Remodelers Advantage: I was interacting with a younger contractor about his search for an estimator.
Here is what the contractor wrote to me:
I wanted to get your opinion on a quick question. How much weight should I be placing on age when looking at potential candidates for the Estimator?
10 comments:
I completely agree with this article in every aspect. Since before I can remember, both of my parents struggled to obtain employment due to their age. Age discrimination is a serious issue as it caused two highly regarded and experienced mechanical engineers to become unemployable. Just because younger people will work longer hours for less money because they are desperate, doesn’t mean that they are more beneficial to the companies. Experience, in my opinion, will balance the money saved from hiring cheaper labor. Over qualification is another issue that I find utterly ridiculous. If someone has more experience than needed for a job, wouldn’t you want to hire them? Jobs will potentially go faster, therefore saving companies money as people could work less time. As much as my argument is ironic as I will be competing with older, more experienced workers in the soon future, I still hold tight to my argument. Plus, one day I will be considered “old”, and I hope that age will not prevent me from enjoying my job.
Age discrimination in the jib field is a two sided coin, older generations are finding it hard to find jobs due to their age and being “over-qualified”, while younger generations are finding it hard to gain employment because they are inexperienced. Where is the middle ground? We need the older people in the industries in order to teach the younger generations but with the retirement age the as high as it is, many are reluctant to leave or hire from the new generation because they risk losing their jobs and income. On the flip side the younger generation is faced with the struggle of having to break into fields that require the experience they are trying to gain. The answer to the question of how to solve this isn’t easy but this goes well beyond whether or not to “hire old people”.
This article definitely proposes an interesting issue that many employers are dealing with. And I do think that this article does a fair job of assessing the current stance on it. It talks about things like familiarity with technology and drive. Both of these things become harder to deal with as you age, it is just something that happens I think. It just becomes more difficult to deal with more and more technology as you get older, you are no longer growing up with it and being exposed to it while the brain is still developing. That is science. However, the article also talks about prior experience, something those that are older often have more of simply because of time they have spent on this planet. Both types of workers bring different baggage with them, good and bad. This is where the role of the employer comes in. They must evaluate the pro’s and con’s. But something that is to be considered is when is discrimination no longer discrimination, for example with age. Just because we don’t hire someone because they are older is that considered discrimination?
This is a super delicate subject, and one I’ve never really thought about before. How do you balance not being discriminatory while still choosing a candidate for the position that will be truly the best for the job? I can imagine that its incredibly difficult for older people to get jobs because of the problem with age discrimination, however I can also see how some jobs that can take several years of in-house training might be of concern in an interview with older candidates. It’s also important to remember what is “old”, and its also very silly to group everyone that could be considered “older” together in the first place, just because its obvious that not everyone of that older age range is of the same level of qualification.
I love that this article is a thing! I totally you should hire “old” people. This is a little bit of an assumption, but generally they have a bigger view of things and tons of advice. Why is this? This is because they have simply been on the planet longer than we have. They have done things that we haven’t and have experienced yet. Now sometimes an older person isn’t the right person for the job. This simply could be because the job is very physical or many other things. Basically, my answer to this article is that it really just depends on what the job is. Once you know what the job is, and what it requires than you can hire accordingly. However, at the end of the day, you want to hire the right person for the job. If they are older or younger shouldn’t matter, as long as they are the right person.
I really like the way this article approaches this subject. I agree that companies should hire people not based upon age, but based upon usable skills. It shouldn't matter if the applicant is older or younger, all that should matter is the quality of their resume. When the employer talks about how they needed somebody who was more comfortable with technology, I understand the reasoning behind translating this to needing someone young. This doesn't necessarily have to be the case. My mother was unemployed for some time, and she knew that in order to get a job, she had to be more technologically literate, and she took classes and did a lot of self teaching and she ended up getting hired multiple places.
There are some stereotypes in the article that I don't agree with. When the author says that young people stay at jobs for one or two years to beef up their resume, that might be true in some cases, but not all. In the same manner that old people aren't always the best with technology, this might be common, but it isn't always true.
Companies should hire people based on skills, employers shouldn't assume that a young person will only stay for a year and that an old person can't work powerpoint. They should trust the resume regardless of age and hire the person who fits the position best.
I think this article presents an often troubling issue. I find that the older generations have more of a grasp about other ways of doing things so that something can still be accomplished. Such as if you had to fix an old car or needed another way to give this power, I feel like the younger generations find the best and fastest way for them because they grow up using it and therefore rely on it. Mainly this source of comfort comes from computers and other forms of technology. The older generations have many ways of doing a task because they have learned so many over time. That is why it is often understandable why younger generations view older methods as useless. I however find that old methods can improve the new ones as well, not just the other way around.
At first, reading this article, I thought the author was going to slam down on hiring old people because of lack of knowledge about technology or having the same ambition and drive as younger kids such as myself and my classmates. And though I would just love to have myself a job when I get out of school, I know that to get every job I want I need to be the most dedicated, most innovative person in the room. And sometimes that doesn't correspond with age, though people love to pair age and vivacity together. If I was an employer, I would try and erase all gender, age, and race bias from my mind so I could pull together the best team for whatever work I need completed. It's ridiculous that people turn down older folks just based on the stereotypes that they're old and 'set' in their ways. I think we often forget the reason young people are more radical and rebellious than our older counterparts is because, when when the old were young, they rebelled just like us to create increasingly better society we live in. We're all trying to make the world a better place, and it's a shame if we deny people work based on our prejudices.
To me this question seems kind of ridiculous, people’s eligibility for a job should not necessarily be age dependent/exclusive. Yes if you are running a company and you have to bay health insurance and medical bills for your employees hiring someone who is a little older might strike you as a financial concern, however there is a risk/reward with hiring any employee and I don’t think age should have a significant impact. Many times hiring an older person means you’re probably hiring a more experienced person who might be extremely proficient and useful after years of work, something that can’t always be found in younger workers. Yes older people may have different attitudes opinions and views, but an abundance of views are useful to businesses, and age might only really be concerning in industries that are constantly advancing. Despite any concerns though I think hiring an employee is based on a risk/reward system. A risk is taken with hiring any employee so you just have to try to find the one that you will get the most out of. Hire the person that will bring the most to your team and will help you the most because it will be well worth it, whether that person is younger or older it should make no difference.
I do not think age should matter in hiring an employee. They should be hired on their skills and attitude like the article stated. If a person is older that usually means they have more experience and a wider skill set. I would want someone that will do a better job and know what they are doing instead of someone that has never done the job before and cannot help you learn in return. There is always more to learn and an experienced employee can be a great asset to a company. Just because they are “old” does not mean they will be slow and a bad worker. They should at least be given a chance and an interview instead of being judged on their age. You never know what someone can do until you interview them and actually see for yourself their skills on the job. I think it is ridiculous to discriminate someone because of their age especially when their age can factor into them being a better worker.
Post a Comment