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

Main Event

RouteThisWay wrote: »

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.

I believe you completely, this is exaclt what we talked about before work started. He was stating entry level pay for a married man some companies would rather overlook him and look for a younger person. You're definitely right which is why I'm weighing all my options.

ptilsen

erpadmin wrote: »

That is not a correct interpretation....

I disagree. The preface is clear:

Questions about marital status and number and ages of children are frequently used to discriminate against women...

This explanation is clear:

...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.

Asking the question at all of a woman can be seen as intent to discriminate against women, even if the intent is to discriminate against anyone with children and even if the question is asked of everyone, including men. The following paragraph elaborates further:

Generally, employers should not use non job-related questions involving marital status, number and/or ages of children or dependents, or names of spouses or children of the applicant. Such inquiries may be asked after an employment offer has been made and accepted if needed for insurance or other legitimate business purposes.

The following pre-employment inquiries may be regarded as evidence of intent to discriminate when asked in the pre-employment context:

Whether applicant is pregnant.
Marital status of applicant or whether applicant plans to marry.
Number and age of children or future child bearing plans.
hild care arrangements.
Employment status of spouse.
Name of spouse.

The article clearly indicates that asking women about children at all can be construed as discriminatory, but such practices are only discriminatory because they violate Title VII's provisions on gender. Title VII itself doesn't mention children or parental status at all except in reference to sex and childbirth:

the terms “because of sex” or “on the basis of sex” include, but are not limited to, because of or on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions; and women affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions shall be treated the same for all employment-*related purposes

If there is any evidence of any law barring an employer from discriminating against a male parent on the basis that he is a parent, please present. I am not opposed to seeing it, but I haven't found any yet, and what I've seen on the eeoc.gov seems to clearly imply that such discrimination is quite lawful.

antielvis

I started my IT career at age 31. My previous career paid very well, but I hated it and I was sure computers were my thing. I set out to get a job and landed an interview. It was a small company & when the owner of this place asked why I'd leave what was a secure, good paying job for a job that was paying $8 bucks an hour. I told him the truth. I said I didn't like my current career & it was hard to get out of bed every day. I said I wanted to do computers and I WOULD do them. He called me back a few weeks later and gave me the job.

I had to make changes to my life to adapt to living on nothing & make no mistake, that was tough. My then girlfriend didn't like me taking a 36K a year salary cut & walked out the door. I learned quickly I had to make some harsh choices to adapt to being broke. I had to sell my car & started either walking to work or using city transit. My regular trips to the pub for pints ended as did eating out & a whole bunch of other things. I ate a lot of Mr Noodles & I learned to budget. I was renting a decent apartment which was simply unaffordable so I was forced to move to a crap area of town & live in a ****.

Probably the hardest part was giving up on my social life. While my friends would get to go snowboarding or out to the club, I couldn't afford it so I had to stay home. Even tougher was how I was viewed by other people especially when dating. Here I was, a 31 year old single guy making crap $$. I had no car & I certainly wasn't going to bring people to visit my place. In short, to lots of people I was a total loser. People would ask me how come I used to the bus instead of driving. It was hard to say I couldn't afford a car.

But I don't regret any of that. Those choices sucked and they were hard (harder than you think they will be), but I love this industry. I don't wake up sick of the world and miserable anymore and for me, that's important in my life. I still walk to get places now too but I do NOT eat Mr Noodles lol. Ugh.

erpadmin

Your interpretation does not absolve the fact that a father can make grounds for a suit if said father felt that he was being discriminated against because of discrimination on his own parental status. I don't have a Westlaw subscription, but the only evidence I can present is this:

Previously, employment discrimination against workers based on familial caregiving responsibilities was called "Marital Status" or "Family Status" Discrimination. This has since changed, and is now called Family Responsibilities Discrimination ("FRD") to more accurately describe the particular type of discrimination that may affect almost every worker, including married women, engaged women, single men, married men, parents of young children, workers caring for elderly parents or sick significant others.

Family Responsibilities Discrimination - Workplace Fairness

I will concede the point that while it might not be illegal to discriminate against a male parent, that doesn't mean that said parent won't try to find reasons to encourage a suit based on such perceptions. That's ultimately what I would try to avoid both as a coworker or potential employer. People can find discrimination where none exists, based on age, familiar status, whatever. The only reason I see parental discrimination tied into age discrimination is because of the very false belief that people of a certain age have children and will need to take time off to deal with said children.

bdub

erpadmin wrote: »

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.

Lucky for me I have a boss who has a "family comes first" philosophy. Because of that, everyone actually works HARDER and will put extra time when necessary and WFH is not a problem since 90%+ of what we do can be done from home.

Honestly people with families are more reliable as we are not out partying every night coming in late or "not feeling well WFH/taking a sick day". There's only a few people in our office without kids that are actually all that reliable. People with families also have mouths to feed and a lot more bills to take care and are therefor more "hungry" to learn and advance.

Really I guess I have just had the exact opposite experience, I've never had having a family be a problem for myself and have never heard of that. I can totally see that for entry level helpdesk jobs and such though.

powerfool

I have been discriminated against twice based on my age (being too young). In both cases, I was already working at the company. In the first instance, my boss wanted to act as if we could be friends outside of work. We would go to lunch together a couple times per week and sometimes stay late and get pizza and beer at a place around the corner. He started asking progressively more personal questions, which stands to reason if you actually are becoming friends. Then, one day he asked my age and I told him (25, at the time). From that day forward, he treated me like I was incompetent and I was no longer allowed any input in projects. As a matter of fact, he even started giving me direct technical instructions on many tasks. I was certainly not at a point for that in my career. I started working in IT as a consultant at 18, so I had about seven years of experience then. I came there from an organization where I was the IT guy (aside from a guy that only did ERP programming, not to slight that job or anything, but I was doing a broad variety of work) and I led many projects and performed the work and hired contractors to assist in some projects where I supervised. That job lasted another nine months, only because they were giving me essentially untracked tuition reimbursement, and they paid for about 1/3 of my degree in my almost two years there.

The second time this happened, was at my very next job. I had been working there for about a year when my boss was fired (I have told this story on here before). He was not very good as a manager and was not very technical, either. He loved to micromanage, but since he wasn't competent, it came off as being desperate (which it was). Anyhow, I applied for the job. They took six months to make a decision. I was essentially operating as the interim manager and we successfully performed several major system upgrades over that period of time. What cinched it was that the CFO asked how old I was and I skirted the question by jokingly stating that I was old enough (28 at the time)... he quickly became serious and said he would just go ask HR. They hired outside the company to fill the position within a week of that. That boss only lasted for about nine months and she quit, but I used it as an opportunity to learn from her and she even got me promoted in title to an "architect." I applied for the position again and the CFO ended up hiring a high school buddy. The buddy was very threatened by me... the CFO likely indicated that I wanted the job... so the buddy quickly told me he wasn't going anywhere anytime soon. Anyhow, they worked to outsource the IT department and I was out of a job for a couple of months. I have been at my new job for over 2.5 years now and love it. That buddy of the CFO has since been fired (the CFO churned his middle management like crazy... when I was there they went through 3 controllers and one was a personal friend of the CFO, and 3 IT directors).

mguy

NOC-Ninja wrote: »

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.

echo this.

If you're old, try to look young and have a young at heart mentality. This guy at work is 57 but looks 45 and acts 25.

techdudehere

In IT you really need to either 1) Continue performing higher level tasks or 2) become a manager. Who wouldn't be grumpy if they had been on help desk for 20 years? Can you imagine a 60 year old wanting to walk someone through setting a modem to bridge mode? Of course the interview should determine these things based on the individual rather than a number. Someone with no experience and especially if they are very young may not have the decision making skills an employer is looking for.

As far as the hours, I would make that decision based on the position. If I were given lots of vacation time, extra time off, or a very high salary then I certainly would not complain about putting in a little extra time. I would even put in extra time when it is truly needed absent those things. However, I stay pretty close to the 40 I signed up for. Working extra would only hide the need to properly manage the work flow. Once you try to hide the initial problem, it may simply grow even more which will either cause you to have to deal with the original problem even more or risk burnout and be forced into a new position anyway.

powerfool

I think that as a parent or a non-parent, I would be glad for an employer to that forthright when discussing the inflexibility of a job. I don't want a job that is inflexible which is why I won't pursue a TS or higher clearance... not that I couldn't get one, but the jobs that require you to have one want you onsite in a secured area during normal operations. I like my job because I can essentially work from anywhere that I want, so long as I get my job done and I am available to the client (which does include being onsite more often than not).

Zartanasaurus

NetworkVeteran wrote: »

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.)

They actually said this to you?

Zartanasaurus

erpadmin wrote: »

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.

This is an extremely one-sided view. People with wives and kids value stability also. When you have family responsibilities, you don't want to wonder where your next paycheck is coming from. The average 35-year old with a family is likely going to be more responsible and not just take off for vacation in the middle of an important project as opposed to a 25-year old who can just say **** it and move back in with his parents for a couple of months.

NetworkVeteran

Zartanasaurus wrote: »

They actually said this to you?

Yep. We'll call this, "What not to say to a parent, if you want them to accept your offer."

Roguetadhg

Zartanasarus!

Im 27. I find that.. to be accurate. We kids can pickup, and move as our priorities don't revolve around other peoples. I wouldn't want to have my child move from school every 2 years, or if my significant other has a full-time job I wouldn't expect her to pickup and go. Of course, it depends - Military life, for example - you go where you're told.


It depends on how they've been brought up. My friend, whose.. 19? has a fulltime job and then some. He's more up on his bills than people my own age. It's inspiring, and gives me hope of good young people.


I feel so old. Jeez. Was that my back that just cracked?

Older still.

erpadmin

Zartanasaurus wrote: »

The average 35-year old with a family is likely going to be more responsible and not just take off for vacation in the middle of an important project as opposed to a 25-year old who can just say **** it and move back in with his parents for a couple of months.

I 100% agree with you, but my example did not come out of thin air. It has actually happened that a key person involved in an important migration with a wife and kids (and is over 40) had in fact gone on vacation during a critical time in the project. Thankfully, this was outside of my group and scope...but now we're having issues with taking any time off in August on top of the first two weeks in September (the latter of which is understood, because the beginning of the fall semester is the most important time of the year...)

All I was saying is that there are negatives and positives with youngings in IT and oldies in IT.

Roguetadhg

I think it's a matter of who they are.

I'm sure if you told that person that's over 40, and took away 10 years... He would've done the same thing. Or atleast attempted or thought about doing.


I'd like to think you have a responsibility to where you work, as well as your kids. Make plans months in advance. If it's critical - just remind them: I requested for the time and got approved half a year ago. This should calm people's nerves about such things. Knowing that you put the time in advanced, as much in advanced as possible - it's not a big deal. Everyone knows you aren't trying to dodge work, but instead taking the time you asked for.

But then again, I only requested time off to play Diablo 3 for a week off. I gave minute-by-minute details about the release date. When I knew, My bosses knew. I didn't go into details why, but I did state I bought a box of Hotpockets and a Box of Redbull . Worst week, ever.

My vacation time fell on client visitations, as well as setting up for client stuff. I pointed to them the time in advance. Client "stuff" happens the day before - if not "The Day of". I pointed to the time off, when I requested it - and when I was told about the visits. No one had any arguments afterwards. I played Diablo 3, and ignored everything else Really bad on the health though. I don't recommend living on Ham&Cheese Hot Pockets for a week straight.


There is a bit of discretion, too. If it's an emergency; People can't work, business bleeding thousands of dollars every minute, roof collapsing... I would say you probably -should- go back to work. There might not be a job left! :P

This is from my perspective - 27 year old-kid, who can go back to live with parents in a heartbeat... Old and Moldy.

powerfool

There is also a strong school of thought for stress management that suggests taking vacation in the middle of projects instead of at the end. Obviously, you don't do that if it has an impact on critical path. My client organization has "lockdown" for a month every quarter, and longer at fiscal year end (mandated by legislation)... sometimes this is a great point for a vacation, other times it is a great time to actually get work done. "Lockdown" only impacts our ability to update the production environment, so unless it is in the middle of implementation or migration, it does not hamper our scheduling.

RouteThisWay

erpadmin wrote: »

I 100% agree with you, but my example did not come out of thin air. It has actually happened that a key person involved in an important migration with a wife and kids (and is over 40) had in fact gone on vacation during a critical time in the project. Thankfully, this was outside of my group and scope...but now we're having issues with taking any time off in August on top of the first two weeks in September (the latter of which is understood, because the beginning of the fall semester is the most important time of the year...)

All I was saying is that there are negatives and positives with youngings in IT and oldies in IT.

I worked with a young guy who is 23. He just disappeared one day and didn't show up for work the next day- he was a graphic designer and was involved on a pretty important project deploying a new product. We all thought something happened to him, called his house, called his parents house, etc. Someone found him on Facebook (which was set to public)- two girls asked him to go to Florida with him. And he just went. He actually showed up back to work a week later and acted as if there was nothing wrong. He found a box waiting for him at the front desk with all of his things in them- his excuse was "he forgot to call in and schedule vacation".

I had a dog once. It bit me.


Based on both of these examples, I don't go off and have misconceptions about people in their twenties (me included) and I don't dislike all dogs because they bite.

Your comment just came off very narrow, one sided, and stating the fact that you have one personal anecdote which leads you to recommending people to take off their wedding ring for interviews just rubs people the wrong way. Honestly, if I was interviewing someone and noticed they didn't have a wedding ring- but then showed up to work with one and mislead their commitment to a marriage... I would be skeptical of anything else they may have withheld.

EDIT: And thanks for the congratulations! We find out the gender today.

Zartanasaurus

RouteThisWay wrote: »

I had a dog once. It bit me.

You missed out on a chance for a good Joe Piscopo reference here!

tpatt100

If you are the guy that takes a vacation in the middle of an important project and the project is completed successfully. Odds are you are the guy that gets laid off first if cuts need to be made. Just sayin lol. You kinda pointed out that the team can get stuff done without you.

Roguetadhg

He did it for the Nookie, RouteThisWay?

Were they atleast hot? For a guy to sacrifice his job, they better be 11's.

Not saying I would do the same thing. I'd atleast entertain the thought for a second or two!

erpadmin

RouteThisWay wrote: »

Your comment just came off very narrow, one sided, and stating the fact that you have one personal anecdote which leads you to recommending people to take off their wedding ring for interviews just rubs people the wrong way. Honestly, if I was interviewing someone and noticed they didn't have a wedding ring- but then showed up to work with one and mislead their commitment to a marriage... I would be skeptical of anything else they may have withheld.

That was one anecdotal example out of good lot. But I also have similar examples of young folks effing up that are similar to that 23 year old.

My wedding ring bit was based on the realities of the new economy. I think people need to do more homework on the culture of an organization, which frankly isn't discussed here...

People will read a job spec, match it to their own experience/educational background and call it a day. Yet, many people don't take the time to find out what it's like working for the company itself. Many companies are pro-family (work to live, not live to work.) Many companies are anti-family (you live to work, not work to live.) Yet not taking a few minutes to see if its a company they would be proud to work with is, in my opinion, a detriment to themselves, because all they care about is getting that job and meeting that salary requirement. What good will that do if you end up unhappy working at that place after a couple of weeks/months.

When I look for a job, I look for criteria that determines if I can be at Y-organization for a few years before I contemplate the next move. I don't accept an offer at a place just because I fit the job description. However, I concede that I can do that because I'm currently employed. If I were unemployed, then I'm very understanding of the "you-gotta-do-what-you-gotta-do" mentality...because, not for nothing...that's what you gotta do if you want that food on the table (as long as it's not doing something that would make me ashamed of looking at myself in the mirror.... )

RouteThisWay

Very true- the culture of the organization is a big "if" and does require due diligence.

Good discussions all around.

And Rogue, I am not sure if they were hot or not lol. No romp is worth a position in your chosen career field, or any job really.

Just saying.

Main Event

techdudehere wrote: »

In IT you really need to either 1) Continue performing higher level tasks or 2) become a manager. Who wouldn't be grumpy if they had been on help desk for 20 years? Can you imagine a 60 year old wanting to walk someone through setting a modem to bridge mode? Of course the interview should determine these things based on the individual rather than a number. Someone with no experience and especially if they are very young may not have the decision making skills an employer is looking for.

As far as the hours, I would make that decision based on the position. If I were given lots of vacation time, extra time off, or a very high salary then I certainly would not complain about putting in a little extra time. I would even put in extra time when it is truly needed absent those things. However, I stay pretty close to the 40 I signed up for. Working extra would only hide the need to properly manage the work flow. Once you try to hide the initial problem, it may simply grow even more which will either cause you to have to deal with the original problem even more or risk burnout and be forced into a new position anyway.

Alot of great replies but not much factual evidence to prove or disprove that I.T is a good field for older people looking to change careers, mostly opinions are being expressed... With that said, I kinda feel it isn't,especially for those at or around the 35 and up mark...

As you stated employers don't want a 60 year old help desk guy, they expect you to progress, starting off at 35 or even 40 is a steep climb up to stay the least...

I'm still looking for another opportunity...