Discover your dream Career
For Recruiters

Ageism - one banker's personal perspective

After 30+ years plus in global custody and middle-office operations, it seems to me ageism is still rife in financial services.

Over the years, I've dealt successfully with various employment agencies as an employer. However, when the boot is on the other foot and people of my age are looking for a job, it's a different story.

Positions are advertised on various job sites which I know for a fact I can do standing on my head. Why is it, then, that I keep getting the response, "Sorry, but you have not got the experience"?

Could it be the agencies are afraid to talk to banks' HR departments, and to say they have a very experienced candidate to send through?

First contact with agencies is always fantastic. They make you feel good and say: "Great CV, you certainly match the criteria of our clients' needs. We'll send off your details and follow them up in a couple of days, give you the feedback and hopefully organise an interview."

Such a reponse makes the adrenaline flow and makes you think that you might be on your way back to the fast lane where you belong. It's around then that I usually start thinking about the role, what systems they've got, what procedures are in place and so on.

However, after a couple of days and no messages from the agency concerned, it's time to call them. Eight out of 10 times you cannot contact the person dealing with your case file: once you give your name they seem to go into hiding. They're always either in a meeting, away from the desk or on the phone - and they very seldom call back.

If you are lucky enough to get your man a couple of days later, you'll invariably find out that you're "not experienced enough", that the role was "too junior", or some other excuse.

This is why there are so many people of my age (55 and a born-again teenager) out there, with a wealth of experience which cannot be gained within two to three years.

Give us veterans a chance and the major players could well be surprised in landing a genuine, experienced and passionate person for their empire. That person will reward them for a good few years to come - rather than resigning after one or two years for another position offering more money.

All I want is a fair break. Who will change employers' and agencies' opinions on this?

author-card-avatar
AUTHORAnonymous Insider Comment
  • Pa
    Paul Randall
    28 August 2008

    I managed operational areas of a bank for 18 years & thoroughly enjoyed the banking procedure and changes at that time. I was then put out to pasture. The next 20 years I obtained 2 further jobs in banking & then in software. I even applied my skills to the insurance sector & consulting. So you can get another job. However,nothing lasts forever, getting yet another job gets harder & harder justifying why you have applied for a position where you are now over qualified even though you are prepared to take on a lesser role means a threat to the person recruiting. Yet companies do not realise the skill us older generation have. Do staff realise what they are doing when they push a button or scroll to next section. It is the system that is processing the transaction and updating GL & setting up a payment & checking compliance etc. I was in New York in 1992 when there was a power failure at one end of the office dealing with SWIFT payments the screens went blank & they just stared not realising the repucutions of late payment or failure to process the trade. I managed to obtain a number of extention leads to temporary run 3x terminals. H&S was compromised but that was my decission.

  • Pa
    Paul Randall
    28 August 2008

    It is believed that an older person can be a threat. I worked for a major bank for 20 years & thoroughly enjoyed the growth and change. I was then put out to pasture & since then have obtained 2 further postions within the banking arena. For a while used my expertise within the software industry & also diverted my skills to insurance where some fields do overlap. Each time it gets harder & harder to justify why you are looking for a position. Yet companies insist that they want their "new candidate " to fit the role exactly. Where is the challenge in that Companies want you to jobcross & encourage you to have a better understanding . Yet because of this you are now overqualified for your next position. My experience these days is that the staff do not know what is happening when they push a button or scroll to the next screen as the system is actually doing the function. I was in New York & had a power failure at one end of the office where all the SWIFT transactions were being processed the screens went blank,staff just sat there staring not knowing what to do or what the repucutions would be if payments were not made. I ran an extention lead to 3 work stations for a temp fix.

  • Ag
    Agency Recruiter
    2 June 2008

    I certainly would not want to defend Sarah's comments, she is cleary not the sharpest tool in the box. However I would say that the "I can do this standing on my head" attiude is common amongst maturer candidates. Espicailly those with an axe to grind. So why would you hire someone into your team who you percieved to be difficult to manage and be a threat to your own role?

    James questions the need for Agenices. In my experience of hiring to the ops world I would say that agencies are definiately required. Often ops managers are so inept at making hiring decisions and set the benchmark so high in their expectations they require a severe reality check before they are able to get their headcount filled. However Ops managers do have a difficult job and are a key part of the business.

    Most agencies (especially the more succesful ones) are a reflection of the attitudes of the clients they recruit for. Basic economics dictate that if an agency does'nt deliver what the client wants then there will be no fee and the agency will go out of business. Its about time HR and the front office started to take more responsibility for diversity rather than play lip service.

  • AP
    A Pedant
    2 June 2008

    Age discrimination is, of course, illegal, so no recruitment agency/HR department will admit they practice it, let alone explain why. I can only assume that they believe managers don't want to interview people over a certain age, in which case change will have to come from the top down. Don't forget that a proportion of advertised roles seem not to exist in reality (according to other threads on this site), so nobody will be getting an interview for them - young or old.

    I was 27 when I was first told I was too old for a role (in the days when age discrimination was legal). This is not a new phonomenon, though it seems to get worse as I get older...

  • Ja
    James
    31 May 2008

    Sarah..I don't normally get so annoyed at somebody that I feel compelled to post. However, in this instance this needs to be said. You are an idiot (and more).

    Whislt all of these people are rushing round pushing to move into the front office because they couldn't get there directly, who is actually running the show both training and clearing up the mistakes made by the juniors?

    If I ran an investment bank I would be actively looking for employees as mentioned in the article. I feel for these roles they are a very underpriced commodity.

    On a side note, does the industry need recruitment firms? The same question goes for does the country need estate agents? More often that not, useless, middle-men that could all be out of a job if a decent centralised information platform was available and used.

Sign up to Morning Coffee!

Coffee mug

The essential daily roundup of news and analysis read by everyone from senior bankers and traders to new recruits.

Sign up to Morning Coffee!

Coffee mug

The essential daily roundup of news and analysis read by everyone from senior bankers and traders to new recruits.