nicer automobiles and hire yard/housekeeping services to have more leisure hours.
Life changes are always something that happens to somebody else. I now have almost a half-a-dozen friends in this career quagmire. All good workers. Intelligent. Easy going, non-combative employees. Stable. Sober. Witty. Attractive. Experienced. Educated. What is the common denominator in why their careers have turned upside down?
They all are over fifty.
Needless to say, she is in shock, anxious and worried. Her six-figure salary, bennies and prestigious corporate office are gone. She knows how challenging it will be to find work (her husband has a great job, so relocation is near impossible) and the Mid-Western city we share has fewer and fewer senior communications positions even left in the region. Corporate consolidations, headquarter migration and businesses just plain closing have contributed to far fewer opportunities.
I asked her what she planned to do next. She paused and said she just was not sure what the next step would be. She has some "feelers" out there, but generally speaking, we know 90% of the senior communications jobs that are out there in town. And right now, there is not much.
With two kids in college, my friend is facing some serious lifestyle changes -- which can be very hard on the ego and the family. The American Dream gets reigned in hard and it can be very tough on marital relationships, happiness with the kids and keeping up with successful (and less limited) friends who can still take cruises, buy nicer automobiles and hire yard/housekeeping services to have more leisure hours.
Life changes are always something that happens to somebody else. I now have almost a half-a-dozen friends in this career quagmire. All good workers. Intelligent. Easy going, non-combative employees. Stable. Sober. Witty. Attractive. Experienced. Educated. What is the common denominator in why their careers have turned upside down?
They all are over fifty.
August 01, 2006
$5.5 MILLION SPRINT SETTLEMENT
Kansas City Business Journal - July 28, 2006
A federal judge in Atlanta has approved Sprint Nextel Corp.'s $5.5 million settlement with plaintiffs in an age discrimination suit.
The settlement approved Thursday by U.S. District Judge Beverly Martin covers 462 former Sprint Corp. employees who alleged that the telecommunications giant had laid them off in favor of younger workers. Sprint Nextel (NYSE: S) agreed to the deal without an admission of guilt.
"The reason we settled was simply to get back to the business at hand, which is serving customers," Sprint Nextel spokesman David Gunasegaram said.
A similar case, involving 1,725 former Sprint employees, is pending in U.S. District Court in Kansas City, Kan.
Dennis Egan, a lawyer at The Popham Law Firm PC, who represents the workers, said Friday that the Atlanta settlement shouldn't affect his case.
"We've got quite a bit more in dollars lost," he said.
The local case was scheduled to go to trial in January 2007, but Egan said it has been delayed to allow more time for discovery. More than 400 depositions have been taken so far, including one from former Sprint CEO Bill Esrey.
Egan said he would be open to a settlement for the right amount, but he declined to name a figure.
"We have had settlement discussions," he said. "That's about all I can say."
Gunasegaram declined to comment on the local case.
A federal judge in Atlanta has approved Sprint Nextel Corp.'s $5.5 million settlement with plaintiffs in an age discrimination suit.
The settlement approved Thursday by U.S. District Judge Beverly Martin covers 462 former Sprint Corp. employees who alleged that the telecommunications giant had laid them off in favor of younger workers. Sprint Nextel (NYSE: S) agreed to the deal without an admission of guilt.
"The reason we settled was simply to get back to the business at hand, which is serving customers," Sprint Nextel spokesman David Gunasegaram said.
A similar case, involving 1,725 former Sprint employees, is pending in U.S. District Court in Kansas City, Kan.
Dennis Egan, a lawyer at The Popham Law Firm PC, who represents the workers, said Friday that the Atlanta settlement shouldn't affect his case.
"We've got quite a bit more in dollars lost," he said.
The local case was scheduled to go to trial in January 2007, but Egan said it has been delayed to allow more time for discovery. More than 400 depositions have been taken so far, including one from former Sprint CEO Bill Esrey.
Egan said he would be open to a settlement for the right amount, but he declined to name a figure.
"We have had settlement discussions," he said. "That's about all I can say."
Gunasegaram declined to comment on the local case.
July 12, 2006
San Jose Agrees to Settlement
Mercury News
July 12, 2006
By Deborah Lohse
Mercury News
The city of San Jose has agreed to pay $35,000 to settle an age-discrimination lawsuit brought by a 72-year-old mechanic who claimed he was not promoted because his bosses feared they would ``find him dead'' if he worked an overnight shift.
In 2001, James Yu had been working for 10 years at the San Jose/Santa Clara water pollution and control plant in Alviso. As part of his job as assistant heavy diesel equipment operator mechanic, he operated and fixed giant diesel engines.
When three mechanic's positions became available, he was one of four people who applied, scoring fourth in rankings by a panel of interviewers, according to lawyers involved in the case.
When one candidate declined to take the third position, his bosses left it unfilled rather than hiring Yu. He filed an age-discrimination lawsuit with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. His colleagues gave depositions that Yu's bosses had told them ``they were afraid of finding him dead,'' in the morning if Yu worked the overnight shifts that would be required of the job, said Marcia Mitchell, senior trial attorney with the EEOC.
``The assistant position was virtually identical to the job he was trying to get promoted into,'' said Mitchell, who described Yu as ``incredibly vibrant.''
San Jose officials, meanwhile, denied age discrimination, saying that they didn't promote Yu because he finished last in the interviewing process.
``It was a hiring decision,'' said City Attorney Rick Doyle. ``The panel looked at this in a very fair and objective way.''
But in recent months, San Jose settled the matter by paying Yu $35,000, representing roughly the extra amount he would have received over the past five years, Mitchell said. In the settlement that was finalized Tuesday, the city did not admit age discrimination. Yu is still an assistant mechanic at his old pay grade.
San Jose also agreed to give training to managers at the water treatment plant on how to avoid committing age discrimination.
Mitchell said some professions, like police, firefighters or pilots, are allowed by employment law to impose mandatory retirement in some cases. But otherwise, hiring and firing must be based on ability to do the job, she said.
``If an employer observes behavior or something about an employee that suggests they may be a danger to themselves or others, they can send that person for an assessment,'' she said. ``But they have to do an individualized assessment.''
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contact Deborah Lohse at dlohse@mercurynews.com
July 12, 2006
By Deborah Lohse
Mercury News
The city of San Jose has agreed to pay $35,000 to settle an age-discrimination lawsuit brought by a 72-year-old mechanic who claimed he was not promoted because his bosses feared they would ``find him dead'' if he worked an overnight shift.
In 2001, James Yu had been working for 10 years at the San Jose/Santa Clara water pollution and control plant in Alviso. As part of his job as assistant heavy diesel equipment operator mechanic, he operated and fixed giant diesel engines.
When three mechanic's positions became available, he was one of four people who applied, scoring fourth in rankings by a panel of interviewers, according to lawyers involved in the case.
When one candidate declined to take the third position, his bosses left it unfilled rather than hiring Yu. He filed an age-discrimination lawsuit with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. His colleagues gave depositions that Yu's bosses had told them ``they were afraid of finding him dead,'' in the morning if Yu worked the overnight shifts that would be required of the job, said Marcia Mitchell, senior trial attorney with the EEOC.
``The assistant position was virtually identical to the job he was trying to get promoted into,'' said Mitchell, who described Yu as ``incredibly vibrant.''
San Jose officials, meanwhile, denied age discrimination, saying that they didn't promote Yu because he finished last in the interviewing process.
``It was a hiring decision,'' said City Attorney Rick Doyle. ``The panel looked at this in a very fair and objective way.''
But in recent months, San Jose settled the matter by paying Yu $35,000, representing roughly the extra amount he would have received over the past five years, Mitchell said. In the settlement that was finalized Tuesday, the city did not admit age discrimination. Yu is still an assistant mechanic at his old pay grade.
San Jose also agreed to give training to managers at the water treatment plant on how to avoid committing age discrimination.
Mitchell said some professions, like police, firefighters or pilots, are allowed by employment law to impose mandatory retirement in some cases. But otherwise, hiring and firing must be based on ability to do the job, she said.
``If an employer observes behavior or something about an employee that suggests they may be a danger to themselves or others, they can send that person for an assessment,'' she said. ``But they have to do an individualized assessment.''
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contact Deborah Lohse at dlohse@mercurynews.com
Age Discrimination in Norway
Aftenposten.com
July 12, 2006
More than half of Norway’s public-sector managers won't employ new colleagues who are over age 55, according to a new survey by a university team in Stavanger.
The findings come just as national politicians are urging workers to work longer, at least to the full retirement age of 67 in Norway, and not least to ease pressure on the state retirement system.
A new survey conducted for insurance firm KLP attempted to get a sense of policies affecting working conditions for seniors at the township and county levels and within the public health care sector. It uncovered rampant age discrimination among those with hiring authority.
Olav Ulleren of the large public employees' union KS (Kommunenes Sentralforbund) was shocked by the findings. He told Norwegian Broadcasting (NRK) on Wednesday that it's intolerable that public sector employers are so negative towards hiring people over 55.
Ulleren claimed that "good senior policies" can pay off for local government. Many of the leaders themselves conceded they'd had good experience with older workers.
Reidar Mykletun, a professor in Stavanger, conducted the team that made the survey. He said its results are serious, especially since Norway already faces a labour shortage given its strong economy.
Mykletun blamed the results on leaders not following stated guidelines for hiring, and a labour culture that has concentrated on young workers.
He said he intended to explore whether the reluctance to hire older workers reflected leaders' own anxieties about growing older themselves.
Aftenposten English Web Desk
Nina Berglund
July 12, 2006
More than half of Norway’s public-sector managers won't employ new colleagues who are over age 55, according to a new survey by a university team in Stavanger.
The findings come just as national politicians are urging workers to work longer, at least to the full retirement age of 67 in Norway, and not least to ease pressure on the state retirement system.
A new survey conducted for insurance firm KLP attempted to get a sense of policies affecting working conditions for seniors at the township and county levels and within the public health care sector. It uncovered rampant age discrimination among those with hiring authority.
Olav Ulleren of the large public employees' union KS (Kommunenes Sentralforbund) was shocked by the findings. He told Norwegian Broadcasting (NRK) on Wednesday that it's intolerable that public sector employers are so negative towards hiring people over 55.
Ulleren claimed that "good senior policies" can pay off for local government. Many of the leaders themselves conceded they'd had good experience with older workers.
Reidar Mykletun, a professor in Stavanger, conducted the team that made the survey. He said its results are serious, especially since Norway already faces a labour shortage given its strong economy.
Mykletun blamed the results on leaders not following stated guidelines for hiring, and a labour culture that has concentrated on young workers.
He said he intended to explore whether the reluctance to hire older workers reflected leaders' own anxieties about growing older themselves.
Aftenposten English Web Desk
Nina Berglund
July 11, 2006
COMPANY ACCUSED OF STALLING
CHICAGO BUSINESS
By Lorene Yue
July 11, 2006
(Crain’s) — The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is accusing Sidley Austin Brown & Wood of dragging its heels in an age discrimination lawsuit and wants a judge to order the law firm to produce what could be a key witness or witnesses in the case.
The EEOC on Monday filed a request in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois that would compel Sidley & Austin to produce a witness or witnesses to testify under oath why certain Sidley & Austin partners were demoted or fired from the law firm.
“Sidley’s claim that the collection of information regarding the reasons for the changes in status would be burdensome is not a legitimate basis on which to avoid a [deposition],” EEOC lawyers said in court documents.
A representative from Sidley & Austin was not available for comment.
The EEOC filed a lawsuit in January 2005 on behalf of 31 partners claiming Sidley& Austin’s mandatory retirement policy of requiring partners to step down at age 65 was discriminatory. In October 1999, the law firm amended its retirement age from a sliding scale that began at age 60.
Since then, both sides have been locked in a deposition battle.
Sidley & Austin has provided the EEOC with pages of written statements detailing possible reasons for the demotions and dismissals, but the EEOC contends that the explanations fail to pinpoint time and importance as well as a decision maker.
“At the bottom of it, it was all about age,” said John Hendrickson, regional attorney for the EEOC in Chicago. “Sidley’s defense is ‘No, it wasn’t.’ If that is so, then they should designate a person to testify under oath what those reasons were. They have been resisting that for months.”
The federal agency is seeking lost wages and reinstatement for partners affected by Sidley & Austin’s policy in addition to terminating the practice of mandatory retirement.
By Lorene Yue
July 11, 2006
(Crain’s) — The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is accusing Sidley Austin Brown & Wood of dragging its heels in an age discrimination lawsuit and wants a judge to order the law firm to produce what could be a key witness or witnesses in the case.
The EEOC on Monday filed a request in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois that would compel Sidley & Austin to produce a witness or witnesses to testify under oath why certain Sidley & Austin partners were demoted or fired from the law firm.
“Sidley’s claim that the collection of information regarding the reasons for the changes in status would be burdensome is not a legitimate basis on which to avoid a [deposition],” EEOC lawyers said in court documents.
A representative from Sidley & Austin was not available for comment.
The EEOC filed a lawsuit in January 2005 on behalf of 31 partners claiming Sidley& Austin’s mandatory retirement policy of requiring partners to step down at age 65 was discriminatory. In October 1999, the law firm amended its retirement age from a sliding scale that began at age 60.
Since then, both sides have been locked in a deposition battle.
Sidley & Austin has provided the EEOC with pages of written statements detailing possible reasons for the demotions and dismissals, but the EEOC contends that the explanations fail to pinpoint time and importance as well as a decision maker.
“At the bottom of it, it was all about age,” said John Hendrickson, regional attorney for the EEOC in Chicago. “Sidley’s defense is ‘No, it wasn’t.’ If that is so, then they should designate a person to testify under oath what those reasons were. They have been resisting that for months.”
The federal agency is seeking lost wages and reinstatement for partners affected by Sidley & Austin’s policy in addition to terminating the practice of mandatory retirement.
July 10, 2006
WINERY WORKERS LOSE JOBS
NAPA VALLEY REGISTER, CA
By CARLOS VILLATORO, Register Staff Writer
Sunday, July 9, 2006 1:15 AM PDT
It's a Friday in late June, and it has been a long, hot day of toiling in the vineyards at Charles Krug Winery for Apolinar Rojas and Maria del Rosario Maceda. As evening comes on, all they want to do is freshen up for dinner. Inside their two-bedroom apartment on Riverside Drive in Napa, an apartment they share with their six children, Maceda and Rojas take turns cooling off in the shower.
Exhaustion is a bittersweet feeling for husband and wife -- they'd rather be tired from a hard day's work than not have a job at all, they said.
But as of July 7, they have no jobs. On Friday, St. Helena-based Charles Krug terminated Maceda, Rojas and 22 fellow workers in the wake of failed contract negotiations between the winery and the workers' union, United Farm Workers.
The winery plans to hand over field operations to Jack Neal & Son Vineyard Management -- which already handles a portion of Krug's vineyard work.
The shift is the result of failed negotiations between Krug and the UFW over the winery's demand that workers take physical capacity tests.
Thomas Fossey, the winery's chief financial officer, said in an interview conducted before Friday's events that the winery gives physical capacity tests to all prospective employees and that it wants all its field workers to submit to them to ensure safety on the job.
United Farm Workers representatives have refused to alter their contract with Krug to include the testing, contending that it will open the door to age-based discrimination of union workers.
In the middle of this conflict are Rojas, 44, and Maceda, 40. They said they would have no problem passing physical tests, but worry that the company will use the tests to discriminate against older union members. They say they are also worried that the company might use the tests against them in the future.
"Let them give us a physical exam, but if we are unable to pass it then let the winery take care of us and not discard us," Rojas said.
Rojas and Maceda don't have new jobs lined up, and plan to spend their days picketing, handing out fliers and assisting their union with a nation-wide boycott of Krug. While they are busy boycotting, a portion of their bills will go unpaid.
"Our rent is $1,200 a month," Rojas said. "We spend $200 a week in food, about $80 or $90 a month on gasoline. And we have other bills. But we need to boycott. We need to fight for our jobs."
The boycott
On June 15 United Farm Workers launched a nation-wide boycott of Charles Krug products from the steps of San Francisco's City Hall.
"We are not going to support a company that's going to discharge (it's longtime employees)," said Roberto Garcia, UFW spokesman. "We are not going to let age discrimination take place that would primarily bring in a younger, inexperienced work force. We are not going to sit here and do nothing."
Using the Internet to spread their message, the union is discouraging the purchase of Krug wines until the parties resolve the contract dispute.
In June, however, Fossey said that Charles Krug is only interested in talking with the UFW about a severance package for the workers.
For the union, boycotting is a popular tool. Its most recent boycott, in 2005 against Gallo of Sonoma, resulted in contract negotiations that granted workers wage increased and health benefits. Garcia said he expects the boycott against Charles Krug to produce similar results.
Aside from launching an e-mail campaign, the union plans to participate in marches, pickets and vigils.
In limbo
Maceda and Rojas have worked for Charles Krug for five years. But many of the workers have been there longer. Three workers have between 26 and 33 years of service to the winery; three have worked at the winery 18 years or more; two have 11 or more years of service and 16 workers have labored there for five years or longer.
In an attempt to stop Charles Krug from dislodging the union workers, the UFW filed a grievance with the state's Agricultural Labor Relations Board. The board monitors unfair labor practices, on the part of labor groups and employers, and also helps ag workers attain union representation.
On Friday, the board sided with the union and the complaint will go to court.
Fossey, speaking before the decision was issued, said the union's claim does not hold and defends the winery's actions.
"We just want a contract that's fair," Rojas said, as he waited for his turn in the shower.
By CARLOS VILLATORO, Register Staff Writer
Sunday, July 9, 2006 1:15 AM PDT
It's a Friday in late June, and it has been a long, hot day of toiling in the vineyards at Charles Krug Winery for Apolinar Rojas and Maria del Rosario Maceda. As evening comes on, all they want to do is freshen up for dinner. Inside their two-bedroom apartment on Riverside Drive in Napa, an apartment they share with their six children, Maceda and Rojas take turns cooling off in the shower.
Exhaustion is a bittersweet feeling for husband and wife -- they'd rather be tired from a hard day's work than not have a job at all, they said.
But as of July 7, they have no jobs. On Friday, St. Helena-based Charles Krug terminated Maceda, Rojas and 22 fellow workers in the wake of failed contract negotiations between the winery and the workers' union, United Farm Workers.
The winery plans to hand over field operations to Jack Neal & Son Vineyard Management -- which already handles a portion of Krug's vineyard work.
The shift is the result of failed negotiations between Krug and the UFW over the winery's demand that workers take physical capacity tests.
Thomas Fossey, the winery's chief financial officer, said in an interview conducted before Friday's events that the winery gives physical capacity tests to all prospective employees and that it wants all its field workers to submit to them to ensure safety on the job.
United Farm Workers representatives have refused to alter their contract with Krug to include the testing, contending that it will open the door to age-based discrimination of union workers.
In the middle of this conflict are Rojas, 44, and Maceda, 40. They said they would have no problem passing physical tests, but worry that the company will use the tests to discriminate against older union members. They say they are also worried that the company might use the tests against them in the future.
"Let them give us a physical exam, but if we are unable to pass it then let the winery take care of us and not discard us," Rojas said.
Rojas and Maceda don't have new jobs lined up, and plan to spend their days picketing, handing out fliers and assisting their union with a nation-wide boycott of Krug. While they are busy boycotting, a portion of their bills will go unpaid.
"Our rent is $1,200 a month," Rojas said. "We spend $200 a week in food, about $80 or $90 a month on gasoline. And we have other bills. But we need to boycott. We need to fight for our jobs."
The boycott
On June 15 United Farm Workers launched a nation-wide boycott of Charles Krug products from the steps of San Francisco's City Hall.
"We are not going to support a company that's going to discharge (it's longtime employees)," said Roberto Garcia, UFW spokesman. "We are not going to let age discrimination take place that would primarily bring in a younger, inexperienced work force. We are not going to sit here and do nothing."
Using the Internet to spread their message, the union is discouraging the purchase of Krug wines until the parties resolve the contract dispute.
In June, however, Fossey said that Charles Krug is only interested in talking with the UFW about a severance package for the workers.
For the union, boycotting is a popular tool. Its most recent boycott, in 2005 against Gallo of Sonoma, resulted in contract negotiations that granted workers wage increased and health benefits. Garcia said he expects the boycott against Charles Krug to produce similar results.
Aside from launching an e-mail campaign, the union plans to participate in marches, pickets and vigils.
In limbo
Maceda and Rojas have worked for Charles Krug for five years. But many of the workers have been there longer. Three workers have between 26 and 33 years of service to the winery; three have worked at the winery 18 years or more; two have 11 or more years of service and 16 workers have labored there for five years or longer.
In an attempt to stop Charles Krug from dislodging the union workers, the UFW filed a grievance with the state's Agricultural Labor Relations Board. The board monitors unfair labor practices, on the part of labor groups and employers, and also helps ag workers attain union representation.
On Friday, the board sided with the union and the complaint will go to court.
Fossey, speaking before the decision was issued, said the union's claim does not hold and defends the winery's actions.
"We just want a contract that's fair," Rojas said, as he waited for his turn in the shower.
FLORIDA GULF COAST UNIVERSITY SUIT
CHARLOTTE SUN-HERALD, FL.
July 10, 2006
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission files lawsuit over former dean's claim he was unlawfully reassigned
Florida Gulf Coast University was slapped with a federal lawsuit last week on behalf of a 62-year-old professor who says he was demoted because he complained about being a victim of age discrimination.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed the lawsuit June 30 in U.S. Federal Court in Fort Myers for Johnny E. McGaha, who was reassigned in March 2005 as dean of the College of Professional Studies to a professor of criminal justice.
The suit charges FGCU with age discrimination and age retaliation, which means McGaha feels he was punished for making complaints about age discrimination. He is seeking reinstatement as dean or an equivalent position, back wages for salary loss and damages.
McGaha lodged age-discrimination complaints with university administrators last year after he was offered a position as the executive director of the Center for Excellence in Cape Coral. He felt the reassignment was a demotion because he would be taken off the main campus, where most of the students are, and suffer a salary loss of at least $11,000, said Delner Franklin-Thomas, regional attorney for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
"Another coworker in (the same) age group was asked to take another assignment along with changes that the provost was making" with a similar effect, said Franklin-Thomas. "Those facts led (McGaha) to believe the changes were a result of his age."
Franklin-Thomas would not say who the coworker was or what position he or she held.
After McGaha complained, the offer to direct the Center for Excellence was rescinded, and McGaha was reassigned in March 2005 to a professor of criminal justice position at a lower salary, the suit says.
He earned $127,120.90 per year in the 12-month dean position. His salary as a nine-month professor as of Aug. 7, 2005 was $94,986.90 per year.
McGaha also lost the authority to administer two federal grants, which caused him to lose more income, and he was placed on a mandatory sabbatical for more than five months, the suit says.
"Retaliation is a very important issue. If individuals can't come forward and complain, how are we to have information to look into violations of the law?" Franklin-Thomas said.
The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 makes it illegal to discriminate against employees based on age or to retaliate if an employee complains about discrimination.
Audrea Anderson, associate vice president of communications for FGCU, said she could not comment on the case.
She said she did not know the average age of the faculty at FGCU.
"It's illegal to collect that information when you hire someone," she said.
Anderson said she was not familiar with the term "mandatory sabbatical," which is used in the lawsuit.
"It is customary in academia when a professor or someone in the academic area moves back to a teaching position to be given a sabbatical to prepare to take on the assignment," she said. "I don't know where you got the word 'mandatory.' "
The dean's position has been filled in the College of Professional Studies after FGCU conducted a national search, she said. The College of Professional Studies houses the social work, justice studies, public affairs and resort and hospitality management programs.
Naples Daily News
July 10, 2006
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission files lawsuit over former dean's claim he was unlawfully reassigned
Florida Gulf Coast University was slapped with a federal lawsuit last week on behalf of a 62-year-old professor who says he was demoted because he complained about being a victim of age discrimination.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed the lawsuit June 30 in U.S. Federal Court in Fort Myers for Johnny E. McGaha, who was reassigned in March 2005 as dean of the College of Professional Studies to a professor of criminal justice.
The suit charges FGCU with age discrimination and age retaliation, which means McGaha feels he was punished for making complaints about age discrimination. He is seeking reinstatement as dean or an equivalent position, back wages for salary loss and damages.
McGaha lodged age-discrimination complaints with university administrators last year after he was offered a position as the executive director of the Center for Excellence in Cape Coral. He felt the reassignment was a demotion because he would be taken off the main campus, where most of the students are, and suffer a salary loss of at least $11,000, said Delner Franklin-Thomas, regional attorney for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
"Another coworker in (the same) age group was asked to take another assignment along with changes that the provost was making" with a similar effect, said Franklin-Thomas. "Those facts led (McGaha) to believe the changes were a result of his age."
Franklin-Thomas would not say who the coworker was or what position he or she held.
After McGaha complained, the offer to direct the Center for Excellence was rescinded, and McGaha was reassigned in March 2005 to a professor of criminal justice position at a lower salary, the suit says.
He earned $127,120.90 per year in the 12-month dean position. His salary as a nine-month professor as of Aug. 7, 2005 was $94,986.90 per year.
McGaha also lost the authority to administer two federal grants, which caused him to lose more income, and he was placed on a mandatory sabbatical for more than five months, the suit says.
"Retaliation is a very important issue. If individuals can't come forward and complain, how are we to have information to look into violations of the law?" Franklin-Thomas said.
The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 makes it illegal to discriminate against employees based on age or to retaliate if an employee complains about discrimination.
Audrea Anderson, associate vice president of communications for FGCU, said she could not comment on the case.
She said she did not know the average age of the faculty at FGCU.
"It's illegal to collect that information when you hire someone," she said.
Anderson said she was not familiar with the term "mandatory sabbatical," which is used in the lawsuit.
"It is customary in academia when a professor or someone in the academic area moves back to a teaching position to be given a sabbatical to prepare to take on the assignment," she said. "I don't know where you got the word 'mandatory.' "
The dean's position has been filled in the College of Professional Studies after FGCU conducted a national search, she said. The College of Professional Studies houses the social work, justice studies, public affairs and resort and hospitality management programs.
Naples Daily News
WHEN RETIREMENT COMES EARLY
USA TODAY
By Sandra Block and Stephanie Armour, USA TODAY
Richard Rocco, 60, of Voorhees, N.J., planned to work as a sales representative until age 65. It hasn't quite worked out that way.
In January 2005, Rocco's employer, a graphics arts company, downsized and cut his position. Despite 27 years of sales experience, Rocco couldn't find a job. Employers "could get college guys for less than half of what I wanted to work for," he says.
Rocco, who's single, says he couldn't afford to retire. So he used his 401(k) savings and home equity to buy a PostNet franchise, which provides printing and graphics services. He enjoys running his own business, but the hours are long. Rocco puts in about 12 hours a day and has yet to draw a salary. He's living off his savings until his business gets off the ground.
Rocco's story could serve as a cautionary tale for boomers who think they'll be able to fill the gaps in their retirement savings by working longer in their current jobs. It also illustrates the challenges for those who assume they alone will determine exactly when they'll retire.
The stark reality is that most of today's middle-age workers who want to continue working after 60 or even 65 will need to find a new source of income. While nearly half of baby boomers expect to work past 65, only 13% of current retirees surveyed this year by consulting firm McKinsey & Co. actually worked past that age. Forty percent of current retirees were forced to stop working earlier than they had planned, the survey found. The average age when current retirees left the workforce: 59.
Boomers have a financial incentive to work past 65. Older boomers can't receive full Social Security benefits until 66 or later; those born in 1960 or later aren't eligible until 67. Individuals can start taking partial Social Security benefits at 62, but if they do, they'll continue to receive a reduced amount for the rest of their lives.
When retirement comes early
As of 2005, just 60% of 60-year-olds, 32% of 65-year-olds and 19% of 70-year-olds were employed, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Current retirees cited two primary reasons for quitting sooner than planned:
•Illness. About 47% of current retirees who retired earlier than planned were forced to stop working because of health problems, according to McKinsey & Co. Less-affluent retirees were far more likely to cite health problems as the reason for forced retirement than higher-income workers were, the study found. "At lower-income levels, many of these people have jobs that require physical labor," says David Hunt, a senior partner at McKinsey. As they age, some are no longer able to handle the demands of their jobs, he says.
•Unemployment. Forty-four percent of current retirees who retired earlier than planned blamed job loss or downsizing. Unemployment was the most frequently cited reason for early retirement among retirees with more than $250,000 in investments, the McKinsey study found. "Even at reasonably high levels of pay, if you're laid off when you're 53 or 54, it's much harder to get retrained and back in the workforce," Hunt says.
Frank Baker, 57, learned three years ago that his company was laying him off after more than 12 years as a technology consultant. But to get $20,000 in severance, he says, he was asked to train his cheaper — and younger — replacement.
"I was one of the highest-paid guys, and then I found myself out interviewing for jobs and being interviewed by people in their late 20s," says Baker, who now works as a consultant and who believes his age hurt his ability to find new jobs at the same pay scale.
To test whether age bias is real or imagined, researcher Joanna Lahey sent out about 4,000 résumés to firms in Boston and St. Petersburg, Fla., and measured response rates from employers. The results: A younger worker is more than 40% more likely to be called for an interview than a worker 50 or older, according to the 2005 study done through the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College.
Another sobering statistic: The average period of unemployment in 2005 was 24.1 weeks for job seekers 55 and older, compared with just 17.8 weeks for those under 55, a report by AARP found.
"It's a huge issue, and it really comes down to, 'How do I, the established job seeker who is 50-plus, how do I establish my differential advantage so it distinguishes me from my younger counterpart?' " says Damian Birkel, a career counselor and founder of Professionals in Transition, a support group for the jobless in Greensboro and Winston-Salem, N.C.
Some frustrated late-middle-age workers have filed age-bias claims.
The federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission collected nearly $78 million in settlements involving age-discrimination charges in fiscal year 2005, the most since at least 1992, when the agency took in $57 million. The EEOC received 16,585 charges of age discrimination in fiscal 2005 and resolved 14,076 similar claims.
Nearly 90% of executives are worried they may soon be discriminated against because of their age, and more than 60% believe age discrimination has become more widespread in the past five years, according to a 2005 survey by ExecuNet, a job search and recruiting network. Most believe age becomes a factor at ages even below 50. About three in 10 executives fear that age bias could force them into retirement.
David Ulfik, 55, of Oxford, Ga., who sells analytical instruments, says the concept of retirement has shifted drastically since his father retired a generation ago. He's had seven different jobs since turning 40.
When prospective employers check his résumé, Ulfik says, "They see this guy is 55, and they're apprehensive. You see these old-timers at Wal-Mart. Are they there because they want to be or because they have to?"
He adds, "I think there will always be jobs for seniors who want to remain in the workplace. Whether they are jobs that they want to work remains to be seen."
Frustrated by the dearth of good jobs, older workers are increasingly becoming independent contractors or starting their own businesses.
Among workers 50 and older, 16% are self-employed vs. 10% for the overall workforce, according to a 2004 AARP study. About one-third of older self-employed workers started their businesses after 50, AARP said.
Self-employment allows older workers to put their years of experience to use. It usually also offers more flexibility than a traditional job. Fifteen percent of self-employed workers 51 and older reported having a health condition that limited the type of work they could do, compared with 8% of salaried workers in that age group.
Still, older workers who start their own businesses face a serious challenge: finding health insurance. Only 13% of private-sector employers offer health benefits to retirees. Medicare doesn't kick in until 65. Private insurance policies are expensive for older individuals. And some older workers can't buy insurance at any price.
That's what Richard Rocco discovered after he lost his job. Otherwise healthy, Rocco was unable to buy a private insurance policy because he has high blood pressure. He maintained his insurance coverage for a while through COBRA (the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act). COBRA lets workers keep their former employer's group coverage for up to 18 months. But to keep the coverage, Rocco had to pay $500 a month.
After starting his business three months ago, Rocco was able to buy a group policy for himself and his sole employee. The cost: about $1,000 a month.
Growing demand?
Some analysts, though, see cause for hope. They think job opportunities for older workers will increase as boomers retire in large numbers.
Employers are expected to face a skills shortage in coming years, and baby boomers provide a varied and experienced labor pool. Over the 2004-14 decade, total employment is projected to rise by 18.9 million jobs, or 13%. Over the previous decade (1994-2004), total employment grew at the same annual rate and rose by 16.4 million jobs, according to the Labor Department.
Tim Driver, CEO of Wellesley, Mass.-based RetirementJobs.com, a job service for mature workers, says he's optimistic that employers facing skills shortages will eagerly welcome experienced workers. While age can be a liability, he says, it can also be an advantage.
"If you are an employer and your customer base is getting old, you're much better off having older employees relate and sell to that customer," Driver says. "Historically, you'd never use retirement and jobs in the same sentence. Now, it's an everyday expression."
In addition, boomers are more educated than previous generations and more likely to hold white-collar jobs. "For them, the odds of having to retire early because of health problems are less than for somebody who has been doing physical work," says John Rother, policy director for AARP.
But there are also major hurdles. More experienced workers command fatter salaries, which some employers will be loath to pay. They're also more likely to have health problems, which place greater demands on company-provided health benefits.
AARP, which advocates on behalf of older Americans, disputes the notion that older workers are more expensive. A 2005 study conducted by Towers Perrin for AARP contends that the additional cost of retaining workers 50 and older is modest, ranging from zero to 3% a year. Those costs are much lower than the cost of hiring and training new employees, the study said. The study was based on an analysis of four industries — energy, financial services, health care and retailing.
The study acknowledged, though, that companies are slow to adapt to an aging workforce. Instead of tapping this labor pool, employers may turn more to outsourcing or push for relaxed immigration rules to fill hiring needs, says Sara Rix, a senior policy officer at AARP. "Things are changing, and more and more (companies) will turn to older workers," Rix says. "But age discrimination does rear its ugly head. If you leave the labor force, getting back is difficult. Bagging groceries may be all you get."
'Old man on the sales force'
Larry Yoder says he feels lucky. At 62, the Kansas City, Mo., salesman, who provides books to stores, is one of the oldest on the sales force. He says his employer values his experience. "I'm the old man on the sales force," Yoder says. "I can't do what I used to do, but you do what you can do. (Travel) is a killer on you physically."
He says friends in his age bracket haven't fared as well. Many say they want or need to stay employed after they hit retirement age. But there's a palpable fear that well-paying jobs may not exist for them then.
"There's no sense of retirement like my parents had," Yoder says. "You work 'til you drop. I hear a lot of fear that their bosses are going to let them go."
By Sandra Block and Stephanie Armour, USA TODAY
Richard Rocco, 60, of Voorhees, N.J., planned to work as a sales representative until age 65. It hasn't quite worked out that way.
In January 2005, Rocco's employer, a graphics arts company, downsized and cut his position. Despite 27 years of sales experience, Rocco couldn't find a job. Employers "could get college guys for less than half of what I wanted to work for," he says.
Rocco, who's single, says he couldn't afford to retire. So he used his 401(k) savings and home equity to buy a PostNet franchise, which provides printing and graphics services. He enjoys running his own business, but the hours are long. Rocco puts in about 12 hours a day and has yet to draw a salary. He's living off his savings until his business gets off the ground.
Rocco's story could serve as a cautionary tale for boomers who think they'll be able to fill the gaps in their retirement savings by working longer in their current jobs. It also illustrates the challenges for those who assume they alone will determine exactly when they'll retire.
The stark reality is that most of today's middle-age workers who want to continue working after 60 or even 65 will need to find a new source of income. While nearly half of baby boomers expect to work past 65, only 13% of current retirees surveyed this year by consulting firm McKinsey & Co. actually worked past that age. Forty percent of current retirees were forced to stop working earlier than they had planned, the survey found. The average age when current retirees left the workforce: 59.
Boomers have a financial incentive to work past 65. Older boomers can't receive full Social Security benefits until 66 or later; those born in 1960 or later aren't eligible until 67. Individuals can start taking partial Social Security benefits at 62, but if they do, they'll continue to receive a reduced amount for the rest of their lives.
When retirement comes early
As of 2005, just 60% of 60-year-olds, 32% of 65-year-olds and 19% of 70-year-olds were employed, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Current retirees cited two primary reasons for quitting sooner than planned:
•Illness. About 47% of current retirees who retired earlier than planned were forced to stop working because of health problems, according to McKinsey & Co. Less-affluent retirees were far more likely to cite health problems as the reason for forced retirement than higher-income workers were, the study found. "At lower-income levels, many of these people have jobs that require physical labor," says David Hunt, a senior partner at McKinsey. As they age, some are no longer able to handle the demands of their jobs, he says.
•Unemployment. Forty-four percent of current retirees who retired earlier than planned blamed job loss or downsizing. Unemployment was the most frequently cited reason for early retirement among retirees with more than $250,000 in investments, the McKinsey study found. "Even at reasonably high levels of pay, if you're laid off when you're 53 or 54, it's much harder to get retrained and back in the workforce," Hunt says.
Frank Baker, 57, learned three years ago that his company was laying him off after more than 12 years as a technology consultant. But to get $20,000 in severance, he says, he was asked to train his cheaper — and younger — replacement.
"I was one of the highest-paid guys, and then I found myself out interviewing for jobs and being interviewed by people in their late 20s," says Baker, who now works as a consultant and who believes his age hurt his ability to find new jobs at the same pay scale.
To test whether age bias is real or imagined, researcher Joanna Lahey sent out about 4,000 résumés to firms in Boston and St. Petersburg, Fla., and measured response rates from employers. The results: A younger worker is more than 40% more likely to be called for an interview than a worker 50 or older, according to the 2005 study done through the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College.
Another sobering statistic: The average period of unemployment in 2005 was 24.1 weeks for job seekers 55 and older, compared with just 17.8 weeks for those under 55, a report by AARP found.
"It's a huge issue, and it really comes down to, 'How do I, the established job seeker who is 50-plus, how do I establish my differential advantage so it distinguishes me from my younger counterpart?' " says Damian Birkel, a career counselor and founder of Professionals in Transition, a support group for the jobless in Greensboro and Winston-Salem, N.C.
Some frustrated late-middle-age workers have filed age-bias claims.
The federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission collected nearly $78 million in settlements involving age-discrimination charges in fiscal year 2005, the most since at least 1992, when the agency took in $57 million. The EEOC received 16,585 charges of age discrimination in fiscal 2005 and resolved 14,076 similar claims.
Nearly 90% of executives are worried they may soon be discriminated against because of their age, and more than 60% believe age discrimination has become more widespread in the past five years, according to a 2005 survey by ExecuNet, a job search and recruiting network. Most believe age becomes a factor at ages even below 50. About three in 10 executives fear that age bias could force them into retirement.
David Ulfik, 55, of Oxford, Ga., who sells analytical instruments, says the concept of retirement has shifted drastically since his father retired a generation ago. He's had seven different jobs since turning 40.
When prospective employers check his résumé, Ulfik says, "They see this guy is 55, and they're apprehensive. You see these old-timers at Wal-Mart. Are they there because they want to be or because they have to?"
He adds, "I think there will always be jobs for seniors who want to remain in the workplace. Whether they are jobs that they want to work remains to be seen."
Frustrated by the dearth of good jobs, older workers are increasingly becoming independent contractors or starting their own businesses.
Among workers 50 and older, 16% are self-employed vs. 10% for the overall workforce, according to a 2004 AARP study. About one-third of older self-employed workers started their businesses after 50, AARP said.
Self-employment allows older workers to put their years of experience to use. It usually also offers more flexibility than a traditional job. Fifteen percent of self-employed workers 51 and older reported having a health condition that limited the type of work they could do, compared with 8% of salaried workers in that age group.
Still, older workers who start their own businesses face a serious challenge: finding health insurance. Only 13% of private-sector employers offer health benefits to retirees. Medicare doesn't kick in until 65. Private insurance policies are expensive for older individuals. And some older workers can't buy insurance at any price.
That's what Richard Rocco discovered after he lost his job. Otherwise healthy, Rocco was unable to buy a private insurance policy because he has high blood pressure. He maintained his insurance coverage for a while through COBRA (the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act). COBRA lets workers keep their former employer's group coverage for up to 18 months. But to keep the coverage, Rocco had to pay $500 a month.
After starting his business three months ago, Rocco was able to buy a group policy for himself and his sole employee. The cost: about $1,000 a month.
Growing demand?
Some analysts, though, see cause for hope. They think job opportunities for older workers will increase as boomers retire in large numbers.
Employers are expected to face a skills shortage in coming years, and baby boomers provide a varied and experienced labor pool. Over the 2004-14 decade, total employment is projected to rise by 18.9 million jobs, or 13%. Over the previous decade (1994-2004), total employment grew at the same annual rate and rose by 16.4 million jobs, according to the Labor Department.
Tim Driver, CEO of Wellesley, Mass.-based RetirementJobs.com, a job service for mature workers, says he's optimistic that employers facing skills shortages will eagerly welcome experienced workers. While age can be a liability, he says, it can also be an advantage.
"If you are an employer and your customer base is getting old, you're much better off having older employees relate and sell to that customer," Driver says. "Historically, you'd never use retirement and jobs in the same sentence. Now, it's an everyday expression."
In addition, boomers are more educated than previous generations and more likely to hold white-collar jobs. "For them, the odds of having to retire early because of health problems are less than for somebody who has been doing physical work," says John Rother, policy director for AARP.
But there are also major hurdles. More experienced workers command fatter salaries, which some employers will be loath to pay. They're also more likely to have health problems, which place greater demands on company-provided health benefits.
AARP, which advocates on behalf of older Americans, disputes the notion that older workers are more expensive. A 2005 study conducted by Towers Perrin for AARP contends that the additional cost of retaining workers 50 and older is modest, ranging from zero to 3% a year. Those costs are much lower than the cost of hiring and training new employees, the study said. The study was based on an analysis of four industries — energy, financial services, health care and retailing.
The study acknowledged, though, that companies are slow to adapt to an aging workforce. Instead of tapping this labor pool, employers may turn more to outsourcing or push for relaxed immigration rules to fill hiring needs, says Sara Rix, a senior policy officer at AARP. "Things are changing, and more and more (companies) will turn to older workers," Rix says. "But age discrimination does rear its ugly head. If you leave the labor force, getting back is difficult. Bagging groceries may be all you get."
'Old man on the sales force'
Larry Yoder says he feels lucky. At 62, the Kansas City, Mo., salesman, who provides books to stores, is one of the oldest on the sales force. He says his employer values his experience. "I'm the old man on the sales force," Yoder says. "I can't do what I used to do, but you do what you can do. (Travel) is a killer on you physically."
He says friends in his age bracket haven't fared as well. Many say they want or need to stay employed after they hit retirement age. But there's a palpable fear that well-paying jobs may not exist for them then.
"There's no sense of retirement like my parents had," Yoder says. "You work 'til you drop. I hear a lot of fear that their bosses are going to let them go."
July 07, 2006
AGE DISCRIMINATION: NO LAUGHING MATTER
REALTY TIMES, July 7, 2006
by David Reed
I got into a friendly discussion last week with a radio talk show host who sounded surprised when I told him that lenders do in fact make 30 year mortgages to people who are in their golden years.
I forget exactly how his question was phrased, but it was something to the tune of, "So David, if I'm 75 years old will a lender even give me a 30 year mortgage? Won't they want me to take something shorter?"
He caught me off guard. There was silence on the radio as I composed myself.
"Of course they will, but if you ever hear of a lender declining a mortgage because of someone's age, then call up a bunch of lawyers and don't stop suing that lender for discrimination," I replied.
Now while this radio guy was responding to my answer I was thinking in my head that maybe this person was just joking, but then again I had to believe he was serious. He didn't say he was joking and the tone of his voice certainly sounded like it was a legitimate question, so I answered it.
He said, "But don't the lenders ask how old you are on all of their loan applications?"
This guy was serious after all.
"Yes, a lender wants to know your age, but that's to help document the file by helping to identify the borrower as well as making sure the borrower is of legal age to enter into a legal contract. But lenders don't make loans based upon life expectancy." (Okay, Reverse Mortgages kinda do but that's an entirely different topic)
What startled me was not just the question itself, but that this person even had to ask it. He has a radio show in an area that is probably full of retirees, so I'm sure he asked the question for the benefit of his audience -- but do people actually think that? Did he really not know? Do they really not know?
Do people think lenders will require borrowers to reasonably outlive their mortgage term?.
Imagine this phone call, "Hello Mr. Smith, this is David over at the bank here, how are you today! Say, we noticed that you're 68 years old and you've applied for a 40 year loan. That puts you right at 108 years old when the loan is fully paid off. Do you mind if I asked you a few questions?"
"Are your parents still alive and if not, how old were they when they died?"
"Do you smoke?"
"Do you exercise regularly and tell me about your diet."
"Do you parachute?"
After a couple of minutes I say, "Well Mr. Smith, based upon our conversation we can still issue you a mortgage if you quit smoking, exercise a little more and take a ten year loan. How's that Mr. Smith?"
Can you imagine! I can't, but then again I can imagine people out there who don't know any better. And perhaps they haven't applied for a mortgage because they thought they were too old.
Are there people who haven't refinanced to a lower rate mortgage, applied for an equity loan or maybe bought another house and because they thought they couldn't qualify due to age? I hope not, but if you know of anyone who does think that, set them straight.
The bottom line: It's illegal to discriminate.
Published: July 7, 2006
by David Reed
I got into a friendly discussion last week with a radio talk show host who sounded surprised when I told him that lenders do in fact make 30 year mortgages to people who are in their golden years.
I forget exactly how his question was phrased, but it was something to the tune of, "So David, if I'm 75 years old will a lender even give me a 30 year mortgage? Won't they want me to take something shorter?"
He caught me off guard. There was silence on the radio as I composed myself.
"Of course they will, but if you ever hear of a lender declining a mortgage because of someone's age, then call up a bunch of lawyers and don't stop suing that lender for discrimination," I replied.
Now while this radio guy was responding to my answer I was thinking in my head that maybe this person was just joking, but then again I had to believe he was serious. He didn't say he was joking and the tone of his voice certainly sounded like it was a legitimate question, so I answered it.
He said, "But don't the lenders ask how old you are on all of their loan applications?"
This guy was serious after all.
"Yes, a lender wants to know your age, but that's to help document the file by helping to identify the borrower as well as making sure the borrower is of legal age to enter into a legal contract. But lenders don't make loans based upon life expectancy." (Okay, Reverse Mortgages kinda do but that's an entirely different topic)
What startled me was not just the question itself, but that this person even had to ask it. He has a radio show in an area that is probably full of retirees, so I'm sure he asked the question for the benefit of his audience -- but do people actually think that? Did he really not know? Do they really not know?
Do people think lenders will require borrowers to reasonably outlive their mortgage term?.
Imagine this phone call, "Hello Mr. Smith, this is David over at the bank here, how are you today! Say, we noticed that you're 68 years old and you've applied for a 40 year loan. That puts you right at 108 years old when the loan is fully paid off. Do you mind if I asked you a few questions?"
"Are your parents still alive and if not, how old were they when they died?"
"Do you smoke?"
"Do you exercise regularly and tell me about your diet."
"Do you parachute?"
After a couple of minutes I say, "Well Mr. Smith, based upon our conversation we can still issue you a mortgage if you quit smoking, exercise a little more and take a ten year loan. How's that Mr. Smith?"
Can you imagine! I can't, but then again I can imagine people out there who don't know any better. And perhaps they haven't applied for a mortgage because they thought they were too old.
Are there people who haven't refinanced to a lower rate mortgage, applied for an equity loan or maybe bought another house and because they thought they couldn't qualify due to age? I hope not, but if you know of anyone who does think that, set them straight.
The bottom line: It's illegal to discriminate.
Published: July 7, 2006
