Case Scenario Essay on Why Firms Tend to Go For Younger Employees

Why Firms Tend to Go For Younger Employees

The world over, many firms tend to go for younger employees as opposed to their more seasoned counterparts. The fallacy to this notion is that an employer believes that a young mind imparts novel ideas to an organization for a firm to remain afloat with its competitors. Nonetheless, even with an impending benefit from the new ideas, the demerits of taking this course further outweigh their gains. Just to outline but a few demerits are: the younger employees lack experience, they are apparently more narcissistic, they don’t retain jobs, and they are lacking in direction. With this in mind, I believe Pilchard should retain some of its older employees with their salaries intact.

 If the cost of maintaining them is the limiting factor, I believe using a pay cut as a criterion for retaining employment would not have a major impact on curtailing them. This is for the reason that most of them are not driven by money but their passion for work. Consequently, he would not benefit from young talents. However, if he manages to considerably reduce their numbers and substitute them with the younger generation, I believe he would harness the benefits that the young employees come with. However, this would be short-lived as far as the cost is concerned since Pilchard is more likely to experience high employee turnover rates as the young look for greener pastures. This is highlighted by Pew researchers who believe that the major challenge faced by contemporary firms is how to attract and maintain younger talent.

With this argument, I believe Pilchard would be better placed if it blends both the older and the new talent on board to synergize on their benefits. This would be achieved by proceeding with its pay cuts and offering competitive salaries to the new talent in order to retain them.

Scenario 3: Employment Discrimination

This case scenario depicts employment discrimination as stated in the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA). This Act “prohibits an employer from using pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions as the basis for treating an employee differently from others with short-term disability” (The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 2008). This is on condition that aforementioned employee is capable of comfortably executing quality services.

Job bias against pregnant women in the US presents a big problem that the law makers continue to grapple with. The above case adds to the number of the growing cases of pregnancy discrimination charges that continue to pile up in the courts. According to Jessica Contrera, in the fiscal year-end 2012, there have been 3,779 charges nationally. Nonetheless, this has been happening at the backdrop of legislations put in place (e.g. PDA) to reverse the trend. This is so because the legislations are believed to be a patchwork of protections since they have a lot of loopholes. They are non-uniform and are not comprehensive in their protections. To exploit the loopholes in the legislations, employers partly point an accusing finger to the economy. They believe that at the time of economic crunch, this group is more vulnerable to redundancy. To impede this trend, stricter and comprehensive laws ought to be put in place.

 The pregnant woman in this case is capable of producing quality services as a secretary. The job is not strenuous, and the fact that the employer has swept her application below the carpet, has a case to answer. The employer has flouted the Act by refusing to hire her.