Man's vast experience hinders him in search

Q. I retired in 1995 at the age of 57 and this year I became 65 and decided to go back to work. I applied for a number of positions for which I was eminently qualified, but to no avail.
After many turndowns, I was hired last September and have been working since then. I offer one example, but could give many more: A company had an opening in my field and I sent in my application via e-mail. They never responded. I had done this job in three different locations, including one company where I started the department from scratch.
My question is, do these people prefer not to hire someone my age? I know what the law says, but I want to hear it from an insider like you. Plain and simple, is there age discrimination going on, and if so, is it rare or rampant?
A. I'm always careful about this answer. Yes, I do believe that some employers make decisions (discriminate) based on factors such as age, gender, looks and race.
It would be incredible to assume otherwise, given that we can't seem to eradicate those types of bias in any other area of our lives.
It's harder for me to say that you, personally, experienced age discrimination. I have learned over the years that job seekers of all ages may unwittingly conduct a poor job search, even while seeming to do everything right. For example, your resume may have included 30 years of experience, which should tell the employer you can do the job you applied for.
However, the employer, instead of saying, "He can certainly do the job," or even, "He's too old," may instead have said, "He's too experienced. He'll start looking for a better job," or "He'll have trouble taking direction from someone who knows less than him."
The result is the same as if it was age discrimination -- you don't get interviewed or hired -- but the reasons are completely different.
To avoid this, you would trim your resume to show only the experience relevant to the job or you would find a contact in the company and talk your way in.
Your main task at that point is to convince the employer that you truly want this job, even if it is beneath your skill level, and that you have good reason not to want a high wage, which the employer would otherwise assume your experience dictates.
When you understand that the employer thinks "older worker" means more expensive, harder to train, and less easily satisfied, you can see why any particular boss might pass on you.
So is it discrimination, or discriminating? Give the boss enough information that he or she can make the decision for the right reasons and you will reduce the chances of being discriminated against.
Q. My employer is not offering me a raise this year because he says I have too many skills that are not up-to-date. Instead, he wants me to take some classes. He will pay for the classes, but only some of them will take place during my regular shift. I will have to take the classes that are scheduled after my shift on my own time.
Do you think this is fair?
A. Is it fair? You mean is it fair to be given another opportunity to meet the standards of your work instead of being fired? Or do you mean is it fair to have tuition covered and even some class time paid for by your employer?
Fair to whom?
I don't mean to sound harsh, but this is a good example of not seeing the forest for the trees.
You're concerned about the raise you're not getting and about the spare time you'll be losing for this employer -- those are legitimate concerns.
But the real issue is one of job retention and career development. It's more than legitimate for your employer to ask you to develop skills you are missing in the workplace. Kicking in the tuition and some pay for class time is really a bonus.
This is a good deal. Study hard and learn well. Opportunities like this aren't as common as you might think.
XAmy Lindgren, the owner of a career-consulting firm in St. Paul, Minn., can be reached at alindgren@pioneerpress.com.