4 ms·

> As with prior layoffs, or "resource actions" to use IBM's euphemism, we're told those affected are substantially in the 50-55 age bracket with 20-24 years of

> As with prior layoffs, or "resource actions" to use IBM's euphemism, we're told those affected are substantially in the 50-55 age bracket with 20-24 years of seniority. > Despite numerous past and ongoing age discrimination lawsuits, IBM maintains it does not systematically discriminate on the basis of age. Lawsuits of this sort are a little ridiculous. If you work at a company that pays people more just for being older, then you shouldn't be surprised when the "more experienced" people are the first to get laid off.

malfist 2y ago
I disagree, it is not the victim's fault they were discriminated against
- alphazard 2y ago
  It's crazy that anyone could believe a corporation cares about anything other than profits. If IBM actually had the ages of their employees available to the system that did the layoffs, then that would be age based discrimination. But I'd be willing to bet that wasn't a factor. If you start with a pool of people with large salaries, and look for people not adding at least that much value to the business, you are going to find people who have that salary for reasons other than merit. The discrimination, if any, was in their favor until the business couldn't afford to discriminate in their favor.
  - malfist 2y ago
    Discrimination doesn't have to be so explicit. Saying "I'm going to fire everyone over 50" is obviously discrimination, but so is "I'm going to fire everyone near the top of the salary range for their job family". It has the same impact, but it's discrimination is cloaked behind a layer of misdirection. The law isn't so blind
    - carbonboarder 2y ago
      Isn’t it generally true that new hires get paid more than existing employees?
      - malfist 2y ago
        Depends on the company, but even in ones that do, it's usually new hires are paid on the higher end of the band. That means a junior engineer hired yesterday makes more than a junior engineer hired two years ago, but it doesn't mean that the junior engineer hired yesterday makes more than the staff engineer hired a decade ago
fpp 2y ago
IBM today is mostly a service provider - with those in the 50+ age bracket being "kicked out" there will be at least 2 groups: (1)The ones with skills "to keep the lights on" for these services - those will be hired back as "consultants" - let's hope at twice the daily rate they worked before if they want to continue to work. (2) The others - for them, the tax payers will pick up some of the balance, but generally, it will be dire for them to find new ways to continue. Overall, age discrimination is a topic on which most companies and the public are mostly in denial while trying to please everybody else or demonstrate how inclusive they are. Within many industries you will be excluded "quietly" during the selection for up to mid-level jobs when you are 50+ - quietly, because companies know that such discrimination openly could result in reputational or potential legal challenges. On exec jobs, it is even more ludicrous - people who are much older than the candidates, block (competent) 50+ candidates based on their age to become their peers. At the same time, often these companies also do not promote staff above a certain age e.g. when taking on new responsibilities that gets all others promoted (aka substantial pay rise / cost). As a result, while in a few countries here in Europe, 50+ workforce will have more holidays or pension contributions, the salaries of 50+ high achievers might be lower than younger staff in comparable roles. Give the above, some swallow that pill, but those that can afford leave (independent of age the old saying: good people leave, wood stays). Might not apply to most of the 50+ workforce, others might just have better employment contracts (historically), e.g. in the German car factories you have people on payroll with the company, some as contractors through 3rd party, and at the end of the food chain some with a low paid contract for work and labour with a body shop - all doing the same work at very different pay for the workers. In such setups, getting rid of the older workers might result in a higher bonus for top management, achieving KPIs for middle management, and certainly in high consultancy fees for restructuring advice from McKinsey e.a at daily rates per (senior) consultant at about the monthly salary of the worker made redundant - after these "cost" making younger or older workforce redundant becomes a marginal difference. Overall, from what I've seen, where competence is key and valued, age and other things will not be used to discriminate the best candidates or staff. I've seen 70+ old engineers being hired by top-names for their knowledge, experience and achievements. With aging societies in many western countries, TMK, in about 5 years the majority of the workforce will be 50+ in most of them. In the west, during the last 40 years we have shifted from "engineering pride" to prioritising financial markets vs innovations & products. This has certainly created many activities, tasks /jobs particularly in large orgs, that will become "redundant" when the music stops or when some of these orgs fade away due to lack of product, market, leadership or competencies. We need to look into how our "established" companies stay or become competitive and innovative again with their products and services in a global environment short / mid and long term vs. making most of their money on financial markets. Such companies don't need to care about the age of their staff - they care about skills and competencies. With the baby boomers leaving the job market, low-birth groups / demographic change of those entering the job market plus technology advances there is now a chance that this puts pressure on companies (and employees) to re-invent themselves.

malfist 2y ago

I disagree, it is not the victim's fault they were discriminated against

alphazard 2y ago
It's crazy that anyone could believe a corporation cares about anything other than profits. If IBM actually had the ages of their employees available to the system that did the layoffs, then that would be age based discrimination. But I'd be willing to bet that wasn't a factor. If you start with a pool of people with large salaries, and look for people not adding at least that much value to the business, you are going to find people who have that salary for reasons other than merit. The discrimination, if any, was in their favor until the business couldn't afford to discriminate in their favor.
- malfist 2y ago
  Discrimination doesn't have to be so explicit. Saying "I'm going to fire everyone over 50" is obviously discrimination, but so is "I'm going to fire everyone near the top of the salary range for their job family". It has the same impact, but it's discrimination is cloaked behind a layer of misdirection. The law isn't so blind
  - carbonboarder 2y ago
    Isn’t it generally true that new hires get paid more than existing employees?
    - malfist 2y ago
      Depends on the company, but even in ones that do, it's usually new hires are paid on the higher end of the band. That means a junior engineer hired yesterday makes more than a junior engineer hired two years ago, but it doesn't mean that the junior engineer hired yesterday makes more than the staff engineer hired a decade ago

fpp 2y ago

IBM today is mostly a service provider - with those in the 50+ age bracket being "kicked out" there will be at least 2 groups: (1)The ones with skills "to keep the lights on" for these services - those will be hired back as "consultants" - let's hope at twice the daily rate they worked before if they want to continue to work. (2) The others - for them, the tax payers will pick up some of the balance, but generally, it will be dire for them to find new ways to continue. Overall, age discrimination is a topic on which most companies and the public are mostly in denial while trying to please everybody else or demonstrate how inclusive they are. Within many industries you will be excluded "quietly" during the selection for up to mid-level jobs when you are 50+ - quietly, because companies know that such discrimination openly could result in reputational or potential legal challenges. On exec jobs, it is even more ludicrous - people who are much older than the candidates, block (competent) 50+ candidates based on their age to become their peers. At the same time, often these companies also do not promote staff above a certain age e.g. when taking on new responsibilities that gets all others promoted (aka substantial pay rise / cost). As a result, while in a few countries here in Europe, 50+ workforce will have more holidays or pension contributions, the salaries of 50+ high achievers might be lower than younger staff in comparable roles. Give the above, some swallow that pill, but those that can afford leave (independent of age the old saying: good people leave, wood stays). Might not apply to most of the 50+ workforce, others might just have better employment contracts (historically), e.g. in the German car factories you have people on payroll with the company, some as contractors through 3rd party, and at the end of the food chain some with a low paid contract for work and labour with a body shop - all doing the same work at very different pay for the workers. In such setups, getting rid of the older workers might result in a higher bonus for top management, achieving KPIs for middle management, and certainly in high consultancy fees for restructuring advice from McKinsey e.a at daily rates per (senior) consultant at about the monthly salary of the worker made redundant - after these "cost" making younger or older workforce redundant becomes a marginal difference. Overall, from what I've seen, where competence is key and valued, age and other things will not be used to discriminate the best candidates or staff. I've seen 70+ old engineers being hired by top-names for their knowledge, experience and achievements. With aging societies in many western countries, TMK, in about 5 years the majority of the workforce will be 50+ in most of them. In the west, during the last 40 years we have shifted from "engineering pride" to prioritising financial markets vs innovations & products. This has certainly created many activities, tasks /jobs particularly in large orgs, that will become "redundant" when the music stops or when some of these orgs fade away due to lack of product, market, leadership or competencies. We need to look into how our "established" companies stay or become competitive and innovative again with their products and services in a global environment short / mid and long term vs. making most of their money on financial markets. Such companies don't need to care about the age of their staff - they care about skills and competencies. With the baby boomers leaving the job market, low-birth groups / demographic change of those entering the job market plus technology advances there is now a chance that this puts pressure on companies (and employees) to re-invent themselves.