I'm now of the age where looming retirement, in its traditional sense, can be measured with the fingers of two hands. It means the 'R-Word' can now be mentioned and discussed in polite mixed conversation without the subject being quickly changed.
I attended a seminar recently on the changing workplace. Much of it focused on the shift in demographics as large numbers of Boomers (born 1946-1964) reach the traditional retirement age, and there aren't enough Generation Xers (born 1965-1981) to replace them in the workplace. And don’t mention 'Gen Y' (1982-1996): they haven't even reached their thirties when their Boomer parents are contemplating retirement!
But the seminar also got us (mostly Boomers) thinking about the changing nature of work in order to cope with the diminishing numbers of worker-bees. In the coming years, retirement, as it is traditionally defined, and as our parents faced it, will change so much, it will become very difficult to define. Governments use the term to decide when you can begin receiving a state pension.
We've already seen some changes in Canada with the scrapping of the mandatory retirement age. Retiring at 65 was first introduced in Germany in 1880: that was fine when we were only expected to live until we were 58. But now that we’re routinely living until our mid-eighties, it seems cruel and unusual punishment to make someone stop work at 65, give them a pittance of a state pension, and still expect them to live another 20-plus, perhaps difficult, years. Many of the rules, deadlines and figures regarding CPP and OAS will change – will have to change – in light of the changing workforce. I predict in my lifetime government will be forced to provide some serious incentives to encourage seniors not to retire.
Already we are seeing senior staff being laid off on a Friday, and returning on the Monday, but as a contractor. ‘Contractualization’ of jobs can be beneficial for all parties if it is done properly. In the years ahead, expect to see a lot more contractors replacing more costly employees in the workplace.
Stories of big companies hiring cheaper part-time staff (rather than full-timers with benefits) are well known. But in the future, because of changing demographics, the decision whether to be full-time or part-time will shift from the employer to the employee. Employers will have to be a lot more flexible with their staff because there will be so few youngsters to go around. This will allow many workers – particularly mature workers – to choose the hours they work, where they work from, and when they will ‘retire’. And ‘getting the work done’ will become the workplace mantra of the future – the ‘where’ and ‘how long’ will be far less relevant than the outcome.
Flexi-time was a great concept in the seventies, however the focus was on hours put in rather than productivity got out. But if it only takes 23 hours a week to get one’s job done, why pay someone to be at work for 40 hours per week? Some companies are already using the ‘results-only work environment’ (ROWE) model, which allows staff to take off whenever they want, provided they get the work done.
And ‘getting the work done’ will become the workplace mantra of the future – the ‘where’ and ‘how long’ will be far less relevant than the outcome. Changing demographics, better technologies and workplace efficiencies are going to transform the way we work, as well as when we retire.
I used to joke that retirement for me was a four-day weekend. Ha! Do you want to hear something even funnier? It starts “If I retire....”
Article by Alex Handyside, CPCA,
No comments:
Post a Comment