[jasonlotito]

So, as others mentioned, you should read the article. For example, here is something that addresses your exact comment:

> Told some older employees being laid off that their skills were out of date, but then brought them back as contract workers, often for the same work at lower pay and fewer benefits.

[djrogers]

That doesn’t prove ageism, it proves that IBM (and apparently the market) thought those specific individuals were overpaid for their skill sets.

Sounds like kind of a crappy move, but it doesn’t prove ageism.

[dsr_]

Is there a difference between losing your job because of ageism and losing your job because the company thinks they can get the job done for less money?

Is it still a difference when the functional effect is that workers over 45 are the primary target?

[jbob2000]

But not all 20,000 had that happen to them, only some. And big organizations are weird like that. You get fired by one department, only to have another department hire you for something similar. And maybe you were doing a job that was intermittent, so it made sense to move to contract.