Someone in another discussion called the AARP “an insurance company with a magazine license.” I’m still giggling. Have never been a fan, and it these allegations are true, will be less so.

People, never never take anything at surface value. I have been involved in hiring, involved in reorganizations that seem to be happening more regularly in the present climate, and much more lies below the surface than age. Little of this sort is done without many consultations with lawyers on the legality of these issues. Normally - if I am correct - there can be an offer of another position within the company. Usually, the employee considers it an insult, but an attempt is made. There are something called “Job Descriptions” involved - heavily involved in reorganizations. For instance, a big increase in computer skills is needed to keep up with the times in that position. More. The company picks the best qualified person for the newly defined position. Business sense is involved - and frankly, it makes sense. It is a constantly moving world. Companies must keep up with the time — and the bottom line is profit. I am not a particular fan of AARP - and I hate to see a person without a job. I believe that AARP has outplacement services though, and understanding what goes into running big business gives me an understanding of the “whys”. Frankly, suing for $25,000 is peanuts — if this woman truly had an open and shut case, her lawyer would have advised her to up the ante big time.

I feel Joan is quite correct. Having participated in literally hundreds of job interviews (I worked for many years in the public sector)I know that things are often not what they appear to be on the surface. Looks to me as if some of your correspondents just want to take a mean spirited swipe at AARP. AARP appears to me to be trying to work for seniors in a variety of ways although I, too, dislike the selling aspect.

AARP is what is it. And they sell a lot of insurance. They also do a lot of lobbying on behalf of seniors, and they create a voting bloc. The magazine is entertaining and informative — a way to keep up with other geezers. Unless the $25,000 suit is a typo, I think there is something odd about the article.

Boy I am going to get busted for this - I sometimes think that people will look for any excuse other than ‘sorry we just don’t need someone with your abilities any longer’. They discriminated against me because of my __________ (you fill in the blank). If she is in her sixties there is a good chance that she has not caught up with all the new technology that is needed to run most offices today. I will be looking for work soon and I can tell you that I have owned two businesses and managed several others but I will be very careful about the jobs I even apply for. My 17yr grandson knows more about these computers, blackberries, etc. than I do. He has to help me with my home computer half the time. I will only be able to work part time because of the boys and I am just going to start looking for something I enjoy and can make a few extra bucks. There is no way that I can compete with these young whipper snappers unless I am willing to go back to school. I can still learn - but do I really want to. If she was passed over for a series of jobs it was most likely because they would have to retrain her in to many areas.

Some links to AARP’s reruitment/HR pages on their website. None of these “employees” look old enough to need botox. Also check their job postings across all levels. This does not appear to be a company that is actively seeking mature, experienced workers. http://www.aarp.org/aarp/human_resources/culture/ http://www.aarp.org/aarp/human_resources/diversity/

“AARP, an insurance company with a magazine license.” ROTFLMAO! I’ve been disappointed they did not use any leverage in the prescription drug mess we now have. Maybe due to the sleazy insurance connections. Sheesh, now I need another shower…

AARP is obviously one of the most hypocritcal organizations around. I can’t believe that this woman worked there for 12 years and had excellent evaluations and they could not find a job for her in the organization. I also worked in the public sector for years and we had personell policies that encouraged placement of older workers rather than putting them out on the street 2 years before they’re eligible for Medicare. For an organization who bills themselves as the “guardians of older americans” it is amazing they could not have come to some kind of an acceptable arrangement. The truth is they probably didn’t try; they didn’t want to pay the pension and benefits. They are no better than some of the other companies who have been severely criticized in the past (K-mart for example). I won’t shop there because of their disrespect for their older workers. All of this bull about an older employee not having technical skills — I worked in the technology field and can attest that the new breed is not necessilary better than their older counterparts. People of all ages can and do learn technology.