Earlier in January, I wrote my annual review of the state of flexibility — the limited gains of 2011 and projected trends for 2012. One of the unusual characteristics of the year past: flexibility fell from visibility in the general media.
Vanishing Mentions One final indicator that “the year gone by was a bad one” was the virtual disappearance of flexibility from the HR, business and popular press. Flex articles are often a staple of feature, best practice and how-to sections of airplane magazines and the new media. In 2011, the mentions were few and far between.
If the only problem was diminished references to flexibility, that would be unfortunate. But the actual idea and practice of flexibility seem to have receded in general consciousness as well. Even at the height of the recession, situations would be written up that lent themselves to a “flexible solution” – layoffs might prompt the suggestion of work sharing, retention of valuable talent would set off a mention of virtual work and pressing family situations could lead to a discussion of part-time options.
These actions and reactions still occur – to some extent. But they seem to make their way into print far less often. Nowhere is this phenomenon clearer than in a recent Washington Post article by Peter Whoriskey, “Amid downturn, more older Americans employed than ever before.” The challenge of ‘vanishing flex’ is more striking here because it occurs in an otherwise excellent piece of journalism.
The article tells the eye-opening story of how millions of older workers are laboring past the “normal” retirement age of 65 because:
1. Their 401Ks are not providing income equal to traditional pensions
2. The recession has reduced their net worth and earnings
3. All things considered, they may have to work until age 70 or 80.
“The number of people older than 55 who are working has actually risen by 3.1 million, or 12 percent, since the beginning of the recession.” This includes growth in the group 75 years and older.
A 63-year old real estate saleswoman has “put off retirement and, with the downturn in home sales, sold off jewelry and purses on consignment.” She said “Sometimes I wish I could retire. But at this point I expect to be working as long as I can.”
And how will this woman and millions of others continue working full-time into their 70s and beyond. Will they be healthy enough to do this? Will they have the stamina for full-time work? Will they want to spend their waning years devoted to working most of the time?
A couple million might. A million or more might not. It’s at this point in the story that the possible need for reduced schedules, for part-time work, for phased and partial retirement should be raised. Such an expansive article need not focus on flexible schedules as a tool of workplace and social policy. But omitting them totally speaks volumes about our recession-era thinking about how we structure work. Flexibility seems to have fallen off a cliff.
What paragraph or two on flexibility and older workers would I include in an article like this?
Older workers in growing numbers want and need to extend their working lives. That is unlikely to occur for millions of those aged 60, 70 and 80 if it requires that this very large group remains as healthy and vigorous as it was at age 50. And if the only form work takes is full-time jobs, this may pose a further challenge to the stamina and energy of older workers. Not all workers will need modification – and not all the time. But hundreds of thousands could need flexibility once in a while or for extended periods.
US employers have made limited progress in offering flexible schedules to their regular employees. But fewer have made significant strides in helping older workers modify their schedules. Options to consider are:
• Phased Retirement – These are end-of-career reductions to 90%, 80%, etc. This schedule is often paired with a Knowledge Transfer process.
• Part-Time – This is a broad range of reduced schedules that can be intermittent or sustained and range from 10% to 50% of full-time.
• Part-Year – This reduced schedule allows work and time off to be organized in blocs – such as one, two or three months off per year.
Implementing such options will be a long challenging process. Mentioning them in a long, front page article in Washington, DC’s leading newspaper alone will not lead to that change. But positive articles and stories can help in the change process. When the media as a whole back off from the challenge, it becomes far more difficult to create new work environments.