Age Discrimination Alive and Well at Merck

Regardless of your opinion about the value of workers over 45, it is illegal to single that group (or any group) out for employment opportunities. During the latest restructure at Merck. I can site several examples of reps and CTL's with top 10% or next 20% ratings over the age of 45 displaced by younger, less expensive employees living 1,2,3 states away ( significantly farther than the 75/150 mile distance to workload center rule for reps and CTLs used during earlier cuts).

I found it unusual that the specifics around distance were not clearly articulated during the latest round of cuts in 2014. I asked and could never get an answer.

 

Wow, wonder if any of these belong to that oldies without bridges group.

 

This happened in research as well. The best workers got hacked and the entry level, usually non-native speaking researchers were kept. And yes, they were paid much less, and Merck got what they paid for.

 

You are just too stupid to understand.

 

I age select, no one over 22 needs to interview. The lack of gray hair determines placement.

 

I'm sorry, but you are a fool if you don't know that what you describe is endemic in our industry. Don't you know anyone from AZ, Pfizer, Sanofi, BMS, Novartis? Ask around. Shoot…go to their CP sites. Its an "open secret".

 

They also unload younger workers. Wrong place at the wrong time, you are done.

 

Most younger unload themselves after a few years. That's what makes them so attractive to companies...

Its all about no, you heard it, "NO" future expenses....its really all very simple, and ...

very BOO worthy.

 

Who gets targeted for cuts.......older, single, male or female?

Some have clear understanding of who they are.

Hint: No need to worry if you are married and young to middle aged.

 

Also, I think there is discrimination with folks who have health issues. I had a very significant health issue arise late last year. I was out on short term disability a little over a month to address health issues. Shortly, after returning to the office; Mother Merck kicked me to the curb.

 

"Don't die, they will feed you to the lions".

 

Very catty!

 

When they do a layoff that is large and localized enough, it is common to provide impacted employees with an anonymized list of impacted (and non-impacted) employee counts by job category, age and gender (there may be other categories, but these are the ones I recall).

When I received this list, in PDF form, I converted to a spreadsheet and did some summary statistics - descriptive and inferential.

There were two bulges in the age distribution. Lots of 45+, and a more than expected <25 (presumably to balance out the average age calculations). It was clearly selective for these two groups. There is no doubt that, if wage "density" were taken into account, this was a profitable layoff for the company in terms of both average wage remediation and long-term benefit savings.

Oct 2008 was a good layoff - for the short-term shareholders.

 

Bingo!

So, there IS a safety zone...."not too young, not too old."

Would account for the OPs idea that the mid rangers of married status are probably fare best of all!

Young kids and the greys are on shaky ground....

 

Why don't you ask HR they can help LOL What's up knucklehead I want my $ for internal email I posted

 

what?

 

That would be animal cruelty surely to make the lions sick.

 

Great! We need new thinking and the old farts need to go! Keep it up and don't listen to anyone over 40 yrs old!

 

Ha ha! Great movie, "Gladiator!"

 

Why would being married verses being single make a difference when making layoff choices? I am grey, single and low pay. So low pay might be my only chip left for this game?