With the Summer, the time for recruiting interns is here, and this year I have a new case:
[Small explanatory note: in Portugal, unless you're highborn - at which time you'll start your career close to the top - you will start your career in the lower echelons of a company and must muscle your way up, regardless of your education level]
One of the applicants is a 34-year-old woman, who has simply zero professional experience. She has two degrees, a postgraduation, a Masters' degree and some extra stuff. Basically, the only thing she has done so far in life is study, nothing else. And she isn't married, which means she probably lives with relatives.
Usually these kinds of people stay in Academia for life, but for some reason she has applied to join us. I'm quite amazed, since she will start work doing basic data collection and earning a crap wage [actually, we call it a 'scholarship', so that we don't have to pay taxes for what we pay our interns].
Now, the (mostly) young applicants have been on trial for a month now, and it's time to decide who will stay longer. I haven't accompanied the procedure myself (I will only make the approvals), but the guy who did follow them wrote on his review of her, and I quote: "(...) she is dedicated, nice and enthusiastic. But she is 34 years old."
I am interpreting this as a plea NOT to hire her. Which I can understand, because people here tend to be intimidated by age, and she will go to such a junior area that her supervisor is only 26 years old.
In fact, her immediate three hierarchical superiors will all be younger than she is. I would be the only one older.
In part because I am older than she is, I feel that I can look at her in a different light. She doesn't seem bad to me, but there is a general fear she will 'crack' under pressure or that she may not take orders from younger (but more experienced) people.
Needless to say, I have to think of the integrity of the company and avoid a situation where needless tensions may arise. I am, therefore, inclined to let her go. Yet...
It would be a bit improper for me to just call and meet her directly, but I may ask one of her hypothetical superiors to have a meeting to see what are her motives to be with us (I never spoke to her personally besides the typical 'welcome to the company' stuff on the first day) and see if she could be of use or if she is just trying something to keep busy/make money before going to study more.
What are your thoughts on the situation? I will not lie and say I might be very influenced by them, but I'm actually interested in hearing every possible opinion.
Freaking porkchops, you guys wanna be Chinese or what?
Hire her.
No shit. Give the woman a job.
Quote from: Martim Silva on August 12, 2009, 05:11:17 PM
In part because I am older than she is, I feel that I can look at her in a different light. She doesn't seem bad to me, but there is a general fear she will 'crack' under pressure or that she may not take orders from younger (but more experienced) people.
Why would she crack? Getting that far in academia takes a lot of work.
I think the younger bosses should grow up, stop whining and learn to deal with people older than themselves in subordinate positions.
You used to get this attitude in big law firms. Most people would get hired right at age 25 or so (after doing a 4 year bachellors, and a 3 year LLB/JD), so anyone who went to law school later in life was viewed oddly. And a lot of the same criticisms were made - that they can't handle the long hours, that they won't be able to take directions from supervisors that are actually younger than they are.
Except it turns out that in almost every case that extra age and experience made them better lawyers.
If she's good, hire her regardless of age.
How on Earth do people do this?
Even doing a masters I feel a bit like I'm just putting off life. To do a second degree and all that?
I have heard though in Germany (or so Germans tell me) the government showers you with study-support money until you're 30 or so so people do tend to milk this for all its worth and very rarely look for work pre-25.
Similar in Portugal?
Isn't agism against the law these days? I'm sure I've heard mutterings about people wanting it to be at least. Just ignore that. Her supervisor can take it badly or he can take it as proof of his awesomeness that he has a underling older than him.
So in other words you view an older qualified employee as a bigger problem than supervisors who can't handle managing somebody older than them?
Quote from: Faeelin on August 12, 2009, 05:28:59 PM
So in other words you view an older qualified employee as a bigger problem than supervisors who can't handle managing somebody older than them?
Yeah, pretty much.
Yeah, it seems to me that the younger people who complain about the age are feeling threatened. Perhaps that's enough of a reason not to hire her, but the issue lies with the insecure people already at your company rather than her.
From my experience, having your supervisors deal with older underlings can actually have a beneficial effect on their development as supervisors, because it makes it much harder to treat an older underling like shit. I know it worked (at least partially) for me and the fact that my secretary is significantly older (about 10 years or so).
Plus older people usually make less stupid mistakes.
Quote from: Faeelin on August 12, 2009, 05:28:59 PM
So in other words you view an older qualified employee as a bigger problem than supervisors who can't handle managing somebody older than them?
I may have some prejudice against someone who gets to their mid 30s without having worked a full time job. But by the sound of it the woman sounds like she is good at what she does and is genuinely interested in it. A supervisor who can't handle having her on the team is probably the one who should be let go.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on August 12, 2009, 05:38:47 PM
I may have some prejudice against someone who gets to their mid 30s without having worked a full time job.
And I have some prejudice against snotnosed 21 year old college grads that haven't accomplished dick in their lives other than binge drinking and date raping in college, so there ya go.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 12, 2009, 05:43:29 PMAnd I have some prejudice against snotnosed 21 year old college grads that haven't accomplished dick in their lives other than binge drinking and date raping in college, so there ya go.
What sort of prejudice? :huh:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 12, 2009, 05:43:29 PM
And I have some prejudice against snotnosed 21 year old college grads that haven't accomplished dick in their lives other than binge drinking and date raping in college, so there ya go.
Phew. You weren't prejudiced against me then.
Quote from: Jacob on August 12, 2009, 05:46:57 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 12, 2009, 05:43:29 PMAnd I have some prejudice against snotnosed 21 year old college grads that haven't accomplished dick in their lives other than binge drinking and date raping in college, so there ya go.
What sort of prejudice? :huh:
The absolute worse kind.
This thread makes me all warm inside.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 12, 2009, 05:43:29 PM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on August 12, 2009, 05:38:47 PM
I may have some prejudice against someone who gets to their mid 30s without having worked a full time job.
And I have some prejudice against snotnosed 21 year old college grads that haven't accomplished dick in their lives other than binge drinking and date raping in college, so there ya go.
There ya go indeed. I think higher ed is just a bubble. Lot's of these people shouldn't be in college in the first place, let alone graduating. I've had them work for me, seen their writing. Even mid terms are full of grammatical and spelling mistakes.
Seems to me a fair number of them woujld be better off getting a job for a few years and learning time management and maybe a trade.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 12, 2009, 05:43:29 PM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on August 12, 2009, 05:38:47 PM
I may have some prejudice against someone who gets to their mid 30s without having worked a full time job.
And I have some prejudice against snotnosed 21 year old college grads that haven't accomplished dick in their lives other than binge drinking and date raping in college, so there ya go.
I was a 25 year old college grad that hadn't accomplished dick in his life, thank you very much. :mad:
Quote from: Barrister on August 12, 2009, 05:51:40 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 12, 2009, 05:43:29 PM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on August 12, 2009, 05:38:47 PM
I may have some prejudice against someone who gets to their mid 30s without having worked a full time job.
And I have some prejudice against snotnosed 21 year old college grads that haven't accomplished dick in their lives other than binge drinking and date raping in college, so there ya go.
I was a 25 year old college grad that hadn't accomplished dick in his life, thank you very much. :mad:
And look at you now. Pleated pants.
I REST MY CASE
Quote from: Martinus on August 12, 2009, 05:37:13 PM
Plus older people usually make less stupid mistakes.
Unless it's computer related, then they make more.
Quote from: HVC on August 12, 2009, 06:20:31 PM
Quote from: Martinus on August 12, 2009, 05:37:13 PM
Plus older people usually make less stupid mistakes.
Unless it's computer related, then they make more.
You kids and your "leet" skills.
Quote from: HVC on August 12, 2009, 06:20:31 PM
Quote from: Martinus on August 12, 2009, 05:37:13 PM
Plus older people usually make less stupid mistakes.
Unless it's computer related, then they make more.
Nah, not in my experience. They may be slower but they are more careful.
Hell, hire her on for the autumn. See how she does in 3 months or so. My best employee is a 63 year old woman doing the book laminating. I hired her 5 years ago and now I can't run the place without her. :lol:
is she hot? :)
Quote from: Caliga on August 12, 2009, 07:03:47 PM
is she hot? :)
Think with the head on the top, and not with the head near the bottom
I'm not really thinking at all. :blush:
Getting rid of her just because of her age sounds stupid. If her special situation leads to other concerns, then it may warrant further consideration.
I've had bosses younger then me. They like having the old guy around. He's more focussed, puts up with less bullshit, and brings other experiences and knowledge to the table.
It doesn't seem like she has brought baggage. so hire her.
How difficult is it to fire someone in Portugal?
Quote from: Martim Silva on August 12, 2009, 05:11:17 PM
Now, the (mostly) young applicants have been on trial for a month now, and it's time to decide who will stay longer. I haven't accompanied the procedure myself (I will only make the approvals), but the guy who did follow them wrote on his review of her, and I quote: "(...) she is dedicated, nice and enthusiastic. But she is 34 years old."
Is it wise to leave written evidence that you guys are discriminating her based on her age? :unsure:
I'm going to go against the grain on this one. I am immediately suspicious of someone who does nothing but study until they're 35 years old. It's like a convict who doesn't know how to cope on the outside so he keeps committing crimes to go back in jail where he's in his comfort zone. Does she have any real-world experience at all? Has she had part-time work over all these years at least?
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 12, 2009, 09:22:36 PM
I'm going to go against the grain on this one. I am immediately suspicious of someone who does nothing but study until they're 35 years old. It's like a convict who doesn't know how to cope on the outside so he keeps committing crimes to go back in jail where he's in his comfort zone. Does she have any real-world experience at all? Has she had part-time work over all these years at least?
Isn't she in an entry level position?
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 12, 2009, 09:22:36 PM
I'm going to go against the grain on this one. I am immediately suspicious of someone who does nothing but study until they're 35 years old. It's like a convict who doesn't know how to cope on the outside so he keeps committing crimes to go back in jail where he's in his comfort zone. Does she have any real-world experience at all? Has she had part-time work over all these years at least?
I agree with you, but it's not like she's completely fresh. People at the company are already familiar with her capabilities at work, and they seem happy with them. It's not like you're taking a chance on someone who could be incapable of working in the real world by now.
I don't think it should be a matter of whether she is good enough. It should be whether she is among the better ones in the group of interns.
Quote from: Monoriu on August 12, 2009, 09:32:04 PM
I don't think it should be a matter of whether she is good enough. It should be whether she is among the better ones in the group of interns.
Of course, but since the age is the sticking point, my assumption was that performance-wise she is one of the better ones.
I have a cousin who finished her PhD in psychology at 32 and then got her first "Real" job as a counselor at Duke University. She hated it because all the people she dealt with had problems.
I would urge caution over hiring anyone with so much academic experience and so little industry experience.
Quote from: Savonarola on August 12, 2009, 09:54:04 PM
a counselor at Duke University. She hated it because all the people she dealt with had problems.
:lol: what did she think the job was going to be about
If she has proven to be good at that entry level position and she seems to be content with it, then you should hire her, at least your 20-something supervisors would get some apparently needed experience like Marty said (altough I dont think you need to treat your underlings as shit by default, that has to be some Polish thing).
The couple of people older than me whom I supervised in the past seemingly had no problem with that situation and in fact were by far the easiest to handle.
Quote from: Tamas on August 13, 2009, 03:25:26 AM
If she has proven to be good at that entry level position and she seems to be content with it, then you should hire her, at least your 20-something supervisors would get some apparently needed experience like Marty said (altough I dont think you need to treat your underlings as shit by default, that has to be some Polish thing).
No, it's a homo drama queen thing. :P
Think of it this way: since she's entering the workforce of the company at a later age than many of her peers, she'll save the company money in the long run by not working as long as someone younger.
You Chinky Portuguese goof.
what's your company anyway?
There are all kind of reasons for not entering the workforce until a relatively later age, and IMO it's totally acceptable to query such a person accordingly.
There are those that have kept on studying because they prefered the sheltered life of the student, those that simply didn't know what to do with their careers and just kept on studying, those that are hell bent on overqualification, those that aimed at an academic career and dropped out for one reason or the other, etc. It doesn't have to translate necessarily into not being able to cope with a work, although it can warrant a certain level of caution.
I don't understand how this can be so new to you guys in Portugal. Here at the other side of the peninsula it is fairly common to have older underlings. Most chief or project engineers are in their late 20s or early 30s, the electricians, plumbers and such under them being usually significantly older.
I know several people that haven't had a job till their late 20s or 30s. Most had the civil service exams as their objective. One is now a diplomat, a couple are tax inspectors, another one is a judge ... and those who didn't pass the exams now face life as a 30 something without experience.
Hire her if she has performed so far. Diversity can only do you good I think.
Well, all things pondered, I am now trying to get more information about her past and intentions.
I have asked the section head (the guy who did the review is on vacation atm) to conduct interviews with the interns [all of them; I don't want to seem to be favouring anyone] as to why they want to join us and their long term prospects.
I did specify her as unusual, so I told him to see if he can get her to give us more background on her.
(I suppose he will take some days to go around the five interns. We will be keeping two, btw)
As noted, the issue with her is not merely a matter of age - we hire plenty of people that age and older every year. But they all have had careers and we know who we hire [and not for junior jobs]. The issue is that she reached 34 with *nothing* to show for. Which raises questions.
Like MadImmortalMan said, the main one is the risk that she was merely afraid/not wanting to work and delayed her entry into the workforce as much as possible, using her studies as an excuse and just leeching from her parents. That would mean such a person could be too used to having a comfortable life and would not adapt well to the needs of the industry (such as having too much control over her schedule, or being able to 'skip' classes whenever she wanted, or of not really suffering consequences if she made serious errors, etc).
If her performance review said that she paid little attention/arrived late too often/slept at her desk [we once had an intern who did this], I wouldn't even had made this thread - she'd just be sent packing at the end of the month and nothing else. But the appraisal said otherwise, so I readjusted my preset ideas and am willing to give her a chance, if I can get a better indication she is not in this for some odd reason [like just staying for a year to afford a PhD or so].
Another issue is that, at her age, people have at least 10 productive years behing them already. Why hasn't she held proper Academic jobs while she took her postgraduation and Masters? With her qualifications, she could already be a teacher at a University. Even the lowest post-associate teachers of those make about... seven times what she'll make it here, so the motive why she chose us is dodgy. Did she fail to connect to people while studying? Or was it something else?
A third problem is that we can't really tell if she had previous side job while studying. Over here, McJobs and other nonpermanent positions carry a heavy social stigma, so people just delete those from their CVs.
The fourth issue is indeed about her would-be superiors. I can force her hiring, but I do not want to upset them. They are the people who help me run the department, and having several subordinates upset with your decisons is a very bad career move (middle managers are incredibly powerful in that they can actually veto many decisions just by 'finding' complications, having delays, communications problems... if more than one join forces, they are daunting). Managing managers is actually the hardest part of managing.
Also, I do try to think of us as a team - so if I go ahead with this I will have to work with them and their problems even more than they will have to work with her and her possible issues.
(besides, while last year the head of our brokerage was the convenient scapegoat for all because his unit was responsible for about 80% of our losses, so far this year he is running stellar numbers. Which means I cannot afford to have an underperforming department).
Answers:
Yi, in Portugal if a worker becomes part of the staff then they become impossible to fire unless they agree to it. The law forbids firings by the employer (what some companies do is send pink slips and pray that the employee doesn't know the Law and actually believes he/she has been fired. I don't do that kind of shit.)
Caliga, she is plain-looking. So much so that I even wonder if, should I look 'plain-looking' up I wouldn't find a photo of her.
IKK, for obvious reasons I will not say who we are (you might be able to identify me), but I can tell you that you have been seen us on the news a lot lately. WAY too much, if you ask me. But at least I'm better than my friends at BPN*. When we have dinner meetings, I now say that they work for a gardening company, so that people at the restaurant don't give us angry looks. :P
* BPN is a portuguese bank which went under in November '08 because the credit crunch revealed that its CEO robbed billions from it. To prevent the collapse of the national financial system, our goverment nationalized it at a grievous cost to the taxpayers.
Quote from: Martim Silva on August 13, 2009, 05:22:29 PM
Yi, in Portugal if a worker becomes part of the staff then they become impossible to fire unless they agree to it. The law forbids firings by the employer (what some companies do is send pink slips and pray that the employee doesn't know the Law and actually believes he/she has been fired. I don't do that kind of shit.)
Wow, WTF? :blink:
Quote from: DGuller on August 13, 2009, 05:29:47 PM
Quote from: Martim Silva on August 13, 2009, 05:22:29 PM
Yi, in Portugal if a worker becomes part of the staff then they become impossible to fire unless they agree to it. The law forbids firings by the employer (what some companies do is send pink slips and pray that the employee doesn't know the Law and actually believes he/she has been fired. I don't do that kind of shit.)
Wow, WTF? :blink:
And they say Portugal is a real country. :lol:
Can't fire someone for incompetence or being a total fuckup? This is just the kind of socialism that the US is headed for with Obama. Let's learn something from our Euro-commie friends and plan for a 2012 regime change here in the US.
Quote from: Martim Silva on August 13, 2009, 05:22:29 PM
Well, all things pondered, I am now trying to get more information about her past and intentions.
Her past and intentions? She's an applicant for a job, not a double agent.
Douchebag.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on August 13, 2009, 05:49:27 PM
Let's learn something from our Euro-commie friends and plan for a 2012 regime change here in the US.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flatimesblogs.latimes.com%2Fwashington%2Fimages%2F2008%2F05%2F16%2Fhillaryposter.jpg&hash=4335d1789ff91bca6f53c21679f7041145a145b4)
THe tree of liberty must occasionally be refreshed by the blood of Jaron.
Or perhaps:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.salon.com%2Fopinion%2Ffeature%2F2003%2F02%2F07%2Fpaglia%2Fstory.jpg&hash=94c94c1efe9e93faae070a5166f67e709288eea7)
Paglia/Palin '12
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 13, 2009, 05:51:44 PM
Her past and intentions? She's an applicant for a job, not a double agent.
You reminded me that, early this decade (pre-9/11), we did end up hiring a double agent.
We only started to notice it when some of our stuff was sent to our clients with different texts that said the exact opposite of what we wanted to say. The first time we thought there had been a major goof, the second time it was too weird. We got lots of complaints.
Our folks kept saying they never wrote those texts [and they kept the originals to prove it], and their chiefs confirmed that they had absolutely not overseen anything of the sort that was sent out.
We eventually got to the conclusion that we had a saboteur amongst us. I cannot describe the feeling.
The solution at the time was to secretly install surveillance cameras that covered all the angles of the vital rooms at all hours. We eventually spotted that one of our latest employees (he was with us for about one year now) managed to slip into certain computers when nobody was watching - and dammit, there should have been somebody paying any attention - and occasionally totally changed a text. He was working for our rivals.
And to top it off, we had to pay him well to make him leave, since we could not make the incident public (it would lead to a major loss of trust amongst our clients). Hugely embarrassing and career-wrecking.
So, now you gave me something else to worry about. Our rivals would not use someone that would attract attentions... or would they? :unsure:
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros
Can't fire someone for incompetence or being a total fuckup?
Not really. Last year the government created a clause that allows firing for "inability to adjust" to new technologies, but for it to work basically the employee needs to totally refuse to work with computers... if he/she even shows willingness to learn, then firing is out of the question.
There are four motives that an employer can use to fire:
a) go bust for good. Then the employees will have no more jobs.
b) Make a collective firing (over 5 people at a time), but you MUST be able to prove that you need to do it to remain afloat. Otherwise, the firings are nullified.
c) Eliminate that job altogether. But you must then prove that the employee cannot/will not take up other functions anywhere else in the firm. And you cannot hire somebody for a position that even resembles the one you eliminated for a whole year, else you'll be fined.
d) Prove that he/she is a threat, either physical or to the company's finances. To do that, you need to move a disciplinary procedure and prove three different instances where the person did what he/she is accused of. And every accusation has to have at least three different witnesses to it [i.e. it's impossible and you might as well offer a large severance pay to make the employee accept to leave and start collecting unemployment subsidy].
To top it off, the labour courts are the only part of the judicial system which isn't corrupted in this damn country and actually do their work swiftly. The number of cases won by companies against their employees in the last 35 years is exactly zero.
As a result, often most foreign companies find it easier to just secretly flee the country overnight and leave their employees wondering what happened to the buildings when they arrive to work on monday...
Do we have a credible source as well?
Is this Portugul or is it hell? Damn.
Quote from: Martim Silva on August 13, 2009, 05:22:29 PM
IKK, for obvious reasons I will not say who we are (you might be able to identify me), but I can tell you that you have been seen us on the news a lot lately. WAY too much, if you ask me. But at least I'm better than my friends at BPN*. When we have dinner meetings, I now say that they work for a gardening company, so that people at the restaurant don't give us angry looks. :P
* BPN is a portuguese bank which went under in November '08 because the credit crunch revealed that its CEO robbed billions from it. To prevent the collapse of the national financial system, our goverment nationalized it at a grievous cost to the taxpayers.
If you are not worse than BPN you can't be BPP, so the only shitty-marketing bank is BCP...
Or aren't you in banking?