Finding an Audience

Finding an Audience
By David Glenn Cox



With our failing economy it is hard for the press and publications to find an audience. It is even harder for a political party to find an audience. This is especially true of political parties whose stand on social issues tends to favor older voters. So what is a political party to do? Where can it find wedge issues to attract younger voters?

It started when the Murdoch Street Journal began with the premise that employers are laying off younger workers out of a fear of age discrimination lawsuits.

"Employees in their 20s and 30s are finding themselves more at risk of a layoff, according to labor lawyers, as employers look to avoid age-discrimination lawsuits by adopting a 'last one in, first one out' policy and turn to tenure as a means of conducting layoffs."

Of course the premise isn’t true; it's only an attempt to generate heat, to pit one generation against another. This was quickly picked up by CNBC who called it “Corporate America’s War on the Young.”

Think heavy percussion behind it you when you hear it, Jim Cramer's senior writer Cliff Mason begins this way. “The war on the young continues, and we keep losing. Not only do young people make less money than our timeworn, seasoned peers, not only is it harder for us to get hired in this atrocious job market, now, to add insult to injury, we're also getting laid-off with more frequency than workers with greater quotas of senescence.”

I would let it go as just neo-fluff, conservative non-speak railing about daisy quotas or the war on Christmas, but as a fifty plus worker I am compelled to set things straight. My father was the senior chief project engineer for a very successful company. The equipment he designed had earned accolades. But right after his sixtieth birthday the company decided to hire a new engineer as his assistant to “lighten his load and bring in fresh blood into the company.” This new engineer had just turned forty; after three months they promoted him to associate chief project engineer and six months later my father was terminated by the company.

The associate chief project engineer was then promoted to senior chief project engineer. The reason for my father's termination was a generic “Too many mistakes.” Of course the company was unable to cite any examples, and as my father's domain was in new products, mistakes were part of the learning curve. But in any event he was out on his ass.

He began looking for new employment and soon discovered the age dilemma; he was too experienced for many positions and too steeped in age to be brought in by another company. By the time he would have become acclimated to a different corporate structure it would be time to retire. Many of his friends and coworkers maintained he should sue for age discrimination. Finally, after much prodding, he went to see an attorney.

After evaluating his story the lawyer explained that his case sounded very good but that proving age discrimination was difficult; it had to be more than just coincidental. But the company had undergone changes in senior management and it appeared that they just had a preference for younger men. The case was promising but the lawyer offered these harsh words of advice, “Are you ready for retirement? Because win or lose you’ll never work again; no one will hire an employee who sued his last employer for discrimination."

But CNBC views it this way, “Okay, let me get this straight. Companies are firing younger workers because the legal system is stacked against us now? That's what this means, don't kid yourself about a level playing field. If companies are more likely to be successfully sued by older workers when they enact 'headcount reduction' plans, even though you can probably find someone younger to take the same job for less pay, something is very, very wrong.

This is so screwed up I'm having trouble getting my brain around it. Because older workers are paid more, then companies that want to save money but fear the wrath of the legal system, will have to lay off more total employees than they otherwise would.”

Yes, something is very wrong, Mr. Mason, and it’s you! If it can be proven that younger workers are let go at higher rates than their older coworkers, which I doubt, the reason is probably couched in their versatility. Your boss, Jim Cramer, is a treasure trove of knowledge because of his years of experience. Experience is not a subject that can be degreed, company policies are set and years later no one remembers why except the guy with experience who remembers the beating the company took or the lawsuit that nearly capsized the company in its infancy.

“This is so screwed up I'm having trouble getting my brain around it. Because older workers are paid more, then companies that want to save money but fear the wrath of the legal system, will have to lay off more total employees than they otherwise would.

Here's a thought for any corporation that's still in the business of capitalism: if you want to achieve cost savings by cutting back on your workforce, get rid of the people with 'seniority.' You won't have to fire as many because on average they have higher salaries than younger workers. And, let's be honest, if these are white collar jobs that involve computers, why the heck do you have anyone over 30 working for you in the first place? People who are still trying to figure out how to use the Xerox machine do not belong in front of a keyboard, unless it's the keyboard of a typewriter.”

Mr. Mason, you make the case which you protest; those people invented the Xerox machine. You achieve the most cost savings by removing the least effective workers from the mix. They are usually spotted and identified by their doing the least and complaining the most about how they are not being treated fairly by the company. For the last several years employers have been forced to modify their behavior because of Generation X employees. They must be given extra time off and not be criticized when they come in late or leave early. They don’t want to wear a suit and tie just because the job description calls for it.

It is the employees over forty who must wrestle with America's fractured health policy. A heart attack can cost a company's insurance carrier upwards of a quarter million dollars. They wouldn’t keep the old geezers if they weren’t worth it. In many cases they are forced to chose between geezers or watch their premiums soar. The last company I worked for had only two employees under thirty, yet we were required to carry maternity coverage in our policies.

Now why should I have to pay for snot-nosed brats who don’t have the good sense to put on a condom? If you want children, pay for it yourself. You see, the war could go both ways.

But there is no war, just the partisan media trying to create a fire by rubbing two twits together. I’m sure Fox News will pick up this story and run with it, but like the war on Christmas it is all in the eye of the beholder and pundits and politicos looking for an audience.

They look at people as expenses, instead of Capital. No one in his right mind throws away capital, or mistreats it and neglects it.

People are capital. If you didn't need them, that's one thing. If you don't treat them well, they break down or leave. If you can't afford them, then you aren't a viable business anyway.

warm bodies that could do the work. Didn't matter if you were in the U.S., India, Mexico, Brazil.