How can you be over the hill at 50?

Last week I bumped into an old friend's son. He just graduated from university and is looking for his first job. I asked him how it was going and he said something that reminded me of the time when I was looking for my first job 25 years ago. "It's the classic dilemma. No one wants to hire someone without on-the-job experience but there is no way to get that experience without some employer taking a chance on you."

And if you want you can take it a step further. Once you have had years of priceless experience, you are often past a desirable hiring age!

I started to think about it and then I started to get angry. While I don't clearly remember the effort involved in getting my first job more than two decades ago, I definitely know what it feels like today now that I am almost 50. In the employment world, I might as well be dead.

I don't look 50, even though I am not really sure what a 50-year-old should look like. And more important, I have gained a lifetime of valuable experience over the past quarter century. Why don't employers value that?

It is a sad statement on society. How often have I heard that older people, who have both the experience that is needed desperately and the qualifications, are being rejected on account of the fact that they are over 50? I know computers. I know social media. I know how to roll up my sleeves and get the job done at all costs. I am not restrained by young children at home. You would think that that would make me valuable. It doesn't.

This problem of “ageism" is happening throughout the Western world. In many places, such as the European Union, it is illegal but that does not mean that it doesn't continue to exist there.

There are good people out there who are looking for jobs, but they simply can't find them. They have strong skills. They have extensive experience. They have maturity. I think that one of the biggest concerns is that employers are worried that older employees won't "fit in" to their corporate culture. And I also think that they are worried that, at our age, we have less working years ahead of us than we have behind us. Ironically, I think you could fairly assume that an older employee is more likely to stay with the job longer than a younger employee who is still climbing the corporate ladder and looking for the next best thing.

I also believe that older employees have been stereotyped as being too set in their ways and less adaptable to news ways of doing business. Why anyone would think that is beyond me, but I do not doubt that many employers share that worry.

And finally I suspect that some employers worry that older job applicants will be over-qualified for the job that are seeking. I am sure that many younger managers worry about how they would deal with an older, qualified employee – rather than realizing what they could learn from that person.

So, what's the solution? Consulting work. Freelancing. Volunteering. Part-time work. Anything that gives you a chance to use your hard-earned skills with people who will appreciate them – even if it is only for the short-term life of a specific project. You won't get a long of job security going this route, but you will be able to keep working and contributing to society.

Someone forgot to oversee the Equal Pay Act

Last week marked the 40^th anniversary of the enactment of the Equal Pay Act in the UK. We should be in a position to look back and marvel at how far we have come in the past four decases. However, the only thing we can truly marvel at with respect to women’s progress in the area of equal pay is just how far we have fallen short of our goal.

Forty years later and women in the UK still earn an average of 16.4% less than men.

According to a recent inquiry by the Equality and Human Rights Commission the finance sector is one of the worst culprits. Women there, working full-time, earn up to 55% less annual average gross salary than their male colleagues.

The worst part is what the research suggests that there were reasons for the ongoing gap. Employers are still stereotyping women: women are caregivers first and foremost; their prime responsibilities lie outside the office; and so on.

How can the workplace in a so-called first world country like Britain, be so out of touch with reality? A study by the Women and Work Commission that shows that improving women’s participation in the labour force is worth between £15 billion and £23 billion to the British economy each year. If that’s not worth correcting such a blatant wrong, I don’t know what is.

A BBC news article from June 2009 stated that women are out-performing men in almost every aspect of university achievement: they get more of the places in top universities; they get higher grades: they get more placements in law and medical schools. Yet, once all that education is behind them, the grim realities of life set in.

The UK perceives men to be more valuable.

While the new government says that it will promote equal pay, frankly that is not enough. The changes have to be more drastic. If women do equal work – which they often do – then they should be paid equal wages. It isn’t rocket science. One’s gender – just as one’s religion, colour, race, ethnicity, or sexual orientation -- should have no bearing on the pay schedule. If you can do the job then you should be paid the going rate.

While the media has been focusing on the lack of female representation in UK boardrooms, I think that the problem is more fundamental than strategically placing a few women in executive positions. The problem is systemic and the system has to change now. If women need more flexible work conditions ... so be it. As long as the same work is done the details should not influence pay rates.

Isn’t it ironic that on 7 June 1968, 850 women machinists working at Ford in Dagenham went on strike for equal pay after discovering they were being paid 15% less than men for doing the same work. Today, that would be an improvement in circumstances for many women.

New UK Cabinet Criticised for Lack of Diversity- Posted by Eve David (London)

It’s much worse than a glass ceiling

The old saying holds as true today as it did years ago: the more things change, the more they stay the same. And while the new coalition is the first of its kind in a generation, Prime Minister David Cameron has still managed to miss the mark.

While many women’s groups are already complaining that there are only four women in cabinet – and only two running government departments – the larger issue is the overall whiteness and upper class composition of the cabinet.

Yes, Britain now has its first Muslim woman sitting in Cabinet and that’s a step in the right direction. But the larger question here is why did Mr. Cameron choose so many of his cabinet members from Oxford and Cambridge backgrounds (16 out of 23)? And then he turned around and said it wouldn’t be an old boys club. How could it not be?

And why does Mr. Cameron believe that the only people qualified to run the country are public school graduates who probably have not experienced most of the problems experienced by the majority of the UK population today?

Unemployment. The need for flexible working conditions. Childcare. Economic downturns. Poverty. These are not the primary concerns of the upper-class. However, they are the concerns of an overwhelming majority of Britons.

It seems to me that Cameron has chosen to maintain the same elitist old boys club that has overseen the running of the country for the past several centuries. This newest round of ministers has virtually no minority representation, no knowledge of the immigrant experience, and definitely no worries about where their next meal will come from.

It is interesting to note that both Tony Blair and Gordon Brown had more representative cabinets. And what about the fact that both the Indian and Pakistani communities represent a sizeable slice of UK society today?

The more things change, the more they stay the same. What a wasted opportunity.

http://www.mydiversity.com/news-and-links.aspx