A Senior Moment

Harry's Law is a new TV series, off-beat, somewhat fragmented if you join in media res, but I like it because the cast is comprised of flawed characters. A former patent lawyer is dismissed by her law firm at age 61, turned out to pasture, as they used to say back when. She doesn't know what to do with the rest of her life, so she establishes a law practice in a former shoe store in downtown (opposed to uptown), exchanging free legal services for neighborhood protection. Her nemesis is a "teflon" lawyer, whose TV ads have more substance than his presence in court. Harry (for Harriet) keeps the shoe store clerk and inventory, but also takes on a former gang member/ druggie/ small-time hood who wants to turn his life around, as well as a lawyer who will never make it up the corporate ladder because he does not fit the Madison Avenue success stereotype.

Interesting people; interesting cases; interesting script ideas.

Last week, two concurrent stories dealt with ageism, a growing phenomena because far too many of us are outliving both our projected life span and our retirement accounts. Back when, employees used to retire at age 60-62 so the young folks could come onto the job fresh from an educational/vocational institution and raring to start at the bottom to earn a decent living for their newly-formed families. Now, that demographic stays single and wants to be at the top of the corporate earnings ladder, one way or another, before making a commitment to anyone other than self. The end result is that we all still need to make a living -- and it's not working for anyone, including the over-all US economy, which depends on the generational turn-over of employment, as well as new employees starting at the bottom of the employment ladder in both pay and benefits.

In the episode, the boss of a factory business had to make the difficult choices with which we are all faced: how to cut operational costs and keep the doors open, while inflicting the least personnel damage. His decision was to cut the older staff because they have earned retirement pensions, probably paid off the debt accumulated during their growing family years, and perhaps put aside money for their retirement. On the other side of his decision were the younger employees, the ones facing student loans, expensive start-up purchases (such as cars, homes, furnishings), without the financial resources to be out of work. The financial burden of the employer is top-heavy, providing both the senior employees and new-hires top wages and benefits, while struggling to keep up with increasing operational costs. No one wants to lose a job these days, but the reality is that if the business cannot sustain itself, the owners shut the doors.

However, we often don't retire because we cannot quit working, not necessarily because we cannot afford not to work. One of the elderly employees fired by the employer explains in court that it is not, for him, about the money, but about his self. He asks, "What am I supposed to do? Where am I supposed to go?"

That dilemma keeps many of us at work long after we would like to retire. I, too, have a pension and a bit put back in savings, so I can make do, but then I, too, am faced with what to do and where to go each day. My entire career has been spent in little rooms packed with other people, so I enjoy being alone at this point in my life, but I also realize that is not a good decision for the rest of my life. Teaching requires teachers to give and give and give, and students to take and take and take. I have given until it hurts far beyond what anyone knows, so I want to take for a while, including taking the time to make a decision that works for me.

Art imitates life, and while I'm not suggesting that Harry's Law is art, the life questions have me thinking. Unfortunately, I'm much more able to ask more questions than I am to come up with answers. Meanwhile, I continue to keep my part-time job because that allows me to know where to go and what to do until I am able to accept the alternatives.