• filter:

'Older Workers Challenge Firms’ Aggressive Pursuit of the Young' (WSJ)

  • Text Only
  • Search this Topic »
Voting History
rated:
Pertinent to prior FWF discussions re:  hiring practices, public accounting, etc. --

PricewaterhouseCoopers bills itself as the “place to work for millennials,” who have taken jobs and internships with the accounting giant in droves. The firm annually recruits thousands of newly minted college graduates.

The firm’s aggressive pursuit of youth is now the focus of a class-action suit, part of an emerging wave of litigation that is both testing the boundaries of age-discrimination liability and casting a legal cloud over college recruitment programs.

Employment lawsuits alleging age bias aren’t new and are usually brought by fired employees. Cases like the one against PwC allege discrimination against job applicants, whose civil rights involve a surprisingly unsettled area of law.

The named plaintiffs in the PwC case are two men—one 53 years old and the other 47—whose applications for entry-level associate positions at the firm were rejected.

The litigants have years of accounting and bookkeeping experience under their belts, but both failed to make the cut. They allege they were turned down because they lacked the youthful profile possessed by so many PwC recruits. To “attract and maintain ‘millennials,’ PwC intentionally screens out individuals ages 40 and older...and denies them employment opportunities,” claims their lawsuit in San Francisco federal court.

Such favoritism toward millennials, the suit alleges, violates the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act, or ADEA.

The plaintiffs say the ADEA was meant to cover hiring practices that may not intentionally discriminate against older workers but have a disproportionately adverse effect on them.

Lawyers for PwC say the plaintiffs’ reading of the law conflicts with Congress’s intent.

rest of article:  https://www.wsj.com/articles/older-workers-challenge-firms-aggre...
case cite:  3:16-cv-02276-JST, N.D. Calif.

Member Summary
Most Recent Posts
Here's the progression...Associate, Senior Associate, Manager, Director (previously titled Sr Manager, it's basically an... (more)

ArmchairArchitect (Apr. 28, 2017 @ 9:03a) |

Don't remember where she came from, but her new degree was Chemical Engineering (great job prospects in the 90's)

gatzdon (Apr. 28, 2017 @ 10:46a) |

it's not in the aughts?

rufflesinc (Apr. 28, 2017 @ 10:55a) |

Staff Summary
Thanks for visiting FatWallet.com. Join for free to remove this ad.

rated:
Seems that it is pretty hard to prove a age discrimination case. Employers can always find other reasons for their hiring/firing practices.

If PwC was ONLY hiring from college campuses then that would seem to be defacto age discrimination though.

rated:
jerosen said:   Seems that it is pretty hard to prove a age discrimination case. Employers can always find other reasons for their hiring/firing practices.

If PwC was ONLY hiring from college campuses then that would seem to be defacto age discrimination though.

  One of plaintiffs' allegations is that PwC used only campus-based recruitment to fill ENTRY-level positions.  Since plaintiffs were not of college age and not currently"connected" to any university, they allege PwC policy amounted to age discrimination.  Plaintiffs also allege they were asked in interviews about working with & for younger people.  Surprising that HR allows questions like that to be asked.

rated:
I was hired out of college by PwC in the late '90s.
I recall them at the time having a program for employees taking a "non-traditional" path into Public Accounting, (i.e. older folks)

rated:
tuphat said:   
The named plaintiffs in the PwC case are two men—one 53 years old and the other 47—whose applications for entry-level associate positions at the firm were rejected.

The litigants have years of accounting and bookkeeping experience under their belts, but both failed to make the cut

  I don't think being overqualified is a protected characteristic.

rated:
I agree pretty hard to prove, but if there was a policy for it, I expect PWC has the scale and volume of data that would make it evident. It's also hard to imagine what their lawyers suggest was the intent of the ADEA if not to prevent age discrimination in hiring.

rated:
FWIW --The docket shows that plaintiffs are being represented by Outten & Golden ("Advocates for Workplace Fairness"), and also by AARP Foundation Litigation.  PwC represented by Kirkland & Ellis.

rated:
I used to work for PWC in the 90's also, as a 30-something. These firms have ALWAYS had a bias towards younger workers. They depend on people who will work 80+ hours for the promise of making partner (which I didn't of course, or I wouldn't be trolling fatwallet!). I'm sure it is even more blatant now. It is a great company, great resources, solid ethics (remember Arthur Anderson?), but they obviously discriminate against older workers.

rated:
rufflesinc said:   
tuphat said:   
The named plaintiffs in the PwC case are two men—one 53 years old and the other 47—whose applications for entry-level associate positions at the firm were rejected.

The litigants have years of accounting and bookkeeping experience under their belts, but both failed to make the cut

  I don't think being overqualified is a protected characteristic.

  
Right, so the employer can cite "overqualified" as the reason they didn't hire an older person.     All old people are overqualified.  Done.    We're not discriminating at all!

But what does "overqualified" mean?   It really shouldn't be a problem to have qualifications, skills and experience.    
Their problem with overqualified people is that such people will demand higher pay and are more likely to leave quicker.   I really doubt PwC average tenure of new hires is especially long.   I doubt the 40-50' something guys who applied expected/demanded higher pay.     Claiming the older applicants are overqualified might not be a legit argument for PwC.


I personally think companies do want young people who they can get cheaper and work harder and indoctrine into the company methods/mentality, etc.    
They don't want a cranky old guy who's set in his ways, will only work 5-10 years tops, might object to some 30 year old "kid" as a manager, knows better than to work all weekend, etc.    

Or maybe employers just want cheap labor and younger people are cheaper.
 

rated:
jerosen said:   
rufflesinc said:   
tuphat said:   
The named plaintiffs in the PwC case are two men—one 53 years old and the other 47—whose applications for entry-level associate positions at the firm were rejected.

The litigants have years of accounting and bookkeeping experience under their belts, but both failed to make the cut

  I don't think being overqualified is a protected characteristic.

  
Right, so the employer can cite "overqualified" as the reason they didn't hire an older person.     All old people are overqualified.  Done.    We're not discriminating at all!

 

  they are overqualified for the entry level positions

rated:
I bet if the plantiffs are quick enough and subpeona all the emails of all hiring managers at any big company they can find some evidence of illegal hiring discrimination.
In a big enough company you've got 100's or 1000's of managers and get that many people making hiring decisions and you're likely to find an idiot who will say something in an email thats outright illegal.
Maybe PwC's law team is smart enough to regularly police that kind of thing internally and beat it into the heads of all the hiring people to make sure nothing illegal is said or done, but I doubt it.

Thats not to say a big company has a problem, but if there are enough employees with power to make a legal mistake then chances are 1 in 1000 of them is a crook one way or another.

rated:
rufflesinc said:   
jerosen said:   
rufflesinc said:   
tuphat said:   
The named plaintiffs in the PwC case are two men—one 53 years old and the other 47—whose applications for entry-level associate positions at the firm were rejected.

The litigants have years of accounting and bookkeeping experience under their belts, but both failed to make the cut

  I don't think being overqualified is a protected characteristic.

  
Right, so the employer can cite "overqualified" as the reason they didn't hire an older person.     All old people are overqualified.  Done.    We're not discriminating at all!

 

  they are overqualified for the entry level positions

  
OK then give them a senior level position.
 

rated:
jerosen said:   
rufflesinc said:   
jerosen said:   
rufflesinc said:   
tuphat said:   
The named plaintiffs in the PwC case are two men—one 53 years old and the other 47—whose applications for entry-level associate positions at the firm were rejected.

The litigants have years of accounting and bookkeeping experience under their belts, but both failed to make the cut

  I don't think being overqualified is a protected characteristic.

  
Right, so the employer can cite "overqualified" as the reason they didn't hire an older person.     All old people are overqualified.  Done.    We're not discriminating at all!

 

  they are overqualified for the entry level positions

  
OK then give them a senior level position.

At most companies, entry vs. senior level positions is not all about age or tenure in the company. The tasks required and responsibilities are different. Most likely they'd rather ask the overqualified applicant to do the entry-level work for entry-level compensation which he/she is not likely to accept.

Kinda like if a restaurant needs to fill a commis position and an executive chef applies. They're not going to create a new executive chef position and more likely to require the applicant with executive chef credentials to do a commis work. Or to simply not take his application into account for being overqualified.

rated:
Shandril said:   
jerosen said:   
rufflesinc said:   
jerosen said:   
rufflesinc said:   
tuphat said:   
The named plaintiffs in the PwC case are two men—one 53 years old and the other 47—whose applications for entry-level associate positions at the firm were rejected.

The litigants have years of accounting and bookkeeping experience under their belts, but both failed to make the cut

  I don't think being overqualified is a protected characteristic.

  
Right, so the employer can cite "overqualified" as the reason they didn't hire an older person.     All old people are overqualified.  Done.    We're not discriminating at all!

 

  they are overqualified for the entry level positions

  
OK then give them a senior level position.

At most companies, entry vs. senior level positions is not all about age or tenure in the company. The tasks required and responsibilities are different. Most likely they'd rather ask the overqualified applicant to do the entry-level work for entry-level compensation which he/she is not likely to accept.

Kinda like if a restaurant needs to fill a commis position and an executive chef applies. They're not going to create a new executive chef position and more likely to require the applicant with executive chef credentials to do a commis work. Or to simply not take his application into account for being overqualified.

  Entry-level compensation at a Big 4 accounting/consulting firm may be more than mid-career compensation outside those firms. These applicants *might* be happy to take a lower requirement position that potentially pays the same or better, and that may also have promotion potential.

rated:
Shandril said:   
 Most likely they'd rather ask the overqualified applicant to do the entry-level work for entry-level compensation which he/she is not likely to accept.
 

  

If employers exclude older people because the employer  makes a blanket assumption that the older people want too much money then that turns into defacto age discrimination.    

Older people aren't all necessarily "over qualified" in their resumes but theres a very high correlation between age and experiences.
 

rated:
rufflesinc said:   
  they are overqualified for the entry level positions


Maybe, maybe not. Keep in mind that in many jurisdictions, after you pass the CPA exam, you have to obtain accounting work experience -- generally under the direction of a CPA -- in order to get your own CPA license. If you are someone who's decided they'd like to a CPA -- for whatever reason, at whatever age -- an entry-level position with an accounting firm is the traditional way to get the required experience.
  

rated:
Public accounting firms don't hire older people because

1) their work experience is irrelevant
2) they can't work 80 hours a week
3) someone that wants a career change like that at that age generally means they made poor life choices and are probably not qualified intellectually

rated:
FYI -- The complaint alleges that both plaintiffs applied for ENTRY level positions (in PwC parlance, "associate" positions, essentially the lowest rung on the ladder).  Each applicant presumably knows what type of work such associates are assigned, vs. higher level/supervisory work done by more experienced seniors, managers, etc.

rated:
IMO the bigger crime is that PwC would expect/cajole people (of any age) to work 80 hrs a week.

rated:
user1337 said:   Public accounting firms don't hire older people because

1) their work experience is irrelevant
2) they can't work 80 hours a week
3) someone that wants a career change like that at that age generally means they made poor life choices and are probably not qualified intellectually

  
1 - then it shouldn't count against them
2 - "can't" is not the right word.    "won't" might apply.   Lots of 20-30 somethings won't work 80 hrs /week too.  
3 - bs
 

rated:
Having worked at PwC up until very recently, I can tell you this practice is absolutely widespread and not isolated. And if it's not explicit, it's done in a de facto manner.

The other Big 4 work similarly but I've seen much more ageism at PwC (I say this as a younger person who started out of college and was in the Big 4 for ten years, so not biased).

rated:
The fun thing about a "partnership" based organizations is that they are far more loosely organized than other variety of organizations?

Specifically in the Big 4 - Tax + Audit accountants have a very uniform kind of culture. This is where the core of these big 4 lie - i.e. the leading tip they use to get into an organization.

Once you move past that and get into Advisory, or pockets of advisory inside the Tax and Audit - culture is wildly different in each mini-organization centered around a small group of leading partners. This is where the biggest chunk of their profit lie.

There are general trends, however. PwC is the big tent, slower moving of the 4, and probably the most ethical in general. Another one of the 4, much smaller, has a chip on their shoulder, always measures themselves against PwC and act uber aggressive. Yet another one gets a large portion of their revenue from Warren Buffet as he will never use another accounting firm.

To summarize - you'll never be able to prove an organization-wide discrimination/culture/anything in the Big 4, because it simply does not exist!!

Coming back to the topic at hand - ageism is probably much more prevalent in the accounting side of things - than they are in the consulting side of things at PwC/Big4.

rated:
As someone that works for a Big 4 allow me to give you a little insight.

1. The hierarchy is a pyramid scheme. Only so many will make it to the top. There are plenty that are recruited knowing they will never get anywhere near the top simply because they aren't made for it.

They will easily flush you out before you have a shot at getting promoted.

2. Young, dumb, and stupid kids in denial are the bread and butter of all the big 4. They go in with all these hopes and dreams of living in the real world and making it big... all for it to come smashing down on their face as they work 60-80 weeks on work such as audits or busy season tax preparation.

For a lot of these positions, they MUST be young because older workers at entry level positions can't handle the hours of staying in the office for 16+ hours, traveling to clients for weeks straight, etc...especially if they have a family to look after as well.

rated:
justignoredem said:   As someone that works for a Big 4 allow me to give you a little insight.

1. The hierarchy is a pyramid scheme. Only so many will make it to the top. There are plenty that are recruited knowing they will never get anywhere near the top simply because they aren't made for it.

 

  so how far up did you make it so far

rated:
rufflesinc said:   justignoredem said:   As someone that works for a Big 4 allow me to give you a little insight.

1. The hierarchy is a pyramid scheme. Only so many will make it to the top. There are plenty that are recruited knowing they will never get anywhere near the top simply because they aren't made for it.

 

  so how far up did you make it so far


Ehh about midway up the ladder. I already know I'm not going to make it to partner since its not my suite.

I will say, it is definitely great at teaching you a broad range of skill sets for any future position that you desire.

rated:
SlimTim said:   I agree pretty hard to prove, but if there was a policy for it, I expect PWC has the scale and volume of data that would make it evident. It's also hard to imagine what their lawyers suggest was the intent of the ADEA if not to prevent age discrimination in hiring.

What IS discrimination, though...?

Unless the OP is written misleadingly, the plaintiffs are alleging something called disparate impact... Not that the policy has discriminatory intent, but that the policy had a disparate impact on a protected class that in aggregate had the same effect as discrimination.

rated:
IMBoring25 said:   
SlimTim said:   I agree pretty hard to prove, but if there was a policy for it, I expect PWC has the scale and volume of data that would make it evident. It's also hard to imagine what their lawyers suggest was the intent of the ADEA if not to prevent age discrimination in hiring.

What IS discrimination, though...?

Unless the OP is written misleadingly, the plaintiffs are alleging something called disparate impact... Not that the policy has discriminatory intent, but that the policy had a disparate impact on a protected class that in aggregate had the same effect as discrimination.

  This is the important part that those unfamiliar with labor laws and legislation won't understand.  Discrimination is protected for the different classes(race, national origin, sex) for Disparate Treatment(John is terminated because his manager doesn't like working with him because John is a racial minority) but also Disparate Impact(when a policy or process isn't necessarily discriminatory on its face, but when the impact of a policy is examined, it results in discriminatory outcomes(Our company only hires for entry positions off college campuses and doesn't consider other applicants).  Now while the second example you could argue, well anyone of an age could be in college, depending on the data, outcomes, etc. for hiring that would be presented, it could make a pretty clear case that older workers are essentially eliminated from the hiring pool. You need solid data and a strong case to prove the latter; I can't remember the exact ratio but local samples of the hiring pool are taken and if actual hires != a Target(70 or 80%) of what the representative class hiring rates should be based on their proportion of the local labor pool disparate impact would be proven. It's not all cut and dried, but there are some pretty well established math behind it that helps make for a stronger case.  Normally companies that lose disparate impact cases pay the suit and then adjust their hiring practices.

If the small sample size of comments accurately reflects the makeup of PwC's staff and they can't document outreach efforts to hire for entry positions outside of colleges, or show solid hiring data for those of older workers, they could well lose the case.

rated:
user1337 said:   Public accounting firms don't hire older people because

1) their work experience is irrelevant
2) they can't work 80 hours a week
3) someone that wants a career change like that at that age generally means they made poor life choices and are probably not qualified intellectually


I don't know why this got a lot of red.  He was stating things that go through employers minds, not whether the reasons are valid

I'd add to the list:
4) they are just taking the job temporarily while they search for another job.
5) they are overqualified
6) they wont be as energetic
7) they might not look as appealing, 


I have a few "woman owned businesses" clients in the finance industry (loan processing stuff).  Coincidentally, all the employees are women.  Whenever I get a new point of contact, it's also a woman.  I've wondered if I should tell a male friend to apply at one of those places and see if he gets rejected.  I'm sure he could claim gender discrimination and it would be very difficult for them to disprove when there's 40 women and 0 men working there.  I wouldn't do that, though.  I have no ill will and don't actually want to see anything bad happen to them.
 

rated:
tuphat said:   
jerosen said:   Seems that it is pretty hard to prove a age discrimination case. Employers can always find other reasons for their hiring/firing practices.

If PwC was ONLY hiring from college campuses then that would seem to be defacto age discrimination though.

  One of plaintiffs' allegations is that PwC used only campus-based recruitment to fill ENTRY-level positions.  Since plaintiffs were not of college age and not currently"connected" to any university, they allege PwC policy amounted to age discrimination.  Plaintiffs also allege they were asked in interviews about working with & for younger people.  Surprising that HR allows questions like that to be asked.

  
Unless you can show me a college that won't admit older students then this whole argument is pretty much a dead end.  (hint:  I was 24 when I enrolled in college and 28 when I graduated)  

If the job is designed for a college graduate as a minimum requirement and really no experience (ie intern) then how are you going to argue about them recruiting from colleges?  

MOST companies don't hire highly experienced people for entry unless they are coming from another industry and starting over and that is still a hard sell unless your old industry pays really low like mine did.  It takes WAY to much time to beat bad habits and re-train.  The problem is that a skilled experienced person WILL have issues taking orders from someone half their age with less.  Even if they take orders they will have a habit of working solo or taking over a project indirectly.   

That is why they promote from within, they can filter out the people that don't fit the mold they want at each level.

I also used C2C contracting as a basis to jump from Semiconductor Field Engineer/ Automation Field Engineer to Telecom.  Even though telecom wages are declining they are still twice what I made as a Semiconductor equipment field engineer.  (they were almost THREE times as much)

rated:
RedWolfe01 said:   tuphat said:   
jerosen said:   Seems that it is pretty hard to prove a age discrimination case. Employers can always find other reasons for their hiring/firing practices.

If PwC was ONLY hiring from college campuses then that would seem to be defacto age discrimination though.

  One of plaintiffs' allegations is that PwC used only campus-based recruitment to fill ENTRY-level positions.  Since plaintiffs were not of college age and not currently"connected" to any university, they allege PwC policy amounted to age discrimination.  Plaintiffs also allege they were asked in interviews about working with & for younger people.  Surprising that HR allows questions like that to be asked.

  
Unless you can show me a college that won't admit older students then this whole argument is pretty much a dead end.  (hint:  I was 24 when I enrolled in college and 28 when I graduated)  

If the job is designed for a college graduate as a minimum requirement and really no experience (ie intern) then how are you going to argue about them recruiting from colleges?  

MOST companies don't hire highly experienced people for entry unless they are coming from another industry and starting over and that is still a hard sell unless your old industry pays really low like mine did.  It takes WAY to much time to beat bad habits and re-train.  The problem is that a skilled experienced person WILL have issues taking orders from someone half their age with less.  Even if they take orders they will have a habit of working solo or taking over a project indirectly.   

That is why they promote from within, they can filter out the people that don't fit the mold they want at each level.
)



Well that all makes sense.

But it all adds up to age discrimination in hiring.

rated:
riznick said:   
user1337 said:   Public accounting firms don't hire older people because

1) their work experience is irrelevant
2) they can't work 80 hours a week
3) someone that wants a career change like that at that age generally means they made poor life choices and are probably not qualified intellectually


I don't know why this got a lot of red.  He was stating things that go through employers minds, not whether the reasons are valid

I'd add to the list:
4) they are just taking the job temporarily while they search for another job.
5) they are overqualified
6) they wont be as energetic
7) they might not look as appealing,  Don't hire someone with a wig.  You can't trust them!


I have a few "woman owned businesses" clients in the finance industry (loan processing stuff).  Coincidentally, all the employees are women.  Whenever I get a new point of contact, it's also a woman.  I've wondered if I should tell a male friend to apply at one of those places and see if he gets rejected.  I'm sure he could claim gender discrimination and it would be very difficult for them to disprove when there's 40 women and 0 men working there.  I wouldn't do that, though.  I have no ill will and don't actually want to see anything bad happen to them.

  It got red because it was not phrased as "Here are some things that employers think", but just stated as a fact. I'm not sure if user1337 was just trolling this thread or just made a mistake in phrasing. Either way deserves red.

rated:
jerosen said:   
RedWolfe01 said:   
tuphat said:   
jerosen said:   Seems that it is pretty hard to prove a age discrimination case. Employers can always find other reasons for their hiring/firing practices.

If PwC was ONLY hiring from college campuses then that would seem to be defacto age discrimination though.

  One of plaintiffs' allegations is that PwC used only campus-based recruitment to fill ENTRY-level positions.  Since plaintiffs were not of college age and not currently"connected" to any university, they allege PwC policy amounted to age discrimination.  Plaintiffs also allege they were asked in interviews about working with & for younger people.  Surprising that HR allows questions like that to be asked.

  
Unless you can show me a college that won't admit older students then this whole argument is pretty much a dead end.  (hint:  I was 24 when I enrolled in college and 28 when I graduated)  

If the job is designed for a college graduate as a minimum requirement and really no experience (ie intern) then how are you going to argue about them recruiting from colleges?  

MOST companies don't hire highly experienced people for entry unless they are coming from another industry and starting over and that is still a hard sell unless your old industry pays really low like mine did.  It takes WAY to much time to beat bad habits and re-train.  The problem is that a skilled experienced person WILL have issues taking orders from someone half their age with less.  Even if they take orders they will have a habit of working solo or taking over a project indirectly.   

That is why they promote from within, they can filter out the people that don't fit the mold they want at each level.
)



Well that all makes sense.

But it all adds up to age discrimination in hiring.

  I don't think it adds up to age discrimination.    There are many perfectly valid reasons not to hire someone with a lot of experience for an entry level job.  Its done all the time.  Mainly the point of it is, if you have someone with a lot of relevant experience trying to get a job for an entry level position at a prestigious firm, there is a reason they want that position, and generally its b/c they aren't very good, have bounced around lower quality shops for years and never broke into management level, b/c they suck.

I worked at a Large public accounting firm, just under the size of Big 4.  We recruited entry level exclusively from college campuses.  I personally interviewed a number of 30+ year olds getting out of college looking for jobs, and we hired some of them.  It happens.  We hired experienced people for the senior associate positions and didn't get hung up on age.  However, honestly the positions aren't for the old and tired.  They take a lot of energy to do those hours, travel etc.  I did it for 11 years, those were 11 hard years.  I couldn't imagine starting out doing it now at 37 with 2 kids, only if i hated being home with my family.  

rated:
Chrisk327 said:   
jerosen said:   
RedWolfe01 said:   
tuphat said:   
jerosen said:   Seems that it is pretty hard to prove a age discrimination case. Employers can always find other reasons for their hiring/firing practices.

If PwC was ONLY hiring from college campuses then that would seem to be defacto age discrimination though.

  One of plaintiffs' allegations is that PwC used only campus-based recruitment to fill ENTRY-level positions.  Since plaintiffs were not of college age and not currently"connected" to any university, they allege PwC policy amounted to age discrimination.  Plaintiffs also allege they were asked in interviews about working with & for younger people.  Surprising that HR allows questions like that to be asked.

  
Unless you can show me a college that won't admit older students then this whole argument is pretty much a dead end.  (hint:  I was 24 when I enrolled in college and 28 when I graduated)  

If the job is designed for a college graduate as a minimum requirement and really no experience (ie intern) then how are you going to argue about them recruiting from colleges?  

MOST companies don't hire highly experienced people for entry unless they are coming from another industry and starting over and that is still a hard sell unless your old industry pays really low like mine did.  It takes WAY to much time to beat bad habits and re-train.  The problem is that a skilled experienced person WILL have issues taking orders from someone half their age with less.  Even if they take orders they will have a habit of working solo or taking over a project indirectly.   

That is why they promote from within, they can filter out the people that don't fit the mold they want at each level.
)



Well that all makes sense.

But it all adds up to age discrimination in hiring.

  I don't think it adds up to age discrimination.    There are many perfectly valid reasons not to hire someone with a lot of experience for an entry level job.  Its done all the time.  Mainly the point of it is, if you have someone with a lot of relevant experience trying to get a job for an entry level position at a prestigious firm, there is a reason they want that position, and generally its b/c they aren't very good, have bounced around lower quality shops for years and never broke into management level, b/c they suck.

I worked at a Large public accounting firm, just under the size of Big 4.  We recruited entry level exclusively from college campuses.  I personally interviewed a number of 30+ year olds getting out of college looking for jobs, and we hired some of them.  It happens.  We hired experienced people for the senior associate positions and didn't get hung up on age.  However, honestly the positions aren't for the old and tired.  They take a lot of energy to do those hours, travel etc.  I did it for 11 years, those were 11 hard years.  I couldn't imagine starting out doing it now at 37 with 2 kids, only if i hated being home with my family.  



I understand the "overqualified" argument and its the one (kind of) valid argument that can let employers  get away with age discrimination.   It is still kind of a stupid argument in my opinion, but people use it.

Declaring people are too old to do the job is age discrimination.      

I get that the companies in question crack the whip and over work people and expect 80 hours of work.     I'm under no delusion that the average 50 year old is able to work 16 hour days as easily as the average 22 year old.     But I don't know if this argument would hold any water in court especially if theres no way to measure a 50 year oldss ability or desire to work long hours versus a 22 year olds.    And I'm not even sure that the companies have any right or legal basis to expect the 50-80 hour weeks out of their employees.   I know the routine is to get that based on the system, but I don't know if a court would consider that a valid legal job requirement.  (I'm honestly not sure on that part).   Are the jobs advertised as requiring 50+ hours a week?   
 

rated:
Chrisk327 said:   I don't think it adds up to age discrimination.    There are many perfectly valid reasons not to hire someone with a lot of experience for an entry level job.  Its done all the time.  Mainly the point of it is, if you have someone with a lot of relevant experience trying to get a job for an entry level position at a prestigious firm, there is a reason they want that position, and generally its b/c they aren't very good, have bounced around lower quality shops for years and never broke into management level, b/c they suck.

I worked at a Large public accounting firm, just under the size of Big 4.  We recruited entry level exclusively from college campuses.  I personally interviewed a number of 30+ year olds getting out of college looking for jobs, and we hired some of them.  It happens.  We hired experienced people for the senior associate positions and didn't get hung up on age.  However, honestly the positions aren't for the old and tired.  They take a lot of energy to do those hours, travel etc.  I did it for 11 years, those were 11 hard years.  I couldn't imagine starting out doing it now at 37 with 2 kids, only if i hated being home with my family.  

  This is entirely the problem. Assumptions are being made about older workers, rather than giving them an equal opportunity.

I've done the Big 4 for 10 years, and honestly, wish there were more older workers at each level. They might've helped push back on Partners for work/life balance and inefficiency issues (of which there are MANY) given their experience working at other places. Instead, the younger workforce takes the beating due to being both naive and optimistic. Experienced workers are less willing to be taken advantage of, that's why the Big 4 avoid them.

rated:
I work side by side with a guy in his late 50's or early 60's. He routinely puts in 10+ hour days. He comes in on weekends.
Nobody asks him too. He's just a workaholic.

I've never worked long hours my entire career. When I was 22 years old fresh out of college I went home at 5 .. maybe 5:30 just for appearances. They only make me work hard enough not to get fired.

But if someone were to look at my old 22 year old self and my 50+ coworker they'd often decide that the 22 year old guy is more able to work long hours and not hire the 50+ guy.

rated:
Wow didn't expect snowflakes who get triggered on FWF. Boy times have changed.

rated:
user1337 said:   Wow didn't expect snowflakes who get triggered on FWF. Boy times have changed.
That's what happens when you are experienced

rated:
The whole concept that older workers are a protected class and thus we need to discriminate against young workers is morally flawed.

Employers should be able whoever they deem the most qualified candidate, whether it is someone out of college or someone older with experience. All these frivolous lawsuits do is prevent companies from hiring Americans and rely on staffing firms. 

rated:
brettdoyle said:   The whole concept that black workers are a protected class and thus we need to discriminate against white workers is morally flawed.

Employers should be able whoever they deem the most qualified candidate, whether it is someone from the suburbs or someone from the hood. All these frivolous lawsuits do is prevent companies from hiring Americans and rely on staffing firms. 

Wait , what?

Skipping 24 Messages...
rated:
gatzdon said:   
rufflesinc said:   
ZenNUTS said:   Curious, what career was she trying to switch into?
I'd also like to know what career she was trying to switch out of

  Don't remember where she came from, but her new degree was Chemical Engineering (great job prospects in the 90's)

it's not in the aughts?  

  • Quick Reply:  Have something quick to contribute? Just reply below and you're done! hide Quick Reply
     
    Click here for full-featured reply.


Disclaimer: By providing links to other sites, FatWallet.com does not guarantee, approve or endorse the information or products available at these sites, nor does a link indicate any association with or endorsement by the linked site to FatWallet.com.

Thanks for visiting FatWallet.com. Join for free to remove this ad.

While FatWallet makes every effort to post correct information, offers are subject to change without notice.
Some exclusions may apply based upon merchant policies.
© 1999-2017