There are a lot of bad things about our industry, repeating the stereotypes that lead to them is still harmful. Which brings me to...
> I'm not sure what about that you object to so strongly.
Simple: If you were in a a position where you were screening resumes, I think you would rule out people with long tenures purely on the basis that the tenure was long.
I am saying that this amounts to age-based discrimination, and you should think about it rather than parroting the assertion "Obviously you're unhireable, you worked somewhere for 27 years". And even if you refuse to think about this, my hope is that other commenters will.
And maybe, just maybe next time they see a resume with 27 years of experience at one company, they will think "Wow, this person will bring an interesting point of view to the team – they have been through 5 times the tenure of an average VP and have seen the rise and fall of several projects. Let's hire them!"
If it makes you feel any better, I did the hiring manager thing for 2 years before deciding I couldn't stand it, and the average age of my team was 55. I did my bit to not exacerbate this situation.
My fervent goal is to stay an IC through retirement. Doing that successfully requires playing the game.
> I must say I am pleasantly surprised! Please accept my apologies, and an upvote.
I concur. I know that you're "just playing the game as set by the rule-makers."
I'm in an unusual position. I'm not looking for work (and, after a few years on my own, I couldn't be dragged into the rat race with a locomotive).
That means that I get to say things like "Oi guv! That bloke's starkers!" Won't make me popular, and probably won't change anyone's opinion, but I'll do it, anyway. It's my nature.
Honestly, as someone who reviews tons of resumes for my team, I wouldn't see 27 years at a company as bringing an interesting point of view by itself.
I'd look at what they've accomplished in those 27 years. This is no different than someone with 5 years or even 1.
If someone only has a couple notable things in 27 years , then I'm not sure what they're bringing to the table.
If someone has the same number of notable things in 5 years, then that speaks more to the level of work they're innovating at.
In short, it's really about the meaningfulness of what they've done during that time, relative to the tenure. Tenure alone is meaningless IMHO.
I've interviewed too many people who have careers longer than my life, who have basically just gotten by. I've also interviewed people who've done amazing things year on year.
The latter are the people I seek to build out the team. The former don't add much, unless they're really rock solid devs who've stayed in top of things. But if they're just alright? Then why wouldn't I hire someone more junior when they're giving me the same results, for cheaper, and are usually easier to mold and train?
There are a lot of bad things about our industry, repeating the stereotypes that lead to them is still harmful. Which brings me to...
> I'm not sure what about that you object to so strongly.
Simple: If you were in a a position where you were screening resumes, I think you would rule out people with long tenures purely on the basis that the tenure was long.
I am saying that this amounts to age-based discrimination, and you should think about it rather than parroting the assertion "Obviously you're unhireable, you worked somewhere for 27 years". And even if you refuse to think about this, my hope is that other commenters will.
And maybe, just maybe next time they see a resume with 27 years of experience at one company, they will think "Wow, this person will bring an interesting point of view to the team – they have been through 5 times the tenure of an average VP and have seen the rise and fall of several projects. Let's hire them!"