Anonymous wrote:Is ageism less prevalent for accounting jobs - controller, CFO?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Is ageism less prevalent for accounting jobs - controller, CFO?
No. Those jobs are being dumbed down due to software. Our CFO (small 75 person company) just mentioned the other day that he no longer cares if someone had an accounting background for his team. That translates to young cheap workers who unfortunately will have no upward mobility. The software we use end to end is basically automated.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Is ageism less prevalent for accounting jobs - controller, CFO?
No. Those jobs are being dumbed down due to software. Our CFO (small 75 person company) just mentioned the other day that he no longer cares if someone had an accounting background for his team. That translates to young cheap workers who unfortunately will have no upward mobility. The software we use end to end is basically automated.
Anonymous wrote:Is ageism less prevalent for accounting jobs - controller, CFO?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Ageism in tech is real, but you don't see that as much in DC.
A lot of what gets called ageism here is really hesitance to hire people with insufficient experience given their age. Sorry, but if you're over 50 and haven't advanced past lower-mid level, people are going to look at you funny. It doesn't matter that the 29 year old has the same experience as you. You've had a lot more time to advance yet haven't, and that sets off alarms.
I don't think you see ageism much in the federal government, but good luck getting a job in a major corporation after 45. I remember looking for a new job at age 37 and getting interviews for 4 out of every 5 applications - and found a job within three weeks. The next time I was looking, at age 46, I applied to about 100 jobs and received only three interviews over the course of 8 months.
The worst is if you lose your job in your late 50s, often as part of a reorganization in which they get rid of the older, more expensive employees. Welcome to to early retirement.
Anonymous wrote:The people I have an issue with over 50 at my work are the ones who have been at my workplace for 20-30+ years, refuse to change, are unhappy but won't look elsewhere. Still griping about how they were passed over for a promotion (even when they were less qualified) or about that time they had a better office or a secretary.
The 50 year olds we hire are great. They're forward thinking, and are mostly up to date on industry and software.
Anonymous wrote:I know my mom definitely faced it when laid off a few years ago at age 55.
She dyed her hair for the first time ever and per the advice of my SIL in HR, removed a bunch of older jobs off her resume. As soon as she started her work experience in the early 90s, she got multiple interviews. She also removed her graduation years from her resume.
Anonymous wrote:Some long-heard concerns and biases with older hires:
- will be retiring sooner (i.e., if we hire someone who is, say, 57, they realistically may be planning to retire within 5 years. If we only get authority and budget to fill a slot intermittently, the HR office may rather hire the younger person.
- getting along with peers; working well together on teams; dealing with a manager who may be 10 or more years younger. The average age of employees in an industry and even at certain companies is public info -- better odds at overcoming this bias in companies with an older workforce.
- set in their ways. E.g., uncomfortable with tech changes; dislike using IT resources or new resources, even if it would increase efficiency.
- not likely to be as hard-working. Is that 58 year old going to work until 2am or come in on the weekend to work on an urgent project with the team? (Of course, some will say the 58-year old is perhaps more willing to put in the extra hours than the millennial, and others will say the 58-year old has the benefit of experience and so can be more efficient.)
Where I work in the legal field, there are plenty of older employees (attorneys) in their 50s and early 60s (some even older too). Though there are exceptions, by and large, they are the best, most respected employees -- they have far more experience and expertise than the younger set.
Anonymous wrote:Maybe this should be in the Over 50 section but I really don't want to believe that once you hit the 5-0 mark your job prospects dwindle....I see that comment more than I'd like to on this board so what gives, is it REALLY that bad for those of us job seeking jobs at this age??
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Ageism in tech is real, but you don't see that as much in DC.
A lot of what gets called ageism here is really hesitance to hire people with insufficient experience given their age. Sorry, but if you're over 50 and haven't advanced past lower-mid level, people are going to look at you funny. It doesn't matter that the 29 year old has the same experience as you. You've had a lot more time to advance yet haven't, and that sets off alarms.
I don't think you see ageism much in the federal government, but good luck getting a job in a major corporation after 45. I remember looking for a new job at age 37 and getting interviews for 4 out of every 5 applications - and found a job within three weeks. The next time I was looking, at age 46, I applied to about 100 jobs and received only three interviews over the course of 8 months.
The worst is if you lose your job in your late 50s, often as part of a reorganization in which they get rid of the older, more expensive employees. Welcome to to early retirement.
+2
This happened to my mom - let go from an agency at 55 and now consulting/gigging/trying to find work. It's really screwed up.