IT Employment

Ask something
Discussion Locked

Does Age Discrimination Really Exist?

0 helpful
44 replies

by tmcclure

Closed to new repliesThis discussion is closed. It stays readable, but it takes no new replies.

I was in a forum called "How Satisfied Are You With Your Current IT Job?" Several posts mentioned that they had experienced age discrimination. This really struck me. I always thought age discrimination doesn't exist. That it was all in your head. Perhaps it is because it is a lack of confidence. Or, you realize your getting older and don't like it. I know I have felt that way once or twice.

All the while also thinking about how satisfied I am with my job. Like all jobs, mine has its ups and downs. But once in a while I get the urge to see what else is out there. And I have to admit I think about my age. Being 48 years old I am still naive about people. So how do you know you?re a victim of age discrimination when looking for a job? How prevalent is it and how real is it?

44 replies

by beads

Certainly, age discrimination exists on a number of levels. The easiest example is that of the cliche': How do I get experience if no one will give me a chance? Thats generally age discrimination, albeit to the younger side not the generally (older) age discrimination usually portrayed.

Now that I am in my 40s I can say that I have seen both the "too young" and "too old" sides of age discrimination in the IT field. When I started I was too young and "didn't know anything" as much of the IT pros out there were in there late 30s and beyond. After the dot com bust I found myself being "too old" and "unable to keep my skills up to date. Not!! My skills were up to date along with that hefty salary base that experience brings as well.

Though I never inherently look at a persons age when hiring there have been times I have passed on someone because of age but only to a slight degree. Generally, the more critical a project the more I am going to look at the rate of completion and dedication that an individual brings to the table. Sometimes hiring someone a bit more mature is a good thing in this direct because they have a better work ethic. Sometimes, family gets in the way. Most of the time it just comes down to who can do the job most adequetely.

However, it certainly does happen all the time.

- beads

by amcol

Volumes could be written on this subject but let's keep it simple.

There are those who discriminate against others because of a prejudice. It's essentially a rejection of another due to a condition of their humanity...age, race, gender, religion, eye color, height, whatever. People who hate need no rational reason for that hatred. They only know they hate.

There are those who disciminate situationally and find interesting ways to rationalize it. A manager decides not to hire a highly qualified candidate on the basis of the applicant being older, rationalizing that another less experienced person can perform the fundamental job responsibilities for less money. Or, on the basis that the group the applicant will be joining is composed solely of 20-somethings and a 50 year old won't fit in. Or, because the 30-something manager is threatened at the idea of managing someone old enough to be his/her father, or that an older worker will immediately be after his/her job. What makes this interesting, in a pathetic and demented kind of way, is that the manager usually fools him/herself into thinking they're actually doing the right thing.

I could go on and on and on but you get the idea.

It's an age old human condition that we prefer to be with people we perceive to be like ourselves, and reject those we deem different. This is not a dynamic that will ever go away. All we can do is become more educated and objective about it, and fight it wherever we detect it. Best place to start is with ourselves...don't discriminate against others and set the right kind of example. You're the only person you have control over.

by sleepin'dawg

If you only need a warm body you go with youth but if the project is critical then you hire as much skill and experience as you can afford. BTW I classify myself among the old farts.

[b]Dawg[/b] ]:)

by firestar1

If you are hiring someone who is older for their experience and they also have the credintials then how can anyone call it age discrimination? I realize if they are older and have more experience along with the same credintials as a younger person, then the older person has the advantage, but you will be wearing the same shoes a few years down the line (speaking to the young whipper snappers,not the old farts) :)

by av .

Especially in corporate America, which has a younger culture. After you get to a certain age - 40 something - you may no longer fit in according to them. Plus, older more experienced people expect more money and raise their health insurance rates.

I lost my corporate job right after I turned 40 in a company bloodletting. They kept the younger people, even if they didn't know as much as I did. Of course, they offered me a generous severance package as long as I didn't sue them for discrimination. I took the package and moved on, but if I was able to afford not to take the package, I would have sued them. I now work for a smaller company that actually values older workers.

I think you know you're the victim of age discrimination when you have a great yearly review, get a nice raise and then end up being eliminated shortly thereafter.

by noyoki

Actually, I've had it the other way. I'm 25, female, and look about 16. (And even that is pushing it. I've gotten pegged at 12 quite a few times still.)

Finally, I found a company willing to "take a chance" and hire me over one other person (who, as I understand it, had a shady background). Sad to say that I think that's the only reason I got it. (That and I knew the person I would eventually be replacing, even though it wasn't actually her decision.)

People just don't bother to look past what I look like and I end up in the "rejected" pile.

.02c from a "whipper-snapper".

ps: you're only as young (or old!) as you feel!

by amcol

Here's a great example of reverse age discrimination. "You can't have the job because you're too old" is what we usually talk about in this category. You've been hearing "you can't have the job because you're too young". Works both ways.

It reinforces the point that it's all an excuse. We all have two choices...lament our fate, or do something about it. I'll take door number two. Good for you that you did as well.

by jaqui

and it goes both ways. ( as mentioned in other posts )

I find that it's often better to hire younger people, if you are only using latest and greatest equipment and are strictly an ms shop.

for ability to deal with reality for most businesses, older, more experienced people are worth the money it takes to get and keep them.
specially if you have a mixed os environment, or are completely non ms.

by amcol

Sometimes we are the architects of our own demise.

Jaqui said "I find that it's often better to hire younger people, if you are only using latest and greatest equipment".

I've found the same, and I go out of my way NOT to discriminate on the basis of anything. The reality is that IT professionals who get into their 40's or even 50's and are still coding or assembling equipment have become stuck in a comfort zone. We can fool ourselves into thinking that wisdom spawned and nutured through long experience makes us better at our jobs than those who come after us, but the incremental value of that experience in lower level jobs is simply not cost justified. You can say you're willing to spend your peak earning years at a compensation level equivalent to that of your junior colleagues, but no company will buy that line nor should you be willing to sell it.

We must continually evolve to avoid being marginalized. Commodity skills, those that can be applied identically in any environment, are not what differentiates us as professionals. Think of yourself as a product for sale...would you buy the same product offered 25 years ago, when there are newer products on the market? No matter how great the old product was? When the new products can do the job better, faster, and with less breakdowns? I know how cold that sounds, but reality isn't the warm fuzzy place we'd like it to be.

Should we blame companies for discriminating against older workers who refuse to develop new skills, who think that their value lies in having 30 years of experience when in reality they've had one year of experience 30 times over? I don't.

by firestar1

So, let me get this right. You're saying the older more experienced workers are actually using technology dated 30 or so years ago? They are incapable of learning and/or utilizing new technology?

by tracy_anne

quote::Should we blame companies for discriminating against older workers who refuse to develop new skills, who think that their value lies in having 30 years of experience when in reality they've had one year of experience 30 times over? I don't.::quote

And what about companies that take your line that older people are by definintion stuck in a rut, are unwilling or unable to develop new skills.

I've been in this industry for over 25 years, and I've reinvented myself half a dozen times (developed new skillsets), and yet, because I'm over 50, I am by definition incapable of aquiring new skillsets.

I was an early adopter of .NET, and yet, when the jobs were advertised for .NET developers, I was passed up for younger people, in spite of my experience in general, and the fact that I had had put in the hard yards learning everything I could about the new technology.

I had no trouble getting work with the older technology.

Yes we should blame those comapnies. We should blame for stereotyping, we should blame them for having human resource departments who know nothing about the technology they are hiring people to work with, we should blame those companies for placing a low value on experience, we should blame those companies for placing a low value on the people they hire, in general.

by jaqui

I wasn't saying that I would never hire someone younger, I merely meant that when they do get hired, they need to be taught how to work with the older equipment, on top of job duties.
while an older person will probably only need to learn policies for the company, they should have enough of the skills and experience to not become the clusterf|_|k seed until they get right up to speed.

I do agree, those who have not learned anything since they finished formal schooling are not going to be a viable hire, odds are they would only be looking for work if downsized though. [ they were comfort-zoned, no new job unless pushed into looking ]

by stargazerr

Age discrimination is everywhere ... however much people deny it.

More experience you have, more will be your employment cost and harder will it be for you to adjust according to the company's work pattern ...

]:)

by swgoldwire2546

This is the main reason why these companies and organisations wanted only those who has a business mindset to it!

-swg

by amcol

What you're describing is reverse age discrimination, hiring someone on the basis of the fact that they actually have all the battle scars and coffee mugs to attest to their many years of experience.

Age discrimination is more usually a term that refers to hiring younger workers who cost less.

It should be true that older workers have an advantage due to our experience, but unfortunately it's something that's usually held against us. Experience comes with a price, and companies are increasingly unwilling to pay.

The good news is that this trend will reverse itself of necessity over the next ten to twenty years. Profound demographic shifts are at play...as the leading edge of the baby boom generation retires there's a significant dearth of qualified professionals available to take our place, due to the baby bust. There will be more than enough opportunity for all, even factoring in the increasing number of trained professionals coming from India and China. As those economies grow and consumerism rises, goods and services will have to increase as a consequence. Opportunity will abound.

by amcol

I'm not making a general statement about older workers. I'm saying that there are those of us who get stuck in a rut, sometimes because we get comfortable with the technology or job we've become used to or because we're working for a company that has that attitude as a corporate culture (which is pretty much the same thing).

Older workers are just as capable as anyone of learning new ways of doing things, of becoming educated in the uses of new technologies and techniques. As a matter of fact we're more capable...we have the experience to go along with the smarts.

What I am saying is that anyone who doesn't take the initiative to move on, anyone who believes that whatever you learned in college will take you all the way through retirement, is kidding themselves. And if you think your employer is going to hand you opportunity on a silver platter, you're nuts. You have to go out and get re-educated, get the training, do it yourself. Don't get stuck.

by firestar1

You are right there. To remain competetive in any ever changing field you must continue to learn, keep updated with new technology, new information. I also agree that it is easy to allow yourself to get in a rut. Getting too comfortable in your ways when change is neccesary, and it almost always is, is self defeating and costly. Point taken.

by attackcomputerwhiz

Wouldn't you agree that, if they have been around for this long, they must indeed be learning new technology? Otherwise, the reality is that they wouldn't be around. Would you keep someone around who only knew how to work with punchcards and magnetic tape when everyone else is using thumbdrives and the latest programming languages? Hardly, so any argument about "old dogs" is a straw man for the real reasons!

As I said in another topic, all the HR people have to do is look at the date of your diplomas and degrees to decide if you are too old. You'll never be told the real reason why you were rejected, but that is part of the screening process in too many places. (In my case, the high school I attended was historically important, so when people see the name--even without dates--they know I had to have graduated more than twelve years ago as it closed in 1993.) It won't matter how many letters of the alphabet are behind your name, nor how recently you got those.

Spending $10,000 or more to get another certification when one is 50 or older is not going to help, except as an object of personal satisfaction. If you'll pardon the analogy: these days, there are too many companies out there who want "trophy brides" in their IT department, not the older sisters who can cook, clean, sew and still make you hot under the collar. (It is equally valid to all although I used the female gender.)

[Sorry for the rant, but I found out today that the lateral transfer (closer to my home town) I wanted was given to a younger person with little IT background!]

by amcol

Punchcards and mag tape are an extreme example, although I can attest to having seen these very things not two months ago in a data center out in Colorado.

There are still close to 1 trillion lines of Cobol code in production systems. Who do you think is supporting all that? There's still plenty of Fortran, and Algol, and PL/1, and APL, and even BAL. Who do you think is supporting all that?

There are thousands of mission critical applications in old versions of 4GL/DBMS systems such as Model 204. Same question.

And even when people take the time to learn new technology, oftentimes they develop and implement using age old techniques. I have a book in my library at home, which talks about inheritance and encapsulation and object oriented programming. The name of the book is "Modular Programming in Cobol" and the first edition was copyright 1964. People who came of age in my era but remained coders and developers who learn the newer languages conclude that there's nothing really new under the sun and end up doing things the same as they ever did.

I'll never argue that age discrimination doesn't exist, or that pound for pound most companies go for younger workers. That doesn't belie the fact that there are plenty of older workers who consciously chose to remain in their comfort zone, who consciously chose not to develop new skills, who consciously chose to stay in a field that is known for constant change yet thought they themselves need not ever change.

Change or die. Evolve or get trampled.

by tonythetiger

that there's nothing wrong with being comfortable, as long as everybody is.

We are a commodity, an asset, just like a piece of equipment or a software package, and management has to look at like that. Do we replace a piece of equipment just because there's a newer model out? Do we re-write an application just because we can?

There are certainly valid reasons for doing these things, but there's an old adage that still applies... If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

by jaqui

We have a commodity, called skills that employers want.
We have a commodity, called experience, that employers want.

but We are not a comodity ourselves.

by amcol

If you're comfortable with the idea of being a commodity then proceed accordingly.

However, to Jaqui's point, we as people are not commodities. Our skills are, but we are not. And therein lies the point...a commodity is a product, and an interchangeable one at that. In order to avoid being thought of as a commodity we must differentiate ourselves from our skills, and we must have skills that differentiate us from others.

You make it easy for your employer to think of you as a commodity if you provide a commodity output. If, on the other hand, you maintain skills currency and make the effort to be as expert in the business as are your customers, you provide a value added service that's harder to replace, principally because it is NOT a commodity...and neither are you.

Becoming comfortable with our jobs, our skills, our methods, and our situations is another form of ostrich management...putting your head in the sand and hoping things will be all right when you pull it out. You've ceded control over your own life and livelihood to others. Why would you do that?

by amcol

Here again, I'm not making a general statement about anything.

There are those who, as you say, stereotype older workers and don't understand their own technology. You should apply this statement to individuals, BTW, and not companies...it's the managers and HR departments and people inside the company that do these things.

However, there are also plenty of older workers who are very happy to go to work every day and do the same thing with the same technology in the same way, day in and day out. People who work for organizations run by enlightened managers (yes, there are some) who understand that among their most important duties is staff development, that enabling staff to gain new skills benefits everyone, should take advantage of that opportunity. In order to truly be successful, IT professionals must be equally proficient at technology and business. We must fully understand the business and have a complete set of business knowledge, something that takes a lot of time to develop. Companies shoot themselves in the foot by not understanding the value of that business knowledge, by engaging in short-sided thinking that says it's cheaper and more efficient to replace older workers with younger ones when technology changes because the cost of retraining, not to mention compensation, of the older workers is so high. They neglect to factor in the cost of lost productivity, which is hard to quantify and therefore easy to ignore.

You appear to be doing the right thing in making sure you keep your skills current, even if you've had less than positive experiences with employers valuing your efforts. That doesn't mean you shouldn't do it.

by jdoug03

It absoulutly does and I will go so far as to say if you are 50+ and have been out of work for 6 months or more then look for another field as in most instances you will not even be granted an interview. Leave off dates on your resume and you have a chance for an interview.

by emm757

The company I used to work for, actually had a written policy for people over the age of 40 which we were required to sign that we understood it before we could be hired.
People of that age group had to be content to stay where they were in that they would not even be considered for the job openings that came up almost every day. After applying for 10 such job openings I started checking into this issue. I found that every new hire, was about 20 years old. Every single one of them.
Age discrimination? Yes it happens far more than it should. But try to prove it.

by attackcomputerwhiz

All you need is a copy of that policy and you have your proof. If you have a personnel folder, you have a right to copies of everything in it, including that policy paper. Just tell HR you want it for your own records.

by m_a_r_k

For many jobs, you have peaked in terms of productivity after at somewhere around 5 years of experience. How much more useful experience will you gain after you've been working in the same job for 5 years? Compared to years 1-5, very little. So it only makes sense. Who would you rather hire? A 25-yr old with 4 yrs of experience at a salary of $45K, or a 45-yr old with 20 yrs of experience for $80K?

by bg6638

I've been a COBOL programmer for 30+ years with only an Associates Degree. After my last employer went bankrupt, most recruiters "deep six" my application, noting that I don't have at least a B.S. in MIS. Why all of a sudden is a B.S. required, when before an AAB with 5 yrs of experience was satisfactory? In addition to programming, I've done networking with Microsoft products since the early days of DOS.

My last interview was with a consulting firm where if I was hired, I would have been 15 years older than the next oldest person on staff, and I am only in my early fifties!! I could tell immediately when I sat down with the owner, that I was not the person that they wanted, as he kept stressing "new technologies".

by amcol

Take it or leave it, it's free so you're getting what you're paying for.

You say you have experience with MS products but you obviously define yourself as a long term Cobol programmer. The fact that you have an AAS and lack a BS is completely irrelevant, but it seems pretty obvious you've seized on that, and your age, as the reason for your employment woes.

Perception is far more important than reality. The message you think you're sending is this: I'm an IT professional with many years of experience, possessing a certain very strong area of expertise but with other skills to offer. The message I as an employer am receiving: you're a Cobol programmer, you've always been a Cobol programmer, you'll always be a Cobol programmer. You're change resistant and that validates every stereotype I have of older workers, that they're all stubborn old codgers who think they know everything and can't be trained in anything new.

I'm not trying to rain on your parade, I'm just trying to give you a different perspective. You and I are in the same age group. I started out as a Cobol programmer 30+ years ago also, but the last line of Cobol code I wrote was in 1976. You should do what's right for you, but you ignore the perceptions and perspectives of others at your own risk.

I'd strongly advise you to repackage yourself. Rewrite your resume to focus on business value and don't mention Cobol at all. Only talk specifically about your "new technologies" knowledge, and when talking about your past successes only discuss application functionality and not the details of the code. You want to capitalize on your experience, but the portion of your background you're so rightly proud of is not what's going to get you a job. Package yourself as a senior technologist who can bring to bear years of experience on aligning technology with business strategy and you'll have a new job before you know it.

You don't have to betray your background or the things you like to do in life in order to be successful. You merely have to compromise a little, to accept the reality of the workplace. Life is not as we'd like it to be, it is as it is.

by mattit

I've never understood these arguments about discrimination of who is hired and who isnt.

Isn't everything a supervisor does discrimination? "You need a doctorate to work here" if I dont have a doctorate, he is discriminating against me by not giving me the job. Am I upset about this? No. The person that has a doctorate is in a position to help the company more, and for that reason they'll hire them.

Now suppose I go to the same place of business, and inform them I'm 47 and dont have too many years before I'm going to retire soon, and they need to pay me more than double what they would pay an intern out of college. Is it unreasonable for them to not hire me? The younger individual will help them more, and for that reason they'll hire him/her.

What I'm saying is that Everything is discrimination in the end. You need to find the place where you are under the right qualifications for the job. There is someone that is looking for a few years of Highly experienced work. They arent discriminating against anyone, they're just looking for a certain kind of individual. The more we throw around the term "discrimination" the more it de-legitimizes the credibility of the people that DID get the job, as well as promote preferrential treatment to those that don't necessarily deserve the job.

by amcol

Your example of lacking a doctorate making you a victim of discrimination doesn't track. If the fundamental job responsibilities require a doctorate, and you don't have one, then ipso facto you're not qualified. How is that discriminatory?

I sincerely doubt that hiring managers would take a pass on a 47 year old feeling you're too close to retirment. When do you plan to retire, at age 50? And, while we're at it, how do I know you're 47 in the first place? I'm not allowed to ask that in an interview and you're a fool to volunteer that information.

If you define discrimination as only hiring the best and the brightest, as only hiring people who are supremely qualified for the job, they you're right that everything is discrimination. I am at least one hiring manager who hires that way, and I think there are a lot more. I believe you're actually defining it more negatively.

Your final paragraph is completely contradictory. On the one hand you say that everything is discrimination, and on the other you say there are hiring authorities who offer positions on the basis of qualifications. Which way is it?

by jamesrl

My rule of thumb is two years -if I think someone will be good in the job for 2 years, then I consider them. Sometimes the younger applicants signal they see the job as a stepping stone to another job, or even gasp, beneath them. I ask them if they would be ok to stay for at least 2 years before applying for other positions.

And I make money my last part of the decision making process. Have I interviewed people in their 40s for entry level and intermediate jobs -hell yes. If I think their previous experience will help the company and my team, then I would fight for it. Currently my team of 8 has 3 people over 50.

James

by mattit

I think I was fairly clear in saying that EVERYTHING is discrimination. Even in my last paragraph I stood by that.

All employers are looking for are certain requirements, or qualifications if you will, that they want or need in their applicant. You need to find the place where you meet those requirements or qualifications. I'm not using these terms in specific business means, I'm using them given their general definitions. Applicants meet certain qualifications and if those meet the employer's desire, they get the job. No questions asked.

If an employer wanted a female for the job, there had to be a reason for it. If I'm not what they're looking for so be it. I just think when people start throwing around the term "discrimination" it justifies hiring someone even when it isnt the right person for the job, or NOT giving the job to someone that deserves it if another applicant is someone that could claim they didnt get the job due to discrimination.

Its best to accept the fact that you didnt get the job, because you werent what they were looking for. Thats all there is to it, find the person who's looking for you and you'll never have to worry about discrimination.

by bg6638

I my typical resume, I stress that I primarily was a system administrator for the last 10 years, using MS technologies. I also am working on MCSE & Cisco CCNP certs. I know that my chances of finding a programming job are next to zero. The headhunters are using the B.S. & certs merely to filter applicants. When you are one of over 100 applicants for a position, education & certs are used to reduce the pile quickly. I was at a job fair recently, and met a person who wrote RPG code on System 3, 38, and AS/400's for the past 35 years. Today, he is working part-time at Lowe's, unloading trucks. Why? No B.S. degree, no certs, and only mid-range experience with RPG III. Headhunters have told him that his only chance for employment is move over 1000 miles away, and target consulting firms that still service "older" legacy systems.

by amcol

In fact, let me ask you several questions.

1. At your age and at your stage of the game, why would you want a programming job? This is a silly example, but let's say as a young man you were a championship jockey. Do you really think in your early fifties you can continue to compete on the same level with the younger jockies? And don't you think that explains why older jockies become trainers, something they're really good at that capitalizes on their previous experience?

2. Do you really think at your age and at your stage of the game that you're being told the truth by headhunters about your lack of a degree? Do you really think employers care THAT much about a fifty-something's educational credentials?

3. Your RPG buddy...please, please, please, you can't really think he's working at Lowe's because he lacks a degree. He's unemployable in his field because HIS FIELD DOESN'T EXIST ANYMORE. Yeah, there's still a lot of RPG code out there but the opportunities are microscopic. I'm sure there's still someone somewhere who makes and repairs buggy whips, since there are still buggies on the streets of NYC, but is that really where you want to position yourself professionally? And do you really think you can't get a job as a buggy whip maker because you never actually graduated from Buggy Whip University?

The headhunters are telling you and your friend what they're telling you because you're not worth their time. Contingency headhunters get paid when they make placements, and I doubt very much you're getting any attention from retainer recruiters so let's not even talk about them. If the headhunter thinks he can't place you, why would he waste his time with you? He's just blowing smoke at you to make you go away.

Don't view the headhunter as a career counselor, or someone who has your best interests at heart. The exact opposite is the case.

You're kidding yourself, my friend. Refocus your efforts by refocusing yourself.

by bg6638

That is why I have been trying to obtain employment as an administrator. The programming jobs have all but dried up. The state job services suggested that I retire! Some suggestion! The local community college suggested that I get a degree in Real Estate. Another career counselor said that based on a MAPP assessment test, get a degree in Accounting or Business Mgmt. In summary, I'm just so frustrated that I really do not know where to turn!

by tonythetiger

Not really, I just refuse to be a 'salesman', convincing people that they need what I've got, even when they don't. I just don't have the personality for it.

by tmcclure

After reading all of the postings so far I have to conclude that it does not. At least not to the degree most people think.

I get the impression it is really more a business decision based on economics. But not necessarily good business practice.

Maybe we all need to see the reality of our occupation. It is constantly changing. Business is constantly urged to upgrade to the latest and greatest. And to keep up they sometimes have to sacrifice experience.

Someone mentioned not getting complacent about your existing position. I think we all know that the days of finding and staying with one employer for life is long gone. I once read that the average professional changes occupations five times in their lifetime. What does that say? I know I am on my third.

by mattit

Something I had never considered, but is completely correct. The nature of this industry is change. We must get used to this, wonderful point. Well put.

by vze1j5gn

If age discrimination did not exist then why do we have a law to protect us from such an unfair practice! Is it possible that our politicans who pass these laws are wasting taxpayer's money by protecting us from something that doesn't even happen. Then maybe we need a law that protects us from not getting a job if we have brown hair...oops, oh okay that sort of thing doesn't happen so we do not need a law to protect us (whew!). Let's only pass a law for things that do happen, BUT REMEMBER, age discrimination does not happen. The law if only there just in case somebody tries to discriminate.

I feel much better now. At least Santa Claus will bring me presents on Christmas. Now I don't need a job or need to spend my own money on what I want.

P.S. Have you heard of the tooth fairy?

by ursulag

I just got turned down because of my age. The term used by the HR rep was although I met all of the requirements for the position as an office manager they are seeking "someone more junior"...really?!?!?
Seriously folks...this has to stop.

This discussion is closed to new replies.