I am a manager at a U.S. company in Europe and the maternity rules here are really burdensome. We have to carry a woman on our payroll for full year after childbirth and pay her. She can request an additional two years unpaid leave, but we have to guarantee her job will be there when she returns AND if she has another baby in that time she can extend the clock again. It's ridiculous.

Laid off in December 2015 at 55, too -- after 20 years of professional work. I have J.D. from a top-10 law school, years of experience in the private sector, and am energetic, pretty youthful-looking for my age, and eager to contribute.

I've had a few very positive phone interviews, but that's pretty much the extent of it. I've had job coaching, interviewing evaluations, and resume reviews, but I, too, am having a very difficult time finding work. It is a daily struggle.

Makes me wonder whether there's some other force at work here: e.g., is it more expensive for employers to provide health insurance for women over 55? Is there some "secret" database that employers use to conduct background searches that reveal a candidate's age? Is there some sort of over-55 blacklist?

Just kidding about some of the above, but I am losing hope. I have kids going to college and can't afford to be unemployed.

Are there factors at work that I am unaware of that are negatively impacting my job search success? I haven't had maternity leave for almost 8 years, and over half of my performance reviews over the past 20 years have been rated at "exceeds expectations."

Almost every woman I know outside the government sector was laid off in her 50s. I think it has little to do with children or parental leave. It has everything to do with the lack of regard for women once they are no longer sexually attractive, regardless of their professional skills.
When my second child was born I extended my maternity leave by working half time from home. (I was the first telecommuter in my company). Turned out I was producing more than full time workers so the company offered me a FT work from home gig. My production levels continued to be far above the norm. Nevertheless, laid off at 55. I now lie about my age when applying for freelance work.

I'm an over 50 female, and I'm having a terrible time finding work. I have to graduate degrees and years of experience, but I was a SAHM for years. I went to a few interviews, and strangely, wasn't offered jobs for which I was completely qualified. A friend, also in her 50s, told me to dye my hair, which I have done. I have not had any interviews with my dyed hair (plus I took college graduation dates and some of my older work experience off my resume), so I don't know yet if it will make a difference.

Just hoping OP is correct, but I don't know. It would make sense to hire older workers now, since they aren't going to use the FMLA after the birth of their children, but older workers like me are not getting hired.

In my case, I'm positive it's age discrimination that's a big factor in my struggle to find work. There are other factors too, but age is the biggest one.

I'm white, but I'm starting to have the tiniest inkling of what it's like to be discriminated against because of your race. People take one look at you, make assumptions, and shake their heads, "No." Frustrating beyond belief. Black women over 50 must have it even worse than I do.

Anonymous wrote:I read a study that said that even though women 25-35 (the typical childbirthing years) are discriminated against, it's older men that use the most sick leave. Older men have heart attacks, cancer, etc that put them out for just as long as a new mom.

I was 30 when I had my first and I used my own annual leave and sick leave (saved for 8 years). I bet my company wished I'd had kids in my 20s when I had less work, less importance and was paid less. It sucked using my own leave and now I don't have any leave for the holidays and baby's constantly sick from daycare colds. I came to work feeling like death last week and I'm sure I got everyone else sick, but what was the alternative? Sick leave without pay? I can't afford that.

Very sexist first paragraph. How about older people have heart attacks, cancer, etc....

The one difference for me was I had accumulated 18 years worth of disability leave (totaling about 1300 hours) when I was diagnosed with cancer.

I work with aging workforce and find that women are generally sicker than men of the same age. I don't have any stats to back that up, just something I observe in my agency.

I read a study that said that even though women 25-35 (the typical childbirthing years) are discriminated against, it's older men that use the most sick leave. Older men have heart attacks, cancer, etc that put them out for just as long as a new mom.

I was 30 when I had my first and I used my own annual leave and sick leave (saved for 8 years). I bet my company wished I'd had kids in my 20s when I had less work, less importance and was paid less. It sucked using my own leave and now I don't have any leave for the holidays and baby's constantly sick from daycare colds. I came to work feeling like death last week and I'm sure I got everyone else sick, but what was the alternative? Sick leave without pay? I can't afford that.

Anonymous wrote:It should be longer and be parental/family leave. You should be able to take it for birth/adoption and to take care of an aging parent. The big thing will be of men actually take any. Currently women take far more leave to care for children and parents and employers look at them as a liability and lesser employees (in generals there are of course employers who don't subscribe to this). Until men and specifically men in charge start taking leave and making it the "norm" to put family before business sometimes nothing will change.

Then employers should be able to hire interim workers. Not always possible.

I was actually hired for my first gig as a replacement for a permanent worker who was on extended parental leave. I lasted a year, then moved on, and they hired someone else. So in a way it helped us college grads get into the workforce and gain some experience. But it was a municipal outfit that fed off the tax base. It doesn't go as smoothly for smaller businesses even in countries with generous government programs. Again, people in service industry paid minimum wages rarely get access to these benefits for various reasons anyway. Plus, the benefit alone is not enough to support a mother and a child. Good thing if a woman is married or is supported by her parents/family (which is common there).

I don't think given the realities of American life any of this has a remote chance of working here. Besides, the U.S. has no economic incentive to boost population growth through birth, because the birth rates here are still high, and we have enough influx with immigration. Needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few and will continue to do so, so plan accordingly.

I know it does in other countries. Where I come from, women of childbearing age and women with children have certain difficulties gaining meaningful employment. Employers covertly do their best to avoid hiring employees that will obviously cost them more in parental and sick leave. It's the unintended consequence that hurts women who were meant to benefit from a generous leave provisions. As a result, most people who benefit from it are upper-middle class professionals who are not in dire need of it to begin with. Even they often have to cut their leave short, because a good job will go much further than an immediate relatively modest government allowance.

On the other hand, my mother had no shortage of offers that suited well into her her sixties. She chose to retire for family reasons, but she had plenty of opportunities if she chose to continue her career.

Many (not all) employers offer STD policies which generally offer 6/8 weeks of pay during maternity leave. The premiums for this leave takes into account the ages and sexes of employees, thus the "risk" is spread around.

Age discrimination still exists.

Older candidates tend to be looking for more money than younger ones applying to the same job. Older candidates tend to have a better concept of workplace boundaries that some managers don't like (e.g., it's easier to manipulate a 20-something into staying late into the night to put in "facetime", whereas more experienced employees have been down this road and see that it rarely leads to success, and may have more substantial commitments than happy hour). Some managers are intimidated by managing employees who are quite older/more experienced. Six weeks of paid leave is not going to change this.

No. Age is age. When I was young employers were fine with hiring older women since they were a good/sure bet to NOT get pregnant and to NOT take time off for babies and the responsibilities of children [taking off to doctor appts, sick kids, sports, childcare issues].

Women often dumped on the firms and the load was carried by others. Projects due, presentations etc. I was one of the others. So unfair. Some friends got partial work from home and when I was a sahm with little kids would come over, meet for lunch, shop. Lots of abuse of the benefit which still happens.

It should be longer and be parental/family leave. You should be able to take it for birth/adoption and to take care of an aging parent. The big thing will be of men actually take any. Currently women take far more leave to care for children and parents and employers look at them as a liability and lesser employees (in generals there are of course employers who don't subscribe to this). Until men and specifically men in charge start taking leave and making it the "norm" to put family before business sometimes nothing will change.

Six weeks paid leave is ridiculous. We need twelve weeks paid leave.

This idea, if it were to become reality, would rank far far down on the list of reasons for an employer to pick one candidate over another.

I wish it were otherwise.

We all know that women in their 50s have a harder time getting hired than almost anyone else, and that ageism is a factor. With reports that Trump might actually go through with his promise to put in place six weeks guranteed paid maternity leave (I know mothers only are in his plan, but who knows what would happen in Congress), could this help fight ageism?

Let's assume for this thought experiment that it ends up being paid parental leave, offered to women and men for birth or adoption. Would that make companies look a little harder at diversifying the "life stages" of their employees to help spread the expense of the benefit? In this respect, post-menopausal women would be the least likely group to use the benefit (yes, they could adopt, but they are the least likely bunch to have new kids).