Do you think it's age discrimination in I.T?

Main Event

How do you see age discrimination in I.T? Do you think it's non-existent or do you think employers favor younger workers?

the_Grinch

If there is, I'd say it is discrimination actually is more at the low end and the high end. In your 20's, hard to have people take your seriously. In your 50's, hard to get hired because they assume you'll be leaving soon to retire. I feel like 30's and 40's are the gold zone where everything is just right.

Qord

I think it's all over, not just in IT. I think Grinch got it dead on, too young and nobody thinks you have enough experience. Too old and your either too close to retiring or want a much higher salary than someone younger.

RouteThisWay

Echo what Grinch said. End thread.

hiddenknight821

Resume thread.

What about someone in their late 30 with no IT experience? Would someone be quick to assume that this person has a lot of experience based on his age?

tpatt100

I have read several articles that higher age means you want more money but in IT I have heard stories that companies think you are less acceptable to change or keeping current.

Younger for some companies can also mean less pay more work = bigger profit.

RouteThisWay

They will assume he has a lot of experience based on his resume.

Most people do not (and should not) list their age on a resume. Any place I have worked they have never known my age until I was working there for a bit.

I have been hampered by people knowing my age and immediately assuming I am irresponsible because most 25 year olds I know are irresponsible.

tpatt100

hiddenknight821 wrote: »

Resume thread.

What about someone in their late 30 with no IT experience? Would someone be quick to assume that this person has a lot of experience based on his age?

I think the no experience part might make it obvious on the resume lol.

I think it gets harder to not reveal your age "bracket" as you get more experience. Like someday we might have to remove things like which operating systems we supported like Windows NT or 3.1.

hiddenknight821

I believe most cases of discrimination originated at the interviews than what can be concluded from the resumes. Hiring managers may discriminate based on race, ethnic, age, disability, and so on once they see the candidates. Yet, it's almost difficult to prove that they're discriminating when they are well-prepared not to indicate any bias. I hope less than 10% of the workforce out there use those unethical hiring practices but who knows.

Main Event

hiddenknight821 wrote: »

Resume thread.

What about someone in their late 30 with no IT experience? Would someone be quick to assume that this person has a lot of experience based on his age?

That's a good point, my friend who works with me is 43 and is in the process of getting his A+, he has a 2 year from AIU or one of those for profit schools. He keeps on telling me that even if he completes his A+ his age would still be a hinderance due to the fact that many employers are going to be reluctant to pay him lower entry level wages when he's a married man, I really agree with him.

I'm 38, not married and no kids and I kinda expect employers to act up when I "get it together" and start being in a better situation to get jobs. I mean, would you want a 38 year old man with little experience to work 12 hours a day doing a boat load of work when you can get a 20 year old who has more energy and basically won't say no to do the same task?


Especially when so many companies are looking for a "jack of all trades" type of guy...

it's something to think about.

RouteThisWay

So the real purpose of this thread is to gauge the ability of changing careers later in life.

Then the answer is yes, it is going to be harder. You are going to demand a higher salary than someone with the same level of experience for the first couple years. And when I say demand, I don't mean necessarily you want- but it will be assumed you have larger financial responsibilities than those of someone with equivalent experience (0-2 years... typically a 22 year old, give or take a year or two) and even if you start out at $10.00/hr, in a few months time you will want/need more. If it can't be justified to pay an entry level position more than that- you will get told "no" and will probably find a new job. Where on the flip side, if a younger person who has no real work experience comes in- they can afford to live on entry level pay for quite awhile (not adjusted to higher level of earning) and will work harder to do higher level tasks for less pay.

This is all assumed and I promise you- this throught process enters many peoples minds. Is it fair? No. But that's life. But on the bright side- many people have done mid-life career changes and have done it very successfully. These people typically leverage their past experience (Dave330i I think is his username, comes to mind) to transition successfully in the IT world.

This is all personal speculation of course. You can just tell me to sod off and not believe me lol. Good luck.

hiddenknight821

@Main Event: tpatt100 made a point I overlooked as I was thinking about the post-resume scenarios, but you clearly can't get past the HR if you don't have a lot of experiences on your resumes.

ptilsen

There is age discrimination at the low level (teens and early twenties) and the high level (50s and 60s). There is certainly going to be career changer "discrimination" and "discrimination" against people with little or no experience. The difference is the I don't really view this as discrimination (unlike age discrimination, which is totally baseless and illegal for that reason) -- it's smart business. That doesn't mean that entry-level employees and career-changers of all ages shouldn't be treated with respect and given the same opportunities, but it is not wholly unreasonable (and certainly not illegal) to judge them as likely to be less competent than people who have been in IT longer and/or started In IT.

So for career-changers, yes, there is a bigger hurdle to overcome. I don't really see it as a direct component of age discrimination, however. The difference between the older person with lots of experience and the thirty-or-forty-something career changer is obviously that the former has found their field and been in it. The younger non-career-changer has also known their field of choice for longer, and this can be a sign of more aptitude, passion, and ultimately potential. Either-way, the career-changer is at a disadvantage.

That's not to say there isn't age discrimination in this field. There is, but as has been said, it really goes both ways. I've had companies and co-workers disregard me for my youth, while others clearly thought it made me better.

All that having been said, I firmly believe that regardless of age, anyone with the drive and the aptitude can be highly successful in this field, to the point of overcoming any truly discriminatory practices. Ultimately, one's job qualifications (education, experience, skills, certifications) and performance should be the only factors considered when it comes to employment practices.

NetworkVeteran

I mean, would you want a 38 year old man with little experience to work 12 hours a day doing a boat load of work when you can get a 20 year old who has more energy and basically won't say no to do the same task?

My no-hire decision would be based on the latter factor. Age may raise concerns about your capability or willingness to do certain work, but it's your actual capability/willingness that would be the deciding factor. I would not expect any less nor pay any more because someone is older.

I remember a woman in her 50s who transitioned into an entry-level networking role. A week or two into the position, they asked her to stay late. She refused. She said she would do her very best for eight hours, but not work an hour beyond that. That was the end of her short networking career.

Incidently, at a semi-recent interview an employer was concerned that my status as a parent made me incompatible with a role that required spending one hour per evening outside of office hours studying for a certification. Side-stepping "Parent Discrimination" was a simple matter of assurig him that wasn't a problem for me. (I was in turn concerned that they raised parenthood as a concern and had few parents on their staff. It lowered my valuation of their offer.)

NOC-Ninja

Main Event wrote: »

How do you see age discrimination in I.T? Do you think it's non-existent or do you think employers favor younger workers?

There is discrimination in any job so the answer is yes.
I saw on the news that companies discriminate based on your name, looks and education.

Roguetadhg

was she going to be getting paid for that time?

If that position is open, shoot it this way

Iristheangel

She was probably salary which is means it doesn't matter. With the exception of my first IT job, I haven't had a position in the IT world that didn't expect at least 50-60 hours a week from me. It's worse when you're on call, having to check server alerts at all hours, jumping on conference calls with India at strange hours, etc.

BigMevy

I think the Grinch nailed it, and would say that's probably true for any field. That said, it's a generalisation and not necessarily a universal truth. In my organization we have a guy pretty high up in IT that got that position before he was 30. He has a baby-face look to him too, so he even looks younger than he is. Still, he proved himself time and again with his knowledge and ability.

I have become more aware of age descrimination though, now that I'm getting older. I'll be 40 at the end of the year, and I do feel I have about 10 years in the industry before I start getting looked at as a liability. Either because of the pay range or the "out of touch" aspect. That's one of the reasons why I'm seriously evauluating what my roadmap is for the next few years. If I pursue upper management it shouldn't be as much of an issue. If I decide not to, I'll likely have to consider a career change at some point, which may not be a bad thing either. I can see myself getting burned out in this field.

NetworkVeteran

Roguetadhg wrote: »

was she going to be getting paid for that time?

Iris is correct, it was a salary position, so there would be no extra pay.

If that position is open, shoot it this way

Unfortunately, that happened over a decade ago! I've seen waiters/waitresses, secretaries, used-car salesmen, and professors all transition late in life into the tech industry.

Roguetadhg

Just means the person who's in the position is getting older! Time for a young buck to stand in


Bonus: The comment actually runs with the topic of this thread!

RouteThisWay

I can't remember the last time I worked a 40 hour work week. And with the exception of entry level, my jobs have all been salary positions (no overtime compensation). It is the nature of the beast.

I am currently Contract-To-Hire... so I work hourly for the next 60 or so days. However, I just fill out my timesheets with 8's M-F.... regardless that I am usually working ~10 a day. Overtime has to be approved by my manager, and while he is a good guy and would probably do it... I don't want to be that guy of "Pay me my overtime or I will just work my 8 then leave". Don't want to give them a reason to not pick me up direct after my C2H is up.

But, it does swing both ways. Usually as salary (and in this C2H position) they are far more lenient when things come up and you need to jet early, come in late, etc. I find out the gender of my kid on Monday and need to leave at 11AM- let my boss know, he said don't worry about it.. just put the straight 8's down as usual and see you Tuesday.

erpadmin

NetworkVeteran wrote: »

I remember a woman in her 50s who transitioned into an entry-level networking role. A week or two into the position, they asked her to stay late. She refused. She said she would do her very best for eight hours, but not work an hour beyond that. That was the end of her short networking career.

Incidently, at a semi-recent interview an employer was concerned that my status as a parent made me incompatible with a role that required spending one hour per evening outside of office hours studying for a certification. Side-stepping "Parent Discrimination" was a simple matter of assurig him that wasn't a problem for me. (I was in turn concerned that they raised parenthood as a concern and had few parents on their staff. It lowered my valuation of their offer.)

Your interviewer has balls....whether we like it or not, "Parent Discrimination" is illegal. Showing such concern to someone else would have given another interviewee grounds for a suit.

Now, don't misunderstand me....I'm on your interviewer side because as a non-parent (and because of my boss who is a parent but does not hide behind the kids...) I detest folks who do hide behind the kids when there is WORK to be done. The proper, legal way to show concern about "parents" is to focus on how many hours may be required to work on an issue and to put the onus on the interviewee to see if this person can/can not commit. When the interviewee mentions kids/spouse, etc, then you show "mock-concern" but to bring the focus back on the job. As someone who is looking at management, my job would be not to make myself liable for a suit and then giving "real reasons" for not hiring this person in case parent of 4-10 kids want to bring on a suit based on familiar status. Is and Ts have to be dotted and crossed.

Believe me, there are people who will not hire parents if they can help it, because they want to ensure that people they hire will be available for projects, high level tasks that may need to happen outside of the 9-5 a day workweek.

This is why I always advised folks looking for jobs to take off the wedding ring if they're married. (I would be that person that will look for a ring, or evidence of a ring because I can't if a person is married, but I can ask if there are things outside of work that would interfere with working long hours...then it would be up to the interviewee to answer the question. But the interviewer can not mention questions about family...the interviewee can bring that up, but it can be to his/her detriment.

You can be pissed about this if you want, but that is reality...employers do value stability, but employers do not want employees to take vacation during critical points of a project because little Billy and Susie were promised that they'd go to DisneyWorld as a family either.

RouteThisWay

I work for a Fortune 500 international bank.

I was upfront that I have a kid on the way and I just got married. I still got the job. This company offers 2 weeks paid paternity leave as well that doesn't cut into vacation/holiday/personal time- a good sign they are pro family.

But, I also explained that I understand working more than the 40 is the standard in our industry and there will be times I work into some evenings, weekends, etc. I was upfront with this because, as ERP mentioned, these things are taken into consideration.

In any case, I am not taking my wedding ring off for an interview and honestly- if you aren't going to hire me because I put stock into my wife and kid and work to live, not live to work- it probably wouldn't be a good fit for my lifestyle. No harm no foul- you want someone with no life to distract them from work, I want a company that supports people of all backgrounds- which I have found.

There is a place for everyone and everyone's lifestyle somewhere.

EDIT: And if I have vacation time, and I schedule it 3+ months out- I don't give a damn if I am going to Disney World for Billy and Susie or if I am sitting on my couch eating popcorn for a week straight- I am going. Thats why it is called Vacation time and thats why I schedule mine months way in advance.

And when I left my last job, the CEO of the company and I had lunch. He told me the best advice he could give me as a soon-to-be new father: Don't put your work in front of your family. I plan on taking his advice. No problem if others disagree because it is my life and I don't want to have any regrets later on.

tpatt100

RouteThisWay wrote: »

I can't remember the last time I worked a 40 hour work week. And with the exception of entry level, my jobs have all been salary positions (no overtime compensation). It is the nature of the beast.

I am currently Contract-To-Hire... so I work hourly for the next 60 or so days. However, I just fill out my timesheets with 8's M-F.... regardless that I am usually working ~10 a day. Overtime has to be approved by my manager, and while he is a good guy and would probably do it... I don't want to be that guy of "Pay me my overtime or I will just work my 8 then leave". Don't want to give them a reason to not pick me up direct after my C2H is up.

But, it does swing both ways. Usually as salary (and in this C2H position) they are far more lenient when things come up and you need to jet early, come in late, etc. I find out the gender of my kid on Monday and need to leave at 11AM- let my boss know, he said don't worry about it.. just put the straight 8's down as usual and see you Tuesday.

Isn't that illegal? I thought you could get your employer in trouble doing that. Also it just hides the issue that maybe they need to hire an extra body.

erpadmin

Understand that everyone has a life outside of work...whether they are parents or not. BTW, congratulations on the kid and may your child be healthy and happy. I'm not advocating being anti-family and all of that either. I'm just saying there are a lot of companies/IT shops that have a valid concern about folks with families.

tpatt100

I am glad that I am not a single parent, I don't know how I would do it if I was by myself. I probably would have to just get any IT job as close to home as possible.

NetworkVeteran

erpadmin wrote: »

Your interviewer has balls....whether we like it or not, "Parent Discrimination" is illegal.

He's a director at a large corporation, a no-sugar-coating kinda guy. I'm not aware of any federal laws banning job discrimination based on marital status, parental status, or even sexual orientation.. and I actually was awake during my corporate training on the subject. They made distinctions about cases where a form of discrimination would break company policy and result in termination, but would not break any federal laws.

I'm on your interviewer side because as a non-parent

I got a whole bevvy of parenting questions. Here were a couple more charmers--

"Q. We need someone who puts their job first. Could you do that, or would your children be first."

"My family always come first. I'm excellent at my job as you can see from my past track record and my references, but if there were ever a conflict of interest, my family comes first."

"Q. You realize you wouldn't be able to attend school functions if you took this job."

"There's a school function or parent-teacher conference every few months. I can provide advanced notice and make up the work, but I will need a job that's flexible enough to accomodate that."

They were also completely flabbergasted that, as a guy, I took several months off work when my kids were young. They seemed to feel that was a woman's role, only. And they gave an inspirational speech about how he has two employees who do well despite being moms.

You can be pissed about this if you want, but that is reality...

The reality is I've never been asked questions like this before, and as an active parent, it's important for me to find an employer who understands family life. As an example, one day this week, I called meetings and kept everyone late to find a novel solution for a customer we were in danger of losing. Another day I knocked off a couple hours early to attend to a school event.

It's a give-and-take situation. My current boss is also a parent.

Jinuyr

Honestly, I only notice this being a problem when it's on paper, like a resume. If the person is able to wow the employer during an interview, it doesn't really matter.

ptilsen

Apparently, at the federal level, it's only illegal to discriminate against parents if they're women.

That's at the federal level. It should be noted, that some states have much stricter and more inclusive laws. Edit: On second glance, even MN doesn't prevent employment discrimination against parents -- but, more relevant to the thread, MN does prevent age discrimination on both ends of the spectrum.

erpadmin

ptilsen wrote: »

but, more relevant to the thread, MN does prevent age discrimination on both ends of the spectrum.

Parental discrimination was tied-in when that lady in her 50s was mentioned, hence the relevance to this thread.

ptilsen wrote: »

Apparently, at the federal level, it's only illegal to discriminate against parents if they're women.

That is not a correct interpretation....

It is clearly discriminatory to ask such questions only of women and not men (or vice-versa). Even if asked of both men and women, such questions may be seen as evidence of intent to discriminate against, for example, women with children.

In other words, if the company is anti-women (with children) and you're only asking questions that can be seen as discriminatory to ONLY women with children, then that's illegal. However, the same can be done if you're asking men and women with children questions that could be construed as evidence of intent to discriminate against, for example, ANYONE with children. The above quote from your link can and should NOT be construed as limited only pertaining to women with children.

Iristheangel

@Network - If someone answered that they would put their job before they're family, they're either lying or have bigger issues.

I'm all about the work/life balance but in the IT world, 60 hours a week is the new 40 hours. Like NetVet said, it's give and take. For example, I've been working 12 hour days for 6 days straight for my current job to help them battle some of this backlog we have but when one of my pets (My kids!) had an emergency a few days ago, my boss had no problem letting me come into work late after I got my personal stuff worked out.

As far as this thread, the age thing: It does and does not worry me. If I was in a lower-level support job and in my late 40's, I'd probably be more limited. For senior or management roles in IT, I think it's actually a pro to be in your late 40's or 50's at that point. I know my experience is only limited to the last 5 years but every CTO, CIO, CEO, Director of so-and-so IT group, etc has always been well out of their 40's. I love everything to do with the techie part of IT but when I get to my late 40's, I'll probably try to transition to high-level management. It may not be what I love doing the most but it'll be good logical step to keep myself extremely marketable and I'll be adapting.