Slashdot Mirror


HP Hit With Age-Discrimination Suit Claiming Old Workers Purged (mercurynews.com)

Hewlett-Packard started laying off workers in 2012, before it separated into HP Inc. and HP Enterprise last year. The company has continued to cut thousands of jobs since. As a result of the "restructuring," an age discrimination lawsuit has been filed by four former employees of HP alleging they were ousted amid a purge of older workers. The Mercury News reports: "The goal 'was to make the company younger,' said the complain filed Aug. 18 in U.S. District Court in San Jose. 'In order to get younger, HP intentionally discriminated against its older employees by targeting them for termination [...] and then systematically replacing them with younger employees. HP has hired a disproportionately large number of new employees under the age of 40 to replace employees aged 40 and older who were terminated.' Arun Vatturi, a 15-year Palo Alto employee at HP who was a director in process improvement until he was laid off in January at age 52, and Sidney Staton, in sales at HP in Palo Alto for 16 months until his layoff in April 2015 at age 54, have joined in the lawsuit with a former employee from Washington, removed at age 62, and one from Texas, out at age 63. The group is seeking class-action status for the court action and claims HP broke state and federal laws against age discrimination." The lawsuit also alleges that written guidelines issued by HP's human resources department mandated that 75 percent of all hires outside of the company be fresh from school or "early career" applicants.

15 of 194 comments (clear)

  1. The problem isn't that they're old... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's that they're expensive.

    1. Re:The problem isn't that they're old... by fluffernutter · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Becoming expensive is the entire point of starting a career. And IT companies wonder why more people don't go into it.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    2. Re: The problem isn't that they're old... by rsilvergun · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Executives are members of the ruling class who, unlike workers, take care of their own...

      --
      Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    3. Re:The problem isn't that they're old... by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Even making them less expensive doesn't seem to help. Young people have "upward potential", whereas an older person who is applying for a job that much younger people also applied for clearly is a "loser" with a dead end career... Never mind the years of experience that he brings. And young people "exciting new ideas and insights to the company", whereas old guys are "change-averse". True to some extent, but sometimes that is the benefit of experience as well. I worked in an organisation with a great mix of old and young, and every now and then some young manager would come up with a brilliant new way of doing things. To which the old guys often responded: "yeah, we tried that before, in '86, '95, 2001 and 2007, and it didn't work. How are we going to try this differently this time?"

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    4. Re:The problem isn't that they're old... by knightghost · · Score: 4, Interesting

      More experienced employees usually have far better dollar-per-result ratios than inexperienced employees. That's why they make more.

      I charge $250 an hour yet have more work than I can handle because it is 1/4 the price that companies pay for a large team to get a similar amount of work done. Am I expensive? NO.

    5. Re:The problem isn't that they're old... by gweihir · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If they are good at their jobs, then they are actually cheaper overall, because the provide more additional value than their additional cost. If they are not good, they should have been fired for that quite a while earlier.

      Maybe if the IT industry would stop firing people that have experience, the products would finally get better....

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  2. Retire early by Moof123 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Seriously, Tech is bit too wild west to trust over the long term. Live frugal and save like mad. Once you have enough money stashed away to guarantee you won't starve, then work if you want to and it all becomes extra FU money. You can't trust tech as a career beyond 50, and maybe not even to 45 in certain specialties.

  3. Re:Age or Wage Discrimination? by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Older workers tend to get paid more and have higher health insurance costs. It's probably more about the wage than the age.

    Yes, but older workers bring experience to the job that younger workers don't have...

    I myself am willing to pay older employees more for that experience. A 50 year old developer who indicates that he/she is willing to continue to learn and improve themselves is a valuable thing to me.

    I have hired 65 year olds who want to keep working part time and are bored with retirement...

    Age is just a number...

  4. Haha America by DMJC · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And the decline of the USA continues. Experience shits all over youth. At 22 I couldn't code for shit. At 31 I can do 20x what I could at 22 and my skillsets make actual money instead of junk. US tech companies are vastly overrated. I'd bet that 200 seasoned 40-65 year olds could build a much better OS than Microsoft or Apple could. And they wouldn't fuck up the control panel design either.

  5. First they fire employees by plopez · · Score: 5, Insightful

    then whine about not being able to find talent.....

    --
    putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
  6. Not just HP and also in Japan by shanen · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Trying to decide whether or not to name names, but in a sense it doesn't matter. As near as I can tell, ALL companies hate old employees. Various companies have various reasons, but I think high-tech companies (like HP and my former employer) might be the most hateful.

    Experience is NOT an asset when no one has experience with the latest and greatest technology. Even if the old folks are willing to work as cheaply as fresh hires, and even if the old folks are fast learners, salary cuts are intrinsically demotivating. You can try disguises like "declining health", but they don't work well and job satisfaction tends to decline. Anyway, the bean counters at the top prefer fresh meat. Cheap.

    In Japan the situation is especially critical because the demographic transition is resulting in lots of old people and very few young ones. The Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (MHLW) has actually put out "guidelines" that strongly encourage companies to keep older employers who want to work until at least age 65, but the companies are just playing games with the rules.

    Without naming names, I'm going to try to summarize "a friend's" experiences. For brevity, AF. The managers started pressuring AF to retire around 55, but AF declined. AF's job and working conditions were steadily made worse and then AF was shoved out the door ASAP, which was AF's 60th birthday. The MHLW had a response. Rough translation: "They aren't supposed to do that if AF wanted to keep working, but tough titties."

    Anyway, I'm just an old philosopher, so I get to say "That's too bad" to AF. In philosophic terms, there are four quadrants to consider. Everyone wants to be in Q1 with good work and good compensation, and no one wants to be in Q4 with bad work and bad pay. The interesting cases are Q2, good work with bad pay, and Q3, bad work with good pay. AF wanted Q1 or Q2, but got shoved into Q3 and then Q4.

    Me? I'm just an old bum who's outlived my usefulness. Insofar as most of my career was spent in Q1 and Q2, I can't complain too much. However, at this point it appears that my best outcome is to pass away before I exhaust my savings. I would contribute more to the economy if my new focus wasn't on minimizing my expenses, eh? You'd think the companies might be smart enough to worry about the loss of business from all of those penny-pinching retirees, but they obviously aren't that smart.

    --
    Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
  7. Re:Age or Wage Discrimination? by Darinbob · · Score: 5, Interesting

    A company is not just a day care center for adults. There are real products being built and services being sold. If you have cheap ass workers then you end up with a cheap ass company. The leaders of these companies probably don't even care that they have a lousy company and a lousy product, as they'll destroy company after company while collecting huge incomes along the way.

  8. Re:Outed at age 63? by Darinbob · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Step closer so that I can hit you with my cane.

  9. mindset issue by kiviQr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    true, but most 40+ would not sit quietly and work 80h/week on a poorly managed project. People with experience seen too much to stand by it. Some companies fix this problem by getting 22y/o and work 3 shifts for same pay. Some get better management.

  10. Re:Purge? by gweihir · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I have old age, treachery _and_ skill, while most (not all) young ones have youth and nothing else...

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.