Getting Ridof the Gray

Will age discrimination be the downfall of downsizing?

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


John Kelley, 48, had worked for Pacific Telesis for 23 years when the company fired him in a downsizing last December. Two weeks later, a company that contracts out engineers to PacTel offered him a freelance job.

“Who would I work for?” Kelley asked.

“Edna Rogers,” answered the caller.

Kelley burst out laughing. Rogers was the supervisor who had just fired him. “That was my job,” he explained. “You’re trying to replace me with myself.”

Kelley’s not the only one, says Mark Thierman, the lawyer representing Kelley and 1,468 other downsized PacTel employees in a $1.6 billion suit against the company. At the same time that PacTel eliminated 1,469 employees, it hired about 1,700 contractors. About 20 percent of them, Thierman estimates, were former employees hired back to do their old jobs — but without benefits. By firing Kelley two and a half years before he became eligible for his full pension, PacTel saved some $337,000 in pension payments and avoided the cost of the lifetime health insurance guaranteed to the company’s retirees.

Like many other downsizing companies, PacTel targeted what it believed to be its most expensive population: older, more experienced employees entitled to generous benefits. Most of the 1,469 people fired were just a few years short of full benefit entitlement, Thierman says. The company saved an average of $326,632 per firing on pensions alone.

Age discrimination is the dark underbelly of downsizing: Older workers fall out of downsizing statistics. Companies describe their departure as “early retirement,” and, with new jobs hard to get, most quickly drop out of the labor pool. Job discrimination lawsuits (filed against, among others, Digital Equipment Corp. and IBM) dramatize the problem but understate it: Many corporate employers demand a promise not to sue before they hand out severance payments.

“When you lose your job, you’re very emotional. You need the money, and you can’t think straight, so you sign the release,” says Robert St. Germain, fired at age 48 after 11 years with Digital Equipment Corp. He refused to sign and is suing. (A co-worker, Joyce K. Finley, fired at 61, was awarded more than $500,000. DEC is appealing.) Younger managers in his department were given four to six weeks to find other DEC jobs, St. Germain says; his boss told him on Tuesday his last day would be that Friday.

Managers lay off older workers not only for economic reasons, but also because managers see them as less flexible and innovative. Ken Olsen, DEC’s founder and former president, campaigned for younger workers. At IBM, says Lowell Hofmann, downsized at age 49, “we had a bunch of younger people coming in and learning the job as we were being pressured to leave.”

A recent study by the American Association of Retired Persons shows few employers have amassed any detailed information about the cost or productivity of older workers. In fact, says the AARP study, employers claim they recognize the commitment of older workers — workers like St. Germain, who continues to believe DEC played straight, blaming his treatment on “junior managers.”

“I really loved working there,” St. Germain says. “I just want to be reinstated.”

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate