So, I guess we're all in agreement, age discrimination does exist. Since I am 60+ I have enough personal experience as well as professional knowledge about age discrimination. When I do resume for a client who is 50+, it's important not to include dates that will blatantly show their age. As far as having 40 years of experience, a resume shouldn't even go that far back in work history. Yet, there are ways of showing longevity, etc. that downplay dates. Also, in a cover letter or summary, I know people often say, "Blablabla, with 40 years of comprehensive experience doing XXXX." No, the rule I follow is 15+ years or more than 15 years. That's enough to show you have a good deal of experience without diving into the deep end.

That is discrimination! I'm 58, and I know after investing my own self in a time frame where I would feel this uncomfortable from their ethics...should WASTE NO MORE! GET OUT, Apply yourself where You Can FEEL THAT YOU ARE A TOOL, A POWERFUL RESOURCE GAINING more VALUE in the company and expanding another star for the HONOR ROLL (DEPENDABLE, RELIABLE & RESPECTED) PROMOTING PRIDE & STABILTY -IN GROWTH of dedication in each year.

I'm more interested in what cost he is trying to recoup. If the person has 40 yrs. of experience, they need very little training. Their work ethic is probably good as is their attendance and dependability. Also, I doubt they need much supervision.

I definitely would! Experience and work ethic, big pluses. They are one of the most dependable age groups.

As a hiring manager, I never discriminate against anyone, particularly older applicants. I also find that older, seasoned employees come to work, to work. They have more experience and do not need much supervision and are more reliable too. I would rather hire someone who is going to give me 8 hours of work everyday even if it's only for maybe 7 more years.

I'm 55 and very experienced in my field but companies DO age discriminate AND they don't want to pay what you're worth. Sad but true

Probably not .if they have forty years experience that at best puts them close to 58 years old. So in the big picture you may not recoup the cost of hiring them before they retired. So the benefits of the experience may not be worth it .

good luck proving age discrimination.

I disagree. What they may not be able to recoup in longevity (I also doubt), they make up with having experience to use their expertise to help guide the younger generations on how to succeed within the company. The company will not have as much turnover and will have leaders to help keep retention of skills. I am a firm believer of earning the right to have an opportunity because no age is guaranteed continuing employment.

I wouldn't exactly say it like that because you can't discriminate against age. I would look at it or even ask him why does one stay in maintenance for 40+ years . Personally I would say no go. He will expect more money for being an expert in maintenance. There are 1000s of people that would take that job. I've learned through personal experience you could find the perfect person that has no job experience in maintenance but have all the tools and have acquired the knowledge to be a better employee.