Is Work Only for the Young?

It’s Labor Day! Time for my annual screed against the mistreatment of American workers by their corporate overlords.

What has my blood pressure up (literally) this year? Just a little item I read about CNN

prepping for the imminent dumping of hundreds of workers. Before the media giant undertakes this reprehensible act, it has asked some employees to consider a buyout. Which group of CNN workers would that be? Only those over age 55 and who have been with the company for 10 years or more.

When I read that, I was dumbfounded. If that doesn’t smack of ageism, well, then I don’t know what does. It’s like the company is saying, we don’t want older workers and we don’t workers who have been with us “too long.” Apparently, CNN is one of many companies that seeks to trim its bottom line by cutting older, higher paid workers and only employing young, cheap labor.

Can’t say I’m surprised, though. At my both former workplaces, I saw this in action. At my former former office, people who had been with the company 10 years or more were routinely targeted for layoffs. At my last job (and it’s looking more and more like it will be my “last” job), four out of the five of us who were laid off on the same day were age 50 or older. What does that tell you? It tells you CNN is not alone in this reprehensible practice.

What happens if not enough of these veteran employees don’t take the buyout offer? Will CNN simply terminate them en masse? That is such blatant age discrimination that even our pathetically neurasthenic government agencies would perk up and take notice.

Having been through this situation twice now, my gut feeling is that CNN management is probably going to employ more subtle, manipulative means to get rid of its oldsters. How you may ask? By guilt-tripping them: “Well, if you don’t take the buyout, we’re going to have lay off younger workers. You wouldn’t want to see Bob get laid off, would you? He has a young family.” Or “If you don’t take the buyout, we’re going to have to close down the entire company. You wouldn’t want to see that happen, would you?”

Well, yeah, I would. If you’re too stupid to keep the company profitable, then let the whole damn thing go under. I’d rather see that instead of laying off a lot of good workers while upper management escapes any and all consequences.

The saddest aspect of this is that 55 is not old anymore. Those employees have at least 10-15 years or more of good working years ahead of them. They are in their prime. They have families to support, children in college or getting ready for college, and are probably helping care for their elderly parents. Yet they are being cast out simply because of their age and salary status.

And how old is too old to work? Is it 55, 65, 72? Will it get to the point where age 45 is considered too old to be employable?

For those CNN employees who do take the buyout, what do you think will happen to them? Doubtful that many are in a financial position to take early retirement. Some may want to continue working, but what company will hire them? How will they support themselves? Start their own businesses? For some that may be the way to go. For others, I’m not so sure. They will probably end up working part-time in retail (like I will soon). Retirement crisis in Aisle 6! It’s been documented that older workers face longer periods of unemployment (no kidding!). Now, they don’t even have the safety net of extended unemployment benefits—deemed too costly by a Congress that does nothing to earn its pay.

Please don’t misunderstand me. Companies must trim staffing levels when economic conditions dictate. Singling out a particular group of workers for those staffing cuts, however, is discrimination. Why no one in our government sees this is beyond my comprehension.

Of course, companies can always counter they must carry out layoffs in order to remain a viable enterprise, and government cannot interfere with the private sector. (Like anyone in government is stopping them from doing what they want. There is little regulation and what there is of it is loosely enforced, if at all. Private firms operate in a no-accountability zone.)

When it comes to hiring older workers, companies can argue (with some validity) the older person doesn’t have the skills we need, has “too much” experience (like that’s a bad thing?) for the job, or commands too high a salary. It’s all subjective, so who is going to challenge them?

Before I go further, I’d like to make one thing clear. Though I have been beaten out numerous times by younger applicants, I don’t harbor any ill will toward them. I actually think it’s despicable that companies are paying them such low salaries. How low? Not too long ago I noticed an ad for an assistant editor job at the same salary I was making as an assistant editor…30 years ago!

How are these young people supposed to start a new life, rent an apartment, buy a home, start a family, when they are being paid such a low wage? Note, too, how many college graduates come out of school weighed down by enormous student debt. It’s not as if their out-of-work parents can help them. It’s a very sad situation for young and old.

Back to my original question: Is work only for the young? Apparently, yes. With companies routinely canning veteran employees past a certain age and favoring only the young, our workplaces will soon be populated only by those 35 and under. Oh, there be a 45-year-old sprinkled in, to give the appearance of fair hiring practices. This is where we are going, make no mistake.

I’m not sure what can be done. Nobody in government or even the press seems to be paying much attention to what is happening to older workers, or even cares.

It’s ironic. I’m sure CNN has done numerous stories on the plight of older workers. Yet it is now treating its veteran workers just as badly. Perhaps CNN can do a story on how disgracefully it’s treating its own workers. I’d like to see that.