I don't, but only because I think we tend to overestimate how clever and coordinated most employers are. I'm sure someone tracks it, and probably brings it up occasionally, but I suspect most employers don't even remember they have these programs in place until the contracts come up for renewal.
Recovering CIO - 4 years ago
Any RIF is a by-the-numbers exercise and older, more expensive staff are always at greater risk. Potential cost/liability/equation is how many orgs get around specifically targeting individuals and from what I've seen, it's fairly common. One ray of hope - if there is one - is the last two rounds I've been involved with due to M&A activity there's actually been a skills/productivity calculation and lo and behold some very experienced/skilled older staff were kept for their potential productivity over being replaced with cheaper, inexperienced staff. One other thing orgs are wising up to is that 20 something are not down with working 80 hrs/wk in tech positions as they learn with no mentoring.
T. Morris - 4 years ago
I think employers would be flat out STUPID to risk that- so no, I don't believe they do it.
Unfortunately, it's either
A. Employee paranoia, or
B. My naive mindset
But in either case, by NOT sharing some of this information, unfortunately, many opportunities to actually help people through early identification can be lost- which is sad to think it could be avoided
Ideally, stay young, single & healthy - 4 years ago
A few years back a company I worked for underwent a series of layoffs. There were a lot of cancer cases among those let go (also maternity leaves, bereavement leaves, clinically-diagnosed depression). All I can tell you for sure is this: if you are a longtime employee and you get cancer, watch your back. I wouldn't advise anyone to unnecessarily volunteer info about expensive health situations.
Samantha Brown - 4 years ago
I do think it's one of those "benefits" a company perceives will happen. When they target folks in mid-mgt and higher roles, they get older people who are higher cost. The sad thing is it's a zero sum game. What you may get in savings is nominal when compared with the experience lost.
Realistic CIO - 4 years ago
It would be foolish to believe that any self insured employer does not track its high utilization employee claims. Keep in mind that most of those high expenses are related to a family member of the worker (child or spouse). Would an employer prefer to shed those costs? Absolutely. Are the majority of them that heartless? In my personal experience, No.
JT - 4 years ago
Seriously? you had to ask? LOL Most of us know this already. Kinda sad, eh? Probably illegal, if only we could prove it. And that is what they count on!
I don't, but only because I think we tend to overestimate how clever and coordinated most employers are. I'm sure someone tracks it, and probably brings it up occasionally, but I suspect most employers don't even remember they have these programs in place until the contracts come up for renewal.
Any RIF is a by-the-numbers exercise and older, more expensive staff are always at greater risk. Potential cost/liability/equation is how many orgs get around specifically targeting individuals and from what I've seen, it's fairly common. One ray of hope - if there is one - is the last two rounds I've been involved with due to M&A activity there's actually been a skills/productivity calculation and lo and behold some very experienced/skilled older staff were kept for their potential productivity over being replaced with cheaper, inexperienced staff. One other thing orgs are wising up to is that 20 something are not down with working 80 hrs/wk in tech positions as they learn with no mentoring.
I think employers would be flat out STUPID to risk that- so no, I don't believe they do it.
Unfortunately, it's either
A. Employee paranoia, or
B. My naive mindset
But in either case, by NOT sharing some of this information, unfortunately, many opportunities to actually help people through early identification can be lost- which is sad to think it could be avoided
A few years back a company I worked for underwent a series of layoffs. There were a lot of cancer cases among those let go (also maternity leaves, bereavement leaves, clinically-diagnosed depression). All I can tell you for sure is this: if you are a longtime employee and you get cancer, watch your back. I wouldn't advise anyone to unnecessarily volunteer info about expensive health situations.
I do think it's one of those "benefits" a company perceives will happen. When they target folks in mid-mgt and higher roles, they get older people who are higher cost. The sad thing is it's a zero sum game. What you may get in savings is nominal when compared with the experience lost.
It would be foolish to believe that any self insured employer does not track its high utilization employee claims. Keep in mind that most of those high expenses are related to a family member of the worker (child or spouse). Would an employer prefer to shed those costs? Absolutely. Are the majority of them that heartless? In my personal experience, No.
Seriously? you had to ask? LOL Most of us know this already. Kinda sad, eh? Probably illegal, if only we could prove it. And that is what they count on!