ADEA

dusty moshier

In transition planning, one factor that is often considered is how long the replacement would be able to fullfill the duties of the position. Obviously, one of those factors in that decision is age (probably). It still seems logical and reasonable to include longevity as part of the discussion in deciding who the successor in the transition process would be. My dilema is obvious. How do you legitimately exclude, but still include, age in the decision making process? Your thoughts would be appreciated.

Don D

[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 12-04-02 AT 08:20AM (CST)[/font][p]My thought, Dusty, is that to make any employment decision whatsoever based on age is illegal, as you know. You can not legally make a decision based on how long a person might be able to remain in a job before retirement any more than you can make a hiring decision based on the applicant's age. Conversely, let's assume your company gives the job to a young woman who jogs daily, is the epitomy of youth and health and is a kick-ass glass ceiling breaker who you think will last 15 years in the job and the next day she's dead of a heart attack. I'm not one of them, but there are grandmothers and granfathers on the Forum who will be here when lots of us are dead and gone. Obey the law. And that doesn't mean quietely using the age factor in your decision but telling the candidate a lie about why he didn't get the job.

Gillian

This is the dillema of succession planning. Your possible successors should include everyone who has the skills to do the successor job and if you plan training programs to increase the skills of potential successors all qualified individuals should be provided the training without regard to anticipated longevity, meaning age. When the time comes that the succession has to take place, that decision too, must be made without regard to age. If the person chosen at that time retires a year later, you won't have lost much if you have more than one person in the wings.

Theresa Gegen TX

First, you have to eliminate from your mind that age and longivity are the same. They are not.

In fact, a younger person may very well be more mobile than an older person and jump ship for a different employer. A younger person may have an illness that prevents them from continuing working. A younger person may just quit for personal reasons.

It is okay, if a person has announced "I am retiring in 6 months" to not promote them to a position where you want someone to be around for a few years (that is not based on age -- that is based on the person's stated plans). Just like it would be okay to not promote a younger person who says "I'm going back to school full time in 6 months to get my masters degree."

It is not okay to assume than an employee will retire at 62 or 65 and will not be around to fulfill the duties a year from now.

People are staying healthier longer and working longer. I know attorneys who are in their 80s and are still practicing. And the law does not allow you to consider age as a factor.

Good Luck!

Pork

Dusty, all before me have written proper words and have given the right advise. Obviously, some one in your organization is pressuring you in HR to resolve these concerns by stretching the truth. Your position has got to always be with the law and be forceful, and stand your ground against all who would say one thing and do another. Your career as a long standing and reliable HR person will be hinged by your beliefs and actions within the law. Protect your personal self worth by knowning the HR law field and manageing within the law. I am one of those older guys! The owners have personally told me not to be planning on retiring anytime soon, they like my wisdom and actions. I am 61 and growing older everyday, but I love to come to work and take care of the HR business for the leadership of this company. If there is a younger person around that can out work me then I will recognize it and willingly step aside. Good luck to you Pork