Hi-tech, closed for too experienced people

By December 2010 I've completed 17 years of hard work in the software development industry. These very very fruitful years were I did many things that grew into products, services and people who are using it or working by it on daily basis. All these things give me lots of pride and satisfaction, but it looks like this is not enough to stay in business now days.

Together with completing 17 years of work I also lost my job for the first time in my life. As much as it is hard to accept the fact that despite the huge professional credit I received, I have to go, the harder part was what came after. I'm 44, for the last 4 months I sent my resume for may positions, I've been to many interviews, but no one wants my services. Most companies even don't bother to inform you that you didn't passed to the next step in recruitment process, you just figure it out after a couple of weeks of no answer. Those that do inform you, say something that the process is stopped with no informative reason. Trying to push for a reason often ends up with a bigger nothing.

Looking around me and talking with friend I see that Hi-tech companies don't like to hire people over 40. Why? I can guess. They don't want to pay for very experienced people as they are short in budget. If such an "elderly" individual agrees to work for a reduced salary, they claim he is lying, as he will most probably look for a better paying job, and at the moment he will find it, he will leave in short notice. For some people I believe this is realistic, but I also know that many people who worked many years in Hi-tech are not looking for moving every other day just for a little more money. There are no free gifts in our world, and paying more is also an expectation to put your work in-front of your life and family.

Due to the increasing worldwide competition, companies try to reduce their operational costs and one of the ways is to maintain lower salary paid people. How do you find such people? you compromise their experience and quality of work. This is some kind of risk management. For the company, the cost is the salary of this individual. Since he is a "slave" he is working around the clock to meet the commitments to the market. If his work is not effective and with reduced quality, he will have to put more work hours to get to the required result. Still for the company it is the same cost. If the problem will be found by the customer, than it will most probably be covered via the maintenance costs, but the maintenance cost is based on statistics that assumed higher quality of delivery, and this is not the situation any longer, so one might find that the cost of maintenance is not covered, also the reliability of the company is damaged by delivery of poor quality, and on top of all, their employees cannot maintain this high level of pressure for long and they will start looking for something else in the market, and when this happen you need to start training a new employee for the job, which also costs. Bottom line, I don't know if the method really works. This is a good subject for PhD research.

Our poor employee is in a deadlock. He wants to grow in the company, he wants to get bonus, he wants to maintain his salary, and the price? The first years of his marriage are in jeopardy, he might not get to see his baby making the first steps as he was at work, or he will miss the first show at school, or concert. Is this a good price?

So if it is so bad, what do I want? I want to open the eyes and ears of some directors and managers who take decisions "through the hole of the token". Employees after 40 have a different agenda than these who are at the begging of their 30's. This different agenda is something that you need to explore and understand before taking decision on stuffing changes. It is not only about how much money you pay or how much it cost you to deliver. There are longer and deeper aspects of this issue and you need to talk to such employee and ask them directly if they will be willing to work for less? give them the time to think it over, and not just 24 hours. This is something serious that cannot be effectively considered in such short time. If you have an open position with candidates over 40, you need to evaluate them as well, and not filter them automatically. I'm almost confident that such people will give the company greater value than any junior manager.