As I reach one of those age "milestones," I feel more than usually reflective about what that means, here in terms of work. Those who say, "I haven't changed in twenty years" are either lying to themselves or haven't thought or done much growing through time. Yes, we are different than we were at the start of our careers.  We know more about everything, from job skills to interpersonal skills. We should be working much smarter now than ever before, be more certain and clear what we need and expect from others, perhaps care a bit less about what others think. We have to be cognizant of inevitable physical changes as well, take good care of ourselves, nurture body and mind.

In the workplace, employers need to value their experienced workers, treat and pay them accordingly.  There is no substitute for hard-earned experience in the trenches. Not every job or project needs that, which is good for the newbies, but experienced workers are essential to every company. Utilize this knowledge in mentoring programs and apprenticeships too.  If you get to a point your skills are slipping, you're bored, whatever, do something new.  Change jobs, go back to school, learn a new skill, do something that keeps you energized. Life moves quickly, so utilize well your most precious non-renewable resource, which is time.  http://www.employmentlawman.com/monday-morning-musings.html

 

The lynchpin of a discrimination case involves proving different treatment of an employee as compared to one or more others outside the legally protected group. As an example, imagine an allegation by a female that "Jim and John had lower quality work than me but were not fired while I was."  Different rules for different employees spells trouble and can at least appear to be (and sometimes actually is) illegal discrimination.

Simply stated, make sure your policies and practices are applied equally to everybody in the workplace. Suddenly requiring a pre-employment physical for an employee when you don't normally require pre-employment physicals for anyone else has the potential to be problematic for that employer. Requiring Sally to notify her boss of absences at least 24 hours in advance per written policy while allowing Hector and Jim to notify within only an hour may get you in trouble despite that there is otherwise nothing wrong with the written policy itself. The problem is with the differential application of the policy. 

Sometimes exceptions to rules are made but, when they are, be ready to explain and defend them with truthful, nondiscriminatory reasons.  If you fire Jim for failing the drug test but you didn't fire Mark, who also happens to be much younger than Jim, you may be headed for trouble in an age discrimination case.  If the real reason for the different treatment is that Mark had an otherwise unblemished record for ten years but Jim failed his drug test after 90 days of spotty employment and that's why the exception was made, you might win the discrimination case if the jury believes you but the question of discrimination can arise whenever such exceptions to rules are made. Sometimes there are so many exceptions to the rule, the rule is swallowed up entirely and meaningless.  Then also change your rule to reflect your actual practice.  

One of the first questions I ask an employer when they ask whether they should or should not do something is "what is your policy and what exceptions have you made before and why."  Sometimes the policy itself may be illegal but that's a different topic.  Otherwise, be consistently consistent in the application and enforcement of your workplace rules and policies or be well-prepared to defend why you made the exceptions.  http://www.employmentlawman.com/monday-morning-musings.html

 How many people currently in the workforce are really engaged versus just waiting for quitting time or their next favorite part of the day, lunchtime?  Research shows a large percentage of the workforce is disengaged and unhappy.  What is the problem and is there a solution?

The truth of the matter is that many jobs are boring, routine, and not any fun, not just low-level jobs. Sometimes I think some people have unrealistic expectations about work. They think their job's purpose is to fulfill all their needs. Many jobs barely fulfill or even fail to fulfill the basic need of folks to simply earn a halfway decent living.  I have yet to hear of an employer who expressed a concern whether a given position was exceeding an employee's expectations.  The employer has a need and the employee is hired to fill that need.  That's not to say there aren't satisfying jobs or at least moments of satisfaction, but simply that a job isn't there to fulfill all the employee's wants and desires. Some acceptance of this may go a ways toward feeling more fulfilled because one's expectations are then rooted in reality, not fantasy. 

As employers, you can at least provide a safe work environment of decency, respect, challenge, opportunity, and appreciation.  If you don't think that's the right thing to do in itself, understand high turnover and other problems will result from a contrary approach. Reward your excellent employees for their work, try to improve and encourage the performance of the less excellent but still good employees and winnow out the rest.  Employers also need to understand that employees have many needs that don't encompass only working for them as their entire reason for being. Both sides can do better but expectations must be real. My belief is true happiness comes from a variety of sources in life that together create a satisfying tapestry. http://www.employmentlawman.com/monday-morning-musings.html