Comments on: Unemployment hits men harder: Why?

By: Max

Max — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 02:42:05 +0000

yea right, go to any business and you will find woman out # men 40 to 1. Thanks A.A.

By: John

John — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 23:03:53 +0000

Julie, Karen:
It is not that I am a staunch supporter of replacing older employees with youner ones. As you both pointed out, experience (not just raw practical skills) can be, and sometimes is, beneficial. The fact is, however, that older workers do hit a ceiling as far as pay scale. Sadly, most employers are unwilling to spend much money to train these people further… I don’t understand the psychological block in this. I suppose they’d rather invest money in younger workers. Particularly because the elders are so good at what they do that the employer probably doesn’t want them to get out of the position they are in. So, hire youngings at low pay, make them higher skilled, and port work away from the old methods so you can lay off the high payed elder….
If you look at it like a machine, it makes sense. The problem is, you may have that old refridgerator from the 1960’s that is still working, never needing repairs, and you get the new “efficient model” and find it breaks down in 5 or 8 years time, and needs service 8 times before you throw it out and get another one. So, was it really efficient, saving you money? Or did it just come with promises of efficencies and good appearances. Many times we can come up with example after example of “newer isn’t always better.” And, in fact, people are tools of the organization. How many men have tools that are 30 years old and still working, then you get the new tool and it breaks quickly.
Older people tend to take “ownership” of the comany, have pride in what they do… perhaps it was the generation of post WWII.. the people who had to struggle, the people who believed in a cause. Now, everyone tries to be out for themselves, including the employers. It’s not about nationalism nor company pride anymore. The employers have kicked employees to the curb so many times that employees don’t really want to put in too much more effort than is required, required to try to retain their jobs, and sadly most employers hang the threat of termination over people’s heads to get them to work more and more hours. I guess you can see why people are dragging their feet on company pride and quality… why bother, they’re just going to fire you anyways…
So, we replaced quality with flare. Shortsightedness sums it all up for employers.

By: Karen

Karen — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 22:48:29 +0000

I agree with Julie in many ways. My field is HR and during the first 20 years I had safety, HR, quality, and communications, and in my department. Today, HR is a stand alone department but newer HR folks don’t have the indepth experience with these other areas. I will always remember a guy who was older at one facility who would often state at meetings, “its not going to work, we tried that years ago” He was never wrong. Although he was seen as not wanting to do anything “new” the concept was not new to him. When he heard a truly new idea and said “that could work” it usually did. The money we saved because of his knowledge alone made a big difference. It seems that we need a mixture of both young and old to balance the workforce and give the best we can to our customers. The older higher paid employee probably has a way of communicating that can save the employer money that the younger employee may not yet have developed. Maybe the more highly paid employee would consider paying for the training himself if given the option. There is much to be said for the employee who has been loyal and can be counted on to perform. There is more than salary cost to be considered when replacing one more highly paid employee with another lesser paid employee.

By: Julie

Julie — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 21:10:05 +0000

As an ‘older’ worker – I’m certainly glad that not everyone thinks like John and replaces me just because “younger is cheaper”. I hope you are not a victum of your own philosophy one day John – you too will get older and in the mind of someone ‘obsolete’. I believe I have proved my worth to my employer and learning new things will always be on the top of my list – I don’t like to be bored.

By: john

john — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 13:19:12 +0000

Kathy and others: Men do tend to make a little more but you miss the facts:
As a percentage: more men hold employment than women (i.e. stay-home moms – note I avoided the word “work”) and more men work full-time jobs and more men put in more years of overall work (women take more time off to have kids and care for them).
It’s just the way it is. So yes, men in general, hold more experience, hence get more pay.
Experience typically equates to higher pay. The statement “equal work for equal pay” only seems to apply to women, and it is wrong. A 5-years-experienced male employee working with a female 15-years-experienced employee would make less money as well, even if his production output is higher.

So, does it make sense that more men are being laid off?
Yes, men make up more of the work force, statistically.
Furthermore, more men are experienced and make more pay, but sometimes you don’t need that much experience, so it then makes sense to lay off the older men.

Beyond this, “replacing” the older workers makes more sense as well.
Computers is a good example. I can have a tenured IT person, making $70K, and I want to implement some new equipment he does not know, to replace existing equipment he has supported for us over the last 10 years. I could train this tenured IT person for the transition, spending, say, $5K (not accounting for his time away in training). OR, I could hire a guy who is almost fresh out of college with the experience learned in university, for only perhaps $45K…. oh, and he would not have family (save on healthcare) and usually is willing to work more hours, and because a new employee is more apt to work harder to make an impression. So, I’ll hang onto this new guy for perhaps 5 years, then get another college-grad to replace him.

By: DD

DD — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 20:16:52 +0000

The comments made by the lefters in this thread are perfect examples of what liberalism is all about. Basically, if you can’t prove them wrong or aren’t as smart as they are, then just attack them and try to make them look bad. Comments like, “you are so out of touch” and “take some aspirins” are exactly the way the media goes after people. Well, I won’t stoop to those depths, because my points are valid and I don’t have to attack people to make them real. Right is “right.” The right is for our rights and the libs know it. Baby genocide is not OK. Now, wake up and help people take back our freedom before we have no rights left. You can all start by paying your taxes and getting your public representatives to do the same.

By: Allise

Allise — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 19:52:37 +0000

DD, you are just so out of touch. It is the Righteous Right that tries to run our lives and forgets about why they were elected. The Dems just wants to run the government, which is what we want them to do. I have a hard time with any group that tries to push their religious beliefs down my throat. I would rather they spent their time dealing with the greedy idiots that have destroyed our economy. Deregulation, what a great “Republican” concept!! I would like to see our government get out of our “private” lives and fix government. Obviously, someone needs to watch the store.

By: Kelly

Kelly — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 17:42:36 +0000

Way to go Lisa. DD does need to look at the numbers and stop thinking republican vs. democrats. We are so beyond that.
We all need to think wiser and work together.

By: Karen

Karen — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 17:45:31 +0000

All have made some valid points
While we keep debating with each other, we are not focused on what really is happening. If we put all of the comments together and work together, we may be able to save this thing and save our economy and maybe even some of our liberties.
It is only when we all work together and not against each othe that we will be able to accomplish great things for this country.
Our EEO policies state we will treat folks without regard to race, creed, etc. It seems that the media is now reporting with Extreme regard to race, creed, etc.
The issues are serious enough no matter who is involved. A lost job is a lost job, everyone’s welfare is important.

By: Forist

Forist — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 20:39:25 +0000

DD, get another cup of coffee and take two aspirins – life will look better 20 minutes later. Seriousily, I agree with some of your comments. The Government is to large and out of control but, we the people let it happen. We stopped being vigilent, stopped reminding Congress they work for the people and not themselves. We allowed them to put themselves on peddlestills and ignored it when they did. In reality, we have control if we demand, as a people, control. We have not done that …we continue sending lawyers to Washington who lack common sense. We need to demand they respresent the interest of the whole country and not sectors of the same. When we stop electing people based on popularity and grasp that the activities of Congress actually impact everyones life we might then get more involved and return control to the people. In the mean time can we agree that this forum was not intended to be a medium for politcal debate but rather a place to discuss Human Resource issues.