Supreme Court to American business: Boomers are here to stay. Forever.
Filed under: Extracurriculars, Retire, Career, Health
For some people, the world is divided racially or economically, along gender lines or by political borders. For me, the big divider, at least in the United States, has always been generational. I was born in 1971, smack in the middle of what would later be called Generation X. I was part of dropoff generation, the calm after the storm, the first generation to undergo wholesale tranquilizing at the hands of school districts and the first generation to come of age under the threat of AIDS. I was also part of the generation that had the unfortunate task of following behind the Baby Boomers.
I don't need to tell you about the Boomers, and I'm disinclined to rehash their legendary exploits. Let's just say that they were the ones who defaulted on student loans while my generation was left begging for college money. They were the ones who complained of censorship while we had to crawl out from under the heavy blanket of classic rock. They were the biggest generation in American history, and one of their number spat on my mother when she was pregnant with me, stating that having children was "irresponsible."
Not that I bear them any ill will, mind you.
As the Boomers have hit every generational milestone, two things have remained consistent. The first is that their growing pains have monopolized the media. Their adolescence became the adolescence, the model by which all others have been measured. Ditto their college years, their young adult years, their years of parenthood, and now their years of old age. Every time they've had a birthday, the news has gone out across the land. We've all been invited to the parties, and woe betide the poor bastard who's too self-involved to wish them mazel tov.
The second consistency is that the Baby Boomers have demanded that every life passage be eased for them. They went to college, so cheap loans became the norm. They wanted houses, and easy mortgages became standard. As they've gotten older, they've continued to demand the same level of attention, and now that they're beginning to to stare into the face of retirement, we can count on the unwillingness of many of their members to step aside for the next generation.
As a consequence, I was hardly surprised when I heard about the Supreme Court's recent ruling regarding age discrimination. In Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory, the court ruled 7-1 that when an employer makes decisions that "disproportionately affect" older workers, the employer has to prove that there was a reason, other than age, for his or her actions. While this particular case involved workers as young as 40, it is pretty clear that its repercussions will fall very heavily upon up-and-coming workers who attempt to supplant the boomers. If age is no longer an acceptable reason to let somebody go, then how, exactly, can we pry jobs from the fingers of the Woodstock generation?
I hope you weren't planning on taking over the corner office any time soon!
Bruce Watson is a freelance writer, blogger, and all-around cheapskate. Nowadays, he doesn't trust anybody over 55!
Recent Posts
- Fantastic Freebies: Billy Graham's 'Peace with God' book (10/13/2008)
- Grocery stores' bogus 'low prices' (10/12/2008)
- What the meltdown means to me, a Gen-Yer (10/12/2008)
- Fantastic Freebies: Skiing/snowboarding poster (10/12/2008)
- Taste of Home Cookbook Celebrations CD: $2 (10/12/2008)

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
6-27-2008 @ 5:41PM
MLetta said...
The author writes:
If age is no longer an acceptable reason to let somebody go, then how, exactly, can we pry jobs from the fingers of the Woodstock generation?
Hmmm. Wonder how you will feel about the generation behind yours when YOU hit 40 (or earlier) and could lose your job due to age discrimination because the perception is that you are no longer vital, productive or necessary. Or as those in the generation after you start breathing down your neck and seek to get rid of you (assuming they are as mean, uncompassionate and greedy as you are).
Age is NOT an acceptable reason to fire someone from a job, provided they are performing the job to established standards that apply to anyone holding the position. The fact that you believe it is says a lot about YOUR own issues with entitlement...which seem to far exceed the "baby boomers." (Pry jobs away from people? Is that how you see the world of "moving ahead" in business??? Wow. What happened to you that makes you think that way? Everybody over a certain age should just stop trying to make a living so you can advance? Talk about arrogance, entitlement and attitude. And you wonder why people who are older question your generation?)
You say you hold no grudge against boomers. It certainly doesn't sound that way.
Maybe your real gripes should be directed at the media, not the boomers. Or rather the boomers in the media.
I'm just wondering. What age group do your own parents fall into? Seems they would be baby boomers. Do you feel that your parents should be kicked out of their jobs, and their livelihood, when they are over, say, 55? And how would you expect them to continue to live since not everyone is a millionaire at that age or can afford to retire if they even wanted to.
The work world does not owe you a "place" in it. And age does not equate with a decline in productivity and value to an organization (try looking at the age of the members of the supreme court, as just one example).
Too bad you don't have enough faith (or patience) in your own abilities to get the job you want as you advance/age yourself. You can't envision that you can have a career AND that older workers can still be in a company. FYI: THEY are not the enemy. You sound like a jealous, impatient worker. Who spends too much time worry about how to get rid of others and not enough time on their work.
You're so busy looking to push others out. You must be a great co-worker. Uncompassionate as well as unprofessional. Let's hope you're not heading up a company any time soon. And let's hope if you try to force people out for their age that YOU get socked with a lawsuit.
This is one of the most mean-spirited things I've ever written.
If anything, it proves that older workers are not being paranoid when they try to prove ageism and discrimination exist. Let's hope you don't speak for all of your generation.
And FYI: Every baby boomer has not demanded that "every life passage be eased for them." In fact, many have labored to make life better for people of all ages. (Or have you forgotten their many accomplishments in society and the biz world?) You're too busy condemning a whole generation for, it seems, being in your way--and holding you back. Poor you. Not running a company at 37 (maybe that says more about your lack of skill, expertise, experience and/or talent than who is ahead of you and their age).
The millions of baby-boomers do not all act, think or vote alike. For all the people who got media attention for things you don't like, there are plenty who were living as responsible citizens.
Age isn't the reason people do hurtful things like spit on another human being or judge them. That's bad behavior and it isn't limited to any age group.
Look around. Those of your generation aren't perfect either.
FYI: I'm not a boomer, but my parents are and they don't fit your negative profile. Neither do their boomer friends and my boomer relatives.
It truly sickens me to learn that someone in my age group feels this way and worse, gets to rant online. Start your own website. This type of stuff does NOT belong on walletpop.com.
Reply
6-27-2008 @ 6:17PM
Bruce Watson said...
Actually MLetta, the age group behind me is breathing down my neck, or would be if I was still working in a traditional setting. It is in the nature of generations that they breathe down each other's necks. Read Sophocles or Shakespeare, watch The Godfather or even All in the Family. You seem to think that this is brutal. It is. It also is the way that the herd culls itself to ensure its strength and health.
The big difference here is that the generation born between 1946 and 1960 has wrangled legal protections that previous generations didn't have. To fire a boomer, a company now has to prove that the firing wasn't age related; the boomer doesn't have to prove that it was.
Think about that for a second, because it's really crucial. How can you quantify an employees level of understanding of a target market? How can you prove that his replacement could understand it better? More to the point, do you think the baby boomers had to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that they were fresher and more energetic than the people that they replaced?
The grudge line? Yeah, that was sarcasm used for comedic purposes. I guess you missed it.
My parents were part of the generation that preceded the boomers. They were among the ones who actually fought racism and actually worked for LBJs great society. They were the ones responsible for many of the historical movements that the Boomers claim. And, by the way, they have been largely forgotten by history.
I respect your appreciation of your parents and, if you want to idolize the Boomers, feel free to do so; there's a large contingent of people ready to join you. If you feel that we should reward them for their contributions to society (which were?), then I agree. Let's reward them with a ticket to Boca or Miami or Arizona.
You're absolutely right about one thing: business doesn't owe me, or you, or any member of our respective generations. Frankly, that's what I'm trying to say, too. Business doesn't owe the Boomers jobs, especially not when there are many qualified, hardworking people waiting to step up.
Thanks for your comments--I appreciate that you took the time and energy to respond!
6-27-2008 @ 5:56PM
MLetta said...
I mis-typed this:
This is one of the most mean-spirited things I've ever written.
Should have read:
one of the most mean-spirited things I've ever seen written.
Reply
6-27-2008 @ 6:18PM
Bruce Watson said...
I figured as much.
6-27-2008 @ 6:29PM
CMart said...
Bruce --
Amen to that! Thank you for writing this. As someone also born in 1971, it certainly captures my feelings.
Pay no mind to the haters out there.
Reply
6-27-2008 @ 8:27PM
Bruce Watson said...
CMart-
Thanks for weighing in!
6-27-2008 @ 8:26PM
MLetta said...
Bruce writes:
"It is in the nature of generations that they breathe down each other's necks. Read Sophocles or Shakespeare, watch The Godfather or even All in the Family. You seem to think that this is brutal. It is. It also is the way that the herd culls itself to ensure its strength and health."
Got that Bruce. Have read and/or watched all of the above. Kinda noticed it in real life, too. Respectfully disagree with you that aging equates to "less than." Not always the case. (History includes plenty of older folks who made meaningful contributions. Not referring to boomers of today.)
Culling the herd. Sorry, it's still not a justification to fire someone JUST because of their age, alone. Just because it's done or has been done, doesn't make it right. (And it's not that I think it's brutal. I think it's unprofessional, unnecessary, shortsighted, greedy, morally suspect and, in some cases, illegal.)
People had a lot of excuses for a lot of bad stuff (slavery...) in the past and this ranks right up there.
So let me ask again. Since you're advocating so strongly to rid the workplace of "baby boomers" (or rather people over a certain age):
What should people over the age of 55 (or 50, or 45) do? Just step aside so somebody younger can step up?
Die? Be sent off to retiree camps run by the government?
Stop working--even when they can't afford not to work? or just leave the jobs in companies you want to advance in?
What if they are still doing a good/great/exceptional job? What if they are still contributing to the company and to society? You seem to not take that into consideration. (So I have to ask: What do you plan to do if that pack of younger writers manages to displace you, just because some young editor thinks you're too old" and not fresh enough to write when you're 40, or 45? Isn't supposed to be about skill, knowledge, experience, talent??? and not age. Will you be less capable, less talented, in a few years? Or just perceived that way by younger folks eager for you to move on? )
Why not just weed out all the folks who don't do their jobs well, regardless of age. That should free up a lot of slots.
FYI: I don't idolize the boomers. I don't idolize any age group. And I don't hate any age group either. I've got friends in every decade, people in their 20s through their 90s. Their age isn't relevant to our relationships.
It's interesting that you seem to believe there are many folks out there in "protected" jobs when there are many who could easily share their stories of losing jobs in their 40s and early 50s, and it was indeed age discrimination. Or rather, that a company could pay someone else a lot less to do same/similar work. Which is often the case.
The good news for you, whether you believe it or not, is that most organizations (let's exclude union-based jobs or government ones) are able to fire people without any cause--and they do so regularly. Pretty much anyone who is hired today is told straight out that you can be dismissed at any time, no reason needed.
You deny ageism, but again, your rationale is "Hey, there are people waiting in the wings...keep it moving."
If people are doing their jobs, they should not be fired because of their age. Or because somebody else is waiting in the wings.
I'd really like to see how you'll feel five, ten, 20 years from now. Or, let's say, if you were doing a great job in a job you loved and were just tossed out and told: "Hey, sorry. We got a bunch of younger people here. Keep it moving..."
Nobody is owed a job, but nobody should be kicked out simply because of their age.
That's scarcity thinking to the nth degree. (There's simply not enough room because of all those big, bad, aging boomers. If they're gone, we'll all have jobs. Yea. Right. Dream on. Plenty of 20 and 30-somethings do have high powered jobs while plenty can't find any work. And it's not the boomers fault. Some companies weed you out long before you get to your 50s.
Sorry you are so threatened by older workers (you clearly are) that you feel the need to rid the workplace of all of them--so you can get yours.
If there are enough 20-somethings who think as you do, you should start thinking about YOUR forced deployment (oh, sorry, reward for past service) to Arizona or Florida. It could be sooner than later.
Frankly, I'd have more respect for your perspective if you just admitted you're prejudiced and not tried to act as if you aren't. Prejudice exists, whether it's based on race, finances, age or appearance.
You do think that business owes you. Regardless of what you've said in response to my comments.
Reply
6-27-2008 @ 8:52PM
Bruce Watson said...
MLetta-
You're absolutely right; history records the meaningful contributions of many older people. However, I don't believe that, just because somebody's held the same position for decades, he or she automatically is superior to any potential replacement. And, no, I don't think that older is not automatically "less than." However, it also isn't automatically "more than." And, for the record, I'm not really talking about people who are forty or fifty. I'm talking about workers in their late sixties, seventies, eighties, and on. You don't seem to get this--the Supreme court has ruled that there really is no upward age limit, no required retirement.
You ask what these people could do. Well, how about teaching, community work, volunteering, or mentoring? Do you really think that there's any lack of community jobs out there? Why don't they put their experience to work training the next generation, rather than blocking their path to advancement?
In response to your question, if I was not able to do my job extremely well, I would fully expect to be replaced. Yes, that's tough. On the other hand, the sword of Damocles has generally pushed me to do the best work possible.
Did I ever claim that I wasn't ageist? If so, my tag, "He doesn't trust anybody over 55" should have made my feelings pretty clear. Frankly, I think that a lot of older people are sticking around in jobs because doing so is comfortable and they aren't ready to move on. I also think that, in many cases, their decision to stay isn't motivated by the best interests of the company, but rather their own selfish desires. And, yes, I think that the generation born between 1946 and 1960 pretty much defined the ultimate boundaries of selfishness.
In response to your last point, I don't think that business owes me. I think that business owes itself. The job of business is to make money, not to provide meaning to the lives of ex-hippies and not to provide a stopgap to the ambitions of subsequent generations.
Reply
6-28-2008 @ 11:42AM
randymoser said...
It seems to me that MLetta is reading Bruce’s comments as generalizations and getting hung up on some fair-play doctrine associated with age discrimination while Bruce is looking specifically at how Boomers have taken advantage of the system at every age.
The irony here is that you’re both advocating a meritocracy. It’s just that Bruce’s experience of Boomers – and mine, frankly – has been that they take credit for things they don’t do, exhaust fair-play systems, and always demand more.
Are these generalizations? Sure. But this is a demographic: It is defined by general tendencies. Don’t for one minute believe that our generation and those that will follow aren’t similarly generalized.
We might now look BACK over the lifespan of boomers and see reckless, irresponsible, selfish behavior – or the opposite – because they have gone down in record, but Boomers wrote us as blank, empty, and vicious before we were even formed. (I think Bruce’s mom’s experience is VERY telling.) We can all make guesses as to why they did this, but these facts stand: the Boomers came, they broke things, and then they refused to go away.
You think Bruce is angry, get ready for the wave of Millennials who are pushing from the bottom and hitting the boomer clog. Those of us who have been in the workforce for a few years have gotten accustomed to the glass ceiling imposed by Boomers. But their kids – who are far more confident and impatient than we ever were – won’t tolerate an ageist system that puts them behind the eight ball just because some fat ass Baby Boomer refuses to move on.
Like Bruce, I don’t think the workforce owes me anything and I have certainly never felt coddled by it. I don’t feel we were protected when Boomers manipulated the real estate market, for example, or helped engineer the dot.com bubble. The world is largely predatorial and Baby Boomers have been at the top of the food chain for years. That situation is almost over and you won’t find many of us crying foul when the meanest generation in modern times topples over.
R.
Reply
6-28-2008 @ 11:43AM
Bruce Watson said...
Randy-
It's not often that I come across a comment that gives me a clearer understanding of my own argument. Thanks for weighing in!
7-03-2008 @ 12:50PM
Chet said...
I would love to fire every 20 something year old "it's all about me generation" slacker and clock watcher in the office. But now I can't. Touche. :)
Reply
7-03-2008 @ 12:51PM
Bruce Watson said...
Chet-
Self-obsessed elderly Americans? Self-obsessed young Americans? Maybe the problem is Americans. Clearly we need to fire everyone and hire more immigrants!
Reply
7-03-2008 @ 3:42PM
Marsh said...
Whoa Whoa Whoa!
In a globalized world, American generations tearing
one another apart is terrifying-My Grandparents
housed, fed and cared for WWII Generation and
their babies until they could economically get on their
feet, move out, and make America what it is.
We helped take care of WWII/Vietnam Veterans
medical care, moved 5X, raised a daughter (millenial
generation) & as near-retirees, can't retire in
recession. We have helped our daughter thru school,
& in serious health episode. My career spent establishing
non-profit day care centers in 70's, raising daughter
while working full-time in unpaid environmental-
recycling, landfill/toxics; women's health in the 90's.
We all need each other, regardless of sex, age,
to survive..climate change economic dislocation;
invent new technologies to adapt/survive & thrive.
Let's all work together, now.
Reply
7-04-2008 @ 10:16AM
Sharon said...
Bruce - a simple lesson in economics will tell you that if all the Boomers were to heed your begging, a gargantuous vacuum of money OUT of the economy would be disastrous.
And that is just one of the many, many things you are wholly incorrect about in your article.
Reply
7-04-2008 @ 10:22AM
Bruce Watson said...
Sharon-
If ANY generation were to have a wholesale withdrawal from the American economy, or the American workforce (which is what I was actually talking about), it would have a negative impact. However, if the Boomers were to have a phased pullout--withdrawing at the actual rate of attrition, as previous generations have done--it would have a very positive effect.
Thanks for weighing in.
7-13-2008 @ 6:53PM
LC said...
Okay, the fact is that no one really fires anyone "just because of age" unless they have some sort of issue that is beyond my reasoning. The problem with this is that older people are fired because they DO hinder productivity. It's a fact that as people age they slow down, become less physically able and many of the things that they learned in their job training become obsolete. After you re-learn to do your job so many times you will inevitably be phased out. The same thing has and will happen to all generations, it's a cycle. If you're in your golden years and still sharp as a tack and absorbent as a sponge, fantastic! You should keep your job. If not deal with it.
Bruce, I agree with your reasoning.
MLetta, you have some valid points, but frankly, I think you're just being bitter because for whatever reason this article touched a nerve.
Again, it's a cycle, deal with it.
Reply