I had the misfortune of being made redundant when I was pregnant with my daughter (the council withdrew the scheme funding, so it was legit).
Around the time she was one year old, I was really struggling to get back into work, so I rang a small local business, and told him I would work for free, for a month, if he gave me a chance. I had continued with my AAT throughout maternity, and so I then worked for him part time, so I could still go to lessons. It was uphill all the way, but I wasn't prepared to accept being fobbed off, so I just kept at it.
When I struggled to be taken seriously by the 40-50 year old male clients, I learned about man subjects and bought a sport car, and a motorbike, to create talking points and get them on side. Sounds ridiculous but it actually worked!
I think you have to be savvy rather than sit down and moan about it, or expect someone else to figure it out for you. You have to work doubly hard to prove that you are better than anyone else they are going to see. It is what it is, unfortunately
-- Edited by FoxAccountancyServices on Tuesday 1st of October 2013 02:19:44 PM
Thought that I would throw this elephant thats been sitting there in the corner of the room out there for general discussion as its obviously something that is applicable to many readers but not a subject that gets much coverage on the site where perhaps it should considering our demographic.
There have been instances on this site where people have stated that they would not hire someone over a certain age.
Conversely older professionals come to the table with more life experiences to draw upon.
There are a huge number of people who spend their lives working dilligently only for the companies that they have devoted their lives to to go belly up leaving them still feeling in their prime and ready for new challenges but regarded by business owners as too old to consider for positions.
Why is that?
Certainly I think that the training companies would concur theat there is no shortage of people in this age group retraining into this business.
Many would love to find employment but employers are not even considering them leaving self employment as the only option for them even though that is not the direction that they wanted to go in.
So the real question here (now close to my own heart) is how do we get more people who are 50+ with the right skills and attitude to work into employment.
I should just note here that personally I'm not looking as quite happy as I am but it does worry me that people are putting their resundancies into retraining only to not even get acknowledgement letters from the roles that they apply for and ending up going self employed by default rather than choice (which, of course creates the problem of too many cooks for the rest of us).
Any idea's? comments? observations?
__________________
Shaun
Responses are not meant as a substitute for professional advice. Answers are intended as outline only the advice of a qualified professional with access to all relevant information should be sought before acting on any response given.
I personally think it is quite short sighted to hold back from employing an older person..they are more likely to be loyal, and grateful of the job enough to pull out all the stops. These young whipper-snappers will get the training they need and move on. I have seen it time and time again.
I was in a similar position when I was looking for work after my daughter was born. Stupid thing was, I had a mortgage and a child to upkeep.. I had obligations that meant I had to work hard for my employer in order to keep my job and pay the bills. I felt that made me a safer bet than some 20 year old or someone who was married with a second income to fall back on
Even 10 years on, I was told by one company, in an interview, that they wouldn't have taken me on because I had a child, but given that I had proved I could handle it (by working full time for the previous 10 years), they were willing to overlook it!
I am not saying all young people aren't loyal, or that married people don't take their job seriously (just before someone jumps on that!) I am just saying that there's no guarantee with anyone, so discriminating is pointless.
I think everyone is experiencing similar problems right now. I have a friend who is 32 and has worked for one company since uni. He is now being made redundant and is struggling with not even getting acknowledgements to applications.
Unfortunately it's the way of things right now. I was in a similar boat when I was made redundant and saw self employment as one of the few options open to me. I wouldn't change that now, but at the time I'd have preferred to get another job.
I agree there is a problem, but it's not restricted to over 50's.
Hi,
If i was looking to employ someone i would go for the older person who will have more to offer that a younger person as they will have far more practical experience as well as far more life experience but also as Kris points out it seems to be the way of things at the moment as there are more people chasing the same job so it could be that someone younger with more qaulifications is getting the job over someone who is okder but is on paper not as qualified.
I am not sure what the answer would be but perhaps the government needs to do more to promote older people as employable,they are having a big push on apprenticeships at the moment so why not do something for the people at the other end of the line.
Thought that I would throw this elephant thats been sitting there in the corner of the room out there for general discussion as its obviously something that is applicable to many readers but not a subject that gets much coverage on the site where perhaps it should considering our demographic.
There have been instances on this site where people have stated that they would not hire someone over a certain age.
Conversely older professionals come to the table with more life experiences to draw upon.
There are a huge number of people who spend their lives working dilligently only for the companies that they have devoted their lives to to go belly up leaving them still feeling in their prime and ready for new challenges but regarded by business owners as too old to consider for positions.
Why is that?
Certainly I think that the training companies would concur theat there is no shortage of people in this age group retraining into this business.
Many would love to find employment but employers are not even considering them leaving self employment as the only option for them even though that is not the direction that they wanted to go in.
So the real question here (now close to my own heart) is how do we get more people who are 50+ with the right skills and attitude to work into employment.
I should just note here that personally I'm not looking as quite happy as I am but it does worry me that people are putting their resundancies into retraining only to not even get acknowledgement letters from the roles that they apply for and ending up going self employed by default rather than choice (which, of course creates the problem of too many cooks for the rest of us).
Any idea's? comments? observations?
I totally agree Shaun, in the main the reason for this is redundancy and the fact people due to the way of the world at this time automatically assume that at 50 plus they will not be considered into employment with new or established companies. We recently met with the ICB new marketing team who are young dynamic graduates who are up to speed with the modern technology of social network sites like Facebook and Twitter who were making tweets while sitting in the meeting, and the old school amongst us including myself find all of this to be problematic inasmuch it takes a lot of time to get to grips with how all this works, the younger generation who can text a paragraph in less then 10 seconds and are bought up with the use of computers from such an early age it is to them second nature. Of course the position of the job on offer can also have a lot to do with it. However if it came to employing a young graduate or a wise well oiled 50 something then for me it is a no contest? It is the mature for me all day long as for reasons already mentioned on this thread which I don't need to repeat.
I am almost 50 and it worries me what I would do if I lost my job and who would employ me? Not the fastest at typing, not brilliant on social networks, no Tom Cruise and these 3 things could be considered just as important as qualifications or experience and as such I for now consider myself lucky.
Dave
-- Edited by Dave Campbell on Tuesday 1st of October 2013 07:49:03 PM
in a case where one person is more qalified than another regardless of age I think that the better qualifications provided matched to sufficient appropriate exp[erience even where such may be less than the older person would put the person with the greater qualifications ahead.
The issue though is where you have the qualified, experienced older person being passed over purely on the basis of age.
One has to wonder whether the issue is with the employers or the agencies not putting forwards older candidates for positions.
Michelle also hits on another very valid point in that employers also seem to discriminate against single parents on the assumption that god forbid one would dedicate time that could be spent at work during weekends, evenings and bank holidays tending to offspring.
It does seem that industry is in general approaching employment in a somewhat blinkered manner of looking at twenty somethings without other commitments and the Government are supporting that approach by focusing their attentions in that area.
Bearing that in mind, how do we get the single moms and over 50's who are every bit as qualified, dedicated and productive as those in their twenties into employment?
Is it perhaps time that there was an agency dedicated to the likes of people coming to this site who are studying towards a qualification that they are unlikely to ever be able to use as an employee even though they are being told that there are jobs in this field (which there are).
Do you think that it might be worth a letter to Steve and Ross (the site owners) about setting up a members CV library (area and contact details but no actual address details) that potential employers could view?
I know that we have a search facility for self employed members but just thinking of those who really don't want to be self employed and are getting nowhere with traditional agencies (where I believe much of the ageism lies).
Just putting it out there and welcome comments even if just to say that its a silly idea that would never fly,
Kind regards,
Shaun
__________________
Shaun
Responses are not meant as a substitute for professional advice. Answers are intended as outline only the advice of a qualified professional with access to all relevant information should be sought before acting on any response given.
Hi Shaun,
I think that the department for employment should have some responsibility to do something to make older people more attractive to employers perhaps giving those companies who take on single mothers and over 50's some form of payment as an incentive. However as you say this will not change the atttitudes of the recruitment companies .
I think that the cv library would be a very good idea as it could help people to find a job and there wouldn't be the need to go through a recruitment agency.
I do foresee at least two problems with the idea though in that many companies have tied recruiters plus how do we get the word out there to employers that this is the site to visit to find the right staff for their business?
Idea's?
I can see the bookkeeper search page in my head (qualification, qualification status (i.e. qualified, PQ), town / area, availability, leads to a list from which the employer can access CVs) but cannot think of how to get employers to go to it (I don't feel that it would be one of those build it and they will come scenarios but I could be wrong and that approach certainly worked for this site).
I can also see issues of people not updating their status when they have found employment so maybe it would need an auto monthly switch to unavailable / inactive unless overridden by the job seeker.
Age and whether one has children should not come into the criteria or the CV at all.
We should also try to work in some form of CV review service but not one of those sharks out there that are currently fleecing job seekers for virtually nothing in return,
And maybe a support service for those preparing for interview.
Mmm, great ideas but where does the money come from to pay for it!
Hope that this idea flies even though the premise is more than a little flawed on the financing front.
Shaun.
__________________
Shaun
Responses are not meant as a substitute for professional advice. Answers are intended as outline only the advice of a qualified professional with access to all relevant information should be sought before acting on any response given.
Lol Shaun the fact I said I am no Tom Cruise is an indication of my Age as this is someone who was considered hot in my younger years, which in itself indicates we all think as if still in our prime, Twitter can be a perfect marketing tool for business assuming you have the right followers and are following the right people, for example make a tweet to someone who has 10s of thousands of followers and they retweet it then is a micro second you have an audience of 10's of thousands of people, for a business this could prove priceless, lets say for example that the majority of Bookkeepers and Accountants were of a certain age then the opportunity to appeal to the younger market will be I assume looked into? Really interesting topic and one which will have positives and negatives with responses.
I remember the 70s and the home computers of the time and the game that that everyone had (tennis) and boy have we progressed since then, I do know Peter and your good self like your games so more up your street, so my reply had a lot of personal undertones but from a professional view point and as an advisor there are many times I am told by potential students (over 50s) that they are not adept on computers and I agree for the 100 that are not there are 100 that are?
At 50 plus if I had the chance to have a 25 year girlfriend would I say no lol? And as a company would I want a 50 someone to front my business or someone young and zestful? Ageism, Sexism the way someone looks, talks, walks, writes, dresses it all matters to an employer does it not?
The younger generation should understand that it is as you say the older generation who invented the things that they are now enjoying, the older generation should understand that you are never too old to learn and with knowledge and wisdom to boot then this will make them more than just employable! But invaluable.
Dave
-- Edited by Dave Campbell on Tuesday 1st of October 2013 09:23:51 PM
One of the problems may be with our recent degree-obsessed employment culture. Because the standard of education has fallen spectacularly (has it? I don't know, but that's what we're constantly told), a degree is now seen as the equivalent to O Levels, or A levels at a push. So, many employers insist on a degree when 10 years ago they would have happily accepted lower qualifications.
And there are now so many people applying for each job that employers have to find a way of whittling down the amount of suitable applicants. But of course, when the people who are now in their 50's grew up, many went straight into a job, or an apprenticeship at 16, instead of swanning off to university.
So if the criteria is based on holding a degree first, many people 50+ are not even going to be considered.
It's difficult to believe that companies could be that short-sighted, but here's an example: at a large Midland-based car company, if you want a clerical job you have to have a degree. It doesn't matter what in: a student with a degree in the history of windsurfing will pass this first barrier to employment, but someone with 30 years of experience in the industry but who started work at age 16 on an apprenticeship scheme doesn't get considered at all (that's a true story, by the way!) So, 30 years of industry experience trumped by a bog-standard degree!
Of course, the next barrier IS experience: so many graduates fall down at this hurdle themselves because they didn't get any relevant work experience during their time at uni.
I appreciate that employers have to weed out the applicants somehow, but if experience in the field doesn't count as even equal to a degree, let alone be seen as superior, then many more 50+'s are going to struggle.
Michelle, it's awful that even in this day and age women are discounted purely because of their genetic inheritance of baby making equipment. And Shaun, maybe you have a different experience, but for most men, from an employers POV, children are seen as a plus: they bring a need for stability in employment; whereas for women, they bring chaos and problems. I've worked in several areas with couples working on similar jobs, but when the child is ill, it is always the mother that is expected to go home (and then blamed for having time off, and compared negatively to the father who doesn't!)
Not sure that there are any easy answers out there, though.
Ahh, but even within your answer that was attempting to be fair there is stereotyping.
Picking up on the line about baby making equipment I think thats an outmoded issue in a time when it is corporate policy that 40% of board members should be female.
The issue now that women should be up in arms about is that they are being promoted on the grounds that they are female in order to make up quotas rather than as the best person for the job.
Basically somewhere along the way it went from totally unfair to women, whizzed past fair and ended up so far on the other side that it does a disservice to the very people that it was supposed to help.
On a linked note I've actually been in meetings about employee intakes where higher qualified and experienced able bodied people have been passed over for inexperienced disabled people in order to meet quotas of disabled staff in order to meet coporate KPI's.
Yes I can fully understand the disabled being given a chance but why should a more qualified able bodied person suffer because of it? (I almost ended up at fistycuffs with a representative of a charity to get blind people into work over that issue of positive dicrimination as they just could not see the unfairness of it from the able bodied persons perspective).
On the children line I was using Michelles example of being discriminated against because she had a child. Personally I've not encountered that as an issue.
There is however a serious issue in the UK in that the legal system is geared towards the mother. The craziest bit that I came accross is that child benefit always goes to the mother even if the child is solely with the father and never see's the mother! You actually have to get a letter from the mother requesting that the child benefit goes to the father.
Sort of defies the fact that it is supposed to be a benefit for the child really doesn't it.
kind regards,
Shaun.
__________________
Shaun
Responses are not meant as a substitute for professional advice. Answers are intended as outline only the advice of a qualified professional with access to all relevant information should be sought before acting on any response given.
Ahh, but even within your answer that was attempting to be fair there is stereotyping.
I think stereotyping is inordinately hard to break out of, for both genders. There are so many assumptions and so much gendered thinking out there...as a societal norm we fail to see it (or I do, often!)
Picking up on the line about baby making equipment I think thats an outmoded issue in a time when it is corporate policy that 40% of board members should be female.
"Published by the Cranfield School of Management, the report found that during the second half of last year the number of women appointed to boards of the 100 largest listed UK companies fell from 44% to 26%, whilst female appointments to the boards of the next 250 largest UK listed companies also fell from 36% to 29%."
Unfortunately women of child-bearing age are still seen as a potential problem, having to have time off for maternity leave and to look after sick children, and women 50+ seen to have time off due to menopausal symptoms and having to run round after sick parents. And the fact is, they are both true - but neither are the fault of the woman (although you could potentially say they are - that the women need to stand up in the workplace and make sure fathers/sons also do their fair share of caring as well. Not much to be done about child bearing, we'll have to leave that one to the scientists.)
The issue now that women should be up in arms about is that they are being promoted on the grounds that they are female in order to make up quotas rather than as the best person for the job.
Basically somewhere along the way it went from totally unfair to women, whizzed past fair and ended up so far on the other side that it does a disservice to the very people that it was supposed to help.
I agree - and I've heard this argument many times; but then can we say honestly say that the best person for the job always gets the job? I've heard time and time again the argument that the job should be given to the most qualified/experienced person, which is common sense. So tell me, is David Cameron, a PR guru, the best person in the UK to run the country? Is George Osborne, with his second class history degree, the best person to be Chancellor of the Exchequer? Was Gordon Brown a good Prime Minister? (I can go on and on in that theme but I'll stop there!). So we have to admit that many times, the best person does NOT get the job. Whether they are male or female. Changes need to take place, but I'm not sure rigid quotas for women are the answer. Very able men and women are losing out. Which takes us back to the theme of this thread - people aged %0 or over not being given a fair chance.
On a linked note I've actually been in meetings about employee intakes where higher qualified and experienced able bodied people have been passed over for inexperienced disabled people in order to meet quotas of disabled staff in order to meet coporate KPI's.
Yes I can fully understand the disabled being given a chance but why should a more qualified able bodied person suffer because of it? (I almost ended up at fistycuffs with a representative of a charity to get blind people into work over that issue of positive dicrimination as they just could not see the unfairness of it from the able bodied persons perspective).
I agree, that is foolish, and helps nobody in the long run. In fact I would imagine it fosters resentment and distrust. However if the disabled person is the best person for the job, then their disability must be discounted. Which I think it rarely is, unfortunately.
On the children line I was using Michelles example of being discriminated against because she had a child. Personally I've not encountered that as an issue.
Being either a housewife or self employed whilst raising my children, neither did I. But I heard plenty of stories from friends who were employed and had problems of the sort.
There is however a serious issue in the UK in that the legal system is geared towards the mother. The craziest bit that I came accross is that child benefit always goes to the mother even if the child is solely with the father and never see's the mother! You actually have to get a letter from the mother requesting that the child benefit goes to the father.
Sort of defies the fact that it is supposed to be a benefit for the child really doesn't it.
Yes. There are some fantastic fathers out there who would love to play a more active role in their children's life but business/society/the law makes it difficult for them. Children are made by both parents, and both should share the responsibility of raising them if they want to. Parents should both be able to have equal time off when a child is born (which would not only be better for fathers, but would level the playing field for women, and would probably work in their favour far better than quotas).
I suppose the difficulty with child benefit is that it has to be paid to someone, and historically it was the mother who used the money for money on food, clothing etc for the child. It is easily transferred though, I know that from the personal experience of bringing up a stepchild (as long as the mother is willing though!). If the money was paid into a bank account for the child that was accessible to both parents it could create even more difficulties in a divorce situation: I can't see an easy solution (perhaps you can!).
Yep, agreed, good discussion even if it has gone a little off piste.
Can't stand it where one attempts to hold a conversation like this with the politically correct where they say what they believe others want to hear rather than use common sense and realise that they are actually part of the problem.
Might be worth noting here that I'm actually a single parent with sole custody.
Neither of us can actually remember the last time that my boys mother could be bothered to even pick up the phone to say hi to him so basically a complete reversal of the general stereotype.
I got sole custody when he was just short of 18 months old and he's now almost 15.
We've dilligently been putting the child benefit into a cash ISA for him in order to help towards University and then they bring in these silly tuition fee's meaning that by the time he gets there 16 years of saving will be gobbled up inside a year.
Completely concur on the disabled line. If the disabled person is the best person for the job then their disability should not be counted against them. Its just the positive discrimination to make up quotas that angers me.
Actually, I would go so far to say that some of the disabled people that I have worked with in the past have been better than their able bodied counterparts as they have at times overcompensated but at times that tended to make everything a competition.
That said, where they are discriminated against or treated as though society is doing them a favour where the reality is that just because they may (for example) be in a wheelchair does not actually mean that they cannot add a column of figures but they are often treated as though a physical disability somehow transposes to also being a mental one.
Back to the original discussion though, the real issue we have is statistics.
The example above of quotas for women or handicapped or racial minorities or people with freckles. Everything is amount numbers rather than the individual and appeasing statistics to my mind is getting in the way of getting things right.
This is fun.... Your turn.
__________________
Shaun
Responses are not meant as a substitute for professional advice. Answers are intended as outline only the advice of a qualified professional with access to all relevant information should be sought before acting on any response given.
Responses are not meant as a substitute for professional advice. Answers are intended as outline only the advice of a qualified professional with access to all relevant information should be sought before acting on any response given.
There seems to be a belief that computers are the territory of the young and that to fifty somethings the whole idea of the internet is an alien concept.
The reality is that many in that generation have been using computers in a professional capacity since the 70's and have adapted to change. It is actually the 50 somethings who are the Bill Gates / Steve Jobs generation.
I don't use Facebook or Twitter because I don't like them and find the posted comments inane (I really don't want to know how long you just took doing a dump or what you had for tea).
The younger generation seem to judge those in their 40's and 50's as being in their 70's or 80's.
Actually, do you realise that Tom Cruise is now in his 50's? (he's almost exactly one year younger than me... And there any similarity ceases!).
One needs to think whether if the ICB's primary client base are from a different generation are their marketing team geared up to understand their target market? (again, don't answer that one).
If ever anyone tweeted whilst in a meeting at a bank they would have been dismissed on the spot.
Actually, I've seen that happen where someone was wearing in ear headphones at their desk and within two hours their desk was cleared and they were escorted off the premises.
On the no qualification front, sure that TL wouldn't notice you borrowing some of the training materials... For quality control purposes of course, lol.
talk later matey,
Shaun.
__________________
Shaun
Responses are not meant as a substitute for professional advice. Answers are intended as outline only the advice of a qualified professional with access to all relevant information should be sought before acting on any response given.
Nicely dodged on avoiding the ICB marketing younglings discussion. lol.
Back in the late 70's I was developing systems on IBM mainframes. Didn't move to PC's until late 80's early 90's. and yep my boys and I are a bunch of gamers.
On the dating someone half your age analogy thats quite apt (been there, done that) in that you have nothing in common, nothing to talk about and eventually they will leave you broke and looking for someone older who talks sense based on logic and experience.
Onto your last pargraph thats basically the thrust of this thread in that students are studying and gaining new knowledge in order to expand their horizons but they are not getting to interview purely based upon age.
Seems a little like the droids out of blade runner in that people have the knowledge and the experience but it seems that they also come with an expiry date.
That attitude has to be wrong and I think that the training companies and the second career professional bodies such as ICB and IAB should be at the forefront of trying to change peoples perceptions as to when old actually starts and its certainly not 50.
__________________
Shaun
Responses are not meant as a substitute for professional advice. Answers are intended as outline only the advice of a qualified professional with access to all relevant information should be sought before acting on any response given.
I like Tom Cruise, the only problem is he is too short!!!
I still think he looks good for a 50 plus man.
Anyway 50 isn't old (I'm not that old), loads of people are in their prime at 50.
If I worked with someone young who spent all of their time on twitter on their phone it would really piss me off. I don't think the young ones of today realise what hard work actually is. They have life too easy, in the kitchen they have the washing machine and dishwasher, so the thought of actually washing up horrifies them. 2 years ago we rented an appartment abroad for our holiday, now I knew it had a dishwasher as it was a friend of ours and she had told us, but I didn't tell my kids as I wanted them to think that they had to wash up on holiday, well to their delight after seeing the large American Fridge freezer in the kitchen, they quickly spotted the dishwasher!! They were happy bunnies that they didn't have to wash up on holiday. Its my holiday so this is a job that they have to do whilst on holiday, well mum needs a break sometimes!
Unfortunately degrees are two a penny now, even the high costs of going to Uni hasn't put people off, because they still want the experience and to party all the time. But on the other hand I do agree that sometimes a degree is a good thing and may help you get a job, also you need to have a personality and actually be able to string a sentence together. Too many kids today spend all of their time on computers etc that they don't go out and enjoy themselves and don't communicate in the real world, I know a text is easy and I do that myself, but in the 70's, 80's, 90's etc you had to actually pick up the phone! That's if you were fortunate to have a phone.
If I had to ever employ anyone I would certainly look at the older folk, as they are probably more reliable. I worked with a girl once she had a 1st in physics, well she had zero common sense and didn't have a clue, and didn't last long either.
Random thoughts - apologies if they've been discussed and dismissed before I got here.
20% of under 25s are unemployed
Young people are cheaper to dismiss than older people (assuming longer service)
Young people are "trainable" and "flexible" as opposed to "set in their ways"
Young people are cheaper to employ than older people
Young people are healthier and have fewer commitments to interfere with work than older people
Young people who are long-term unemployed are further away from retirement than older long-term unemployed
The number of vacant jobs is larger than the number of people looking for work; the number of those jobs that the available people are capable of filling is much smaller
Management worries that older people may have greater abilities than they have themselves
Currently, a "young" management team is seen as desirable, showing that the organisation itself is dynamic and forward-looking
Old people's experience is a marketable commodity; young people rarely have enough of that kind of knowledge to tout around
The above are all assertions on my part, not necessarily verifiable fact. I confess I am elderly and have continued to follow the self-employed option without even trying to look for an employed position. I became self-employed when I was in my mid 40s because it seemed to offer more security than being employed and fearing redundancies.
Some interesting observations. Some of which reinforce the arguement in relation to age discrimination and misconceptions.
One point that I would question is about the number of vacant jobs as I do not think that such is very area specific with the South seeing an upsurge not reflected in much of the rest of the UK but the South being where policies are made.
Maybe that is one of the more major issues in that for those without commitments it is easier to relocate... Mmm, it would be nice to think that it is the older generation that needs to be thinking about changing childrens schools etc. But the number of 14 year olds in my area pushing prams is ridiculous.
I actually know one girl who was a grandma at 27!... Actually, that was Manchester rather than here but still North of Watford gap so in that area where Westminster maps have marked as "There be dragons here".
I think that one of the key issues that you raise is about those doing the hiring fearing that they are hiring someone more able to do the job than themselves but they mask that under other imagined stereotypes in relation to age.
I still think that the worst assumption made by business is that if they hire someone who is 20 then they have the potential for 45 years of work whereas if they hire someone who is 50 then they have the potential for 15 years of work.
The issue though is that it doesn;t actually pan out that way as on average twenty somethings change jobs every 3 to 5 years whereas older workers trend to stick with a role until thrown or carried out of it so businesses are statistically more likely to keep an older person for longer.
Damn it. I've broken my own rule here. I'm using statistics and for the life of me whilst I know that I've read that I cannot remember the source so at best that should be considered hearsay and conjecture... Like the ICB statistics (which they will not publish the raw data for) on accountants not being able to do bookkeeping.
On the going it alone bit I first started working for myself back in 1990 after my first divorce (basically a couple of days after the absolute came through) doing the same sort of role that I had been in permanent employment but being paid far more money for it.
As it was the consultancy that I worked for folded about twelve months after I left meaning a couple of hundred consultants all hit the market at the same time so looks as though I got out just at the right time.
The other good thing was that when I left I transferred out of the pension. When the company folded it took its pension fund down with it so if I had stayed I would have lost the lot!
Right, enough waffling. Just check the other messages and then have to do something that someone will pay me for.
Talk later,
Shaun.
__________________
Shaun
Responses are not meant as a substitute for professional advice. Answers are intended as outline only the advice of a qualified professional with access to all relevant information should be sought before acting on any response given.
A great topic, and sadly as a late (38) career changer, one also close to my heart. I can pick up on a couple of points made above of which I feel I have direct experience.
Degrees and grades: I have lost count of the number of times I have spoken to recruiters about relatively junior positions such as Accounts Assistant, Assistant Management Accountant only to be told that they cannot put me forward as I have a 2:2. This is irrespective of the fact that in my previous profession incarnation I was an operation director, set up management reporting systems and made financial management decisions. I do not know the pressures that a typical recruitment agent is under but I distinctly get the impression that I am worth their time. And they are certainly not going to spend time highlighting my experience to a potential employer.
Young are cheaper to employ: I spent six months as an unpaid intern at a small local accountancy firm. Despite the financial constraints, it was a good experience. With the amount of client work I did I hesitate to think I was anything less than good value. I now work couple of days a week another firm earning £10/hr. It is hardly extravagant. I recognise that this is career for the rest of my life and it is essential that I take every opportunity to learn. I am sure a lot of career changers feel the same way.
