Comments on: Forced Retirement of a Valued Employee

By: Martin

Martin — Sat, 25 Feb 2017 21:54:45 +0000

I have a coworker who cannot complete daily tasks. We are a branch of a larger company, and work with the public. I have been fixing his mistakes, as well as carrying the work load – he is only capable of greeting consumers, and answering the phone. His job duties, however, include working 50/50 on the computer, filing, filling out documents, writing letters, etc. He has not done these things. His computer skills have deteriorated to the point where he can no longer open a word document, does not remember how to fill in databases, and can no longer file forms in alphabetical order. He is in his 80s. Our supervisor (who works in the main office, not in our branch) says we cannot let the coworker go because he is in his 80s, and we’ll be cited for age discrimination. His decrease in skills might have to do with age issues, but if he was 40, he would be fired for not doing his job. There is NO WAY OUT for me. I have been told to document his short comings and lack of skills – so I am doing that (which is time consuming), and I am required to retrain him on everything (we have written task procedures, but he refuses to refer to them), so I have added that to my work load, along with picking up all of the office tasks except saying “hello” and answering the phone (even though our jobs are identical). So, now what? What on earth am I to do? He could do the job 20 years ago – even 10 years ago – but the past eight years have been a nightmare. I am worn out. I stay because job opportunities where I am at are slim, and I like what I do – but I am so so tired of picking up his slack. I stay late, come in early, and then still cannot get everything done. So far, after months of documenting the issues, the things he isn’t doing, corporate continues to say the same things: “sure, he isn’t doing the work but we cannot let him go because he is too old to fire.” He has been seen by a doctor – but told the doctor (he told me this) that he likes to work because it “keeps him social.” So the doctor said, “don’t quit if you like working.” I am going absolutely nuts! There is NO WAY TO FIRE THIS GUY! I have ten years to go before retirement, and I will retire before he does. He said he will never retire – his words, “I plan to work here until I die.” With parents who both lived into their late 90s, I really will retire before he will. Surely there must be a way to force him out because he is not doing his work – which corporate does not dispute – but how? I am seriously considering stopping cataloging his mistakes and lack of work. The thing is, if I just stop doing his work, it will affect our productivity and they could close our branch office – then the people in our small town will have to travel more than 40 miles to get the service. So, what do I do?

By: Mary Jamison

Mary Jamison — Mon, 03 May 2010 18:54:11 +0000

I’m so glad to see that so many people noted the implicit age discrimination in this situation. If we are going to insist that people have to work throughout most of their lifespan–until they’re just a few years away from dying–we are going to have to accommodate everything that entails, from hearing aids to mass transportation.

By: Margret

Margret — Fri, 30 Apr 2010 13:12:48 +0000

@Sunshine I totally agree!!!!

By: Devon Scheef

Devon Scheef — Fri, 30 Apr 2010 00:50:19 +0000

Thought provoking scenario. It seems to be less about a conversation and more about the organization’s view of how long-term employees contribute. There is much discussion and hand wringing in organizations about the need for knowledge transfer and wisdom sharing. Mr. Ned, who has been an excellent performer and a role model to newer technicals, represents the organization’s explicit and implicit knowledge. To consider only his physical contribution is missing the larger picture.

By: HR in Ohio

HR in Ohio — Thu, 29 Apr 2010 18:24:53 +0000

I’m glad that Joseph referred the writer to HR, but I wish he would’ve stopped there on this one. As a couple of commenters have noted, there are serious legal issues here. First, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act which prohibits discrimination against anyone ages 40 and older. There is no cap. The law also specifically prohibits a mandatory retirement age, except for certain key positions. Most states have similar laws prohibiting age discrimination (although some states only protect individuals ages 40-70).

Another law that hasn’t been mentioned is the Americans with Disabilities Act. ADA protects individuals with disabilities from discrimination and requires employers to make reasonable accommodations so that a qualified individual with a disability can safely and effectively perform his/her job duties. We cannot assume that he is disabled just because of his age nor can we pry, but if he has disclosed a medical condition like deteriorating eye-sight, arthritis, heart problems, etc…, then we should have a crucial conversation / negotiation with him about possible accommodations.

Finally, I’m not just about complying with the law. Asking you to merely focus on complying with the law is like asking you to get a “D” in school. Many of the other comments addressing the “human” element are “A+” in my opinion.

By: Tweets that mention Crucial Skills » Forced Retirement of a Valued Employee -- Topsy.com

Thu, 29 Apr 2010 09:36:09 +0000

[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Crucial Skills. Crucial Skills said: Crucial Skills: Forced Retirement of a Valued Employee http://bit.ly/budNFg #newsletter […]

By: SLCCOM

SLCCOM — Thu, 29 Apr 2010 06:51:26 +0000

What is this part about how getting hearing aids means “moving on to a new part of life?” And then on to retirement? There are a large number of people with hearing loss who do not wear hearing aids, and they are of all ages. In some cases it is denial. In some cases it is “pride.” I believe that in most cases it is $$$$. Generally, you can expect to pay at least $2,000 for just one hearing aid, and usually, people do not have that money sitting around to spend, especially if it is their first pair. Or they have other plans for it and must do some reconfiguring.

I suppose you could look at getting hearing aids as moving on to a better communicating part of life, but as a code for getting old? That very attitude is a big one contributing to people refusing to get help for their hearing loss before it becomes crippling.

Ageism is ugly, and so is ableism. Good communication strategies, good technology, and good will will keep a company running well and keep loyal employees — including the younger ones, who are closely watching to see how you treat their coworkers. One day the recession will be over and a lot of very good people will be jumping ship when they see that people were being forced out against their will despite nearly two decades of loyal, hard work.

I know you are getting raked over the coals here — but you were apparently making all kinds of unwarranted assumptions about how capable people can be with a little technology, good management, support and the elimination of ASSumptions.

By: Sunshine

Sunshine — Thu, 29 Apr 2010 03:46:35 +0000

Frankly, I find this entire article to be offensive. The question itself is discriminatory and stereotypes older and younger workers. It should be brought to light that age discrimination is illegal under federal and other laws. First of all, from an employment standpoint, it is unlawful to make decisions based upon someone’s age, and it is not permissible for an employer to decide if or when an employee needs to retire. Any conversation you begin under that premise is questionable, and it greatly diminishes any other potentially sound advice you may be offering. You are making some very inappropriate assumptions…just stick to the behavior of the person, and leave out the labels.

By: Joseph Grenny

Joseph Grenny — Wed, 28 Apr 2010 20:21:46 +0000

Hey Judy--I guess if the reality were as you describe it, I would agree with the unethical and unwise decision to force him into retirement. As with most of these kinds of questions--the response to the questioner is always governed by the "story" you tell yourself about what's really going on. You raise good questions. And I also believe there are scenarios where the employer is making the ethical decision by asking an employee to retire. If this is not one of them, your comments may help the questioner question his/her own assumptions. Thanks. @Judy Westphal

By: Joseph Grenny

Joseph Grenny — Wed, 28 Apr 2010 20:18:46 +0000

You raise some important questions that challenge the questioner to reflect more deeply on his/her conclusions. I think this is wise. Of course, neither of us knows the particulars here, so we’re just speculating. I realized as I was reading your note that one of the images that came to mind and colored my response was experiences I’ve had in hospitals with aging physicians where “slowing down” meant “patients at risk.” In that situation, I think the organization would be unethical to not encourage retirement as the slowdown has an effect on safety. If it is simply “he’s not producing as many widgets” but the widgets are still good quality, then it’s a different situation entirely.

One question to you–if it is the latter rather than the former situation, would it be discriminatory to have a conversation about him continuing his employment but at a lower salary? If he is still adding value, but less of it, wouldn’t they be vulnerable to a discriminatory suit for offering to pay less even though the pay was more in line with the number of “widgets” he was producing.

Just pondering…
@Terri Lynn Palmer