|
|
 |
|
| 02.03.2007 | ||
Retirement is, after all, an artificial construct. In Singapore, the Retirement Act states that the retirement age is 62; In Japan, the age is 60; in some other countries, the age would be different. So do we need to be constrained by the “official retirement age” when we are planning what work best for companies and workers? Should we “retire” our workers immediately once they reached the retirement age? Does it mean that once our workers reached the “magic” age, they would suddenly become unfit to work?
Of course not.
As competition gets tougher in this increasingly competitive business environment, companies should develop their HR processes be free of age biases, thereby allowing themselves to gain access to a broad pool of good candidates. By employing mature workers, employers will gain from continual access to the workers’ skills, networks and experience. For example, some companies in Singapore (such as SembCorp Marine Ltd) have the policy of retaining their workers beyond the official retirement age. Workers who are fit, healthy and willing to continue working, will be re-employed in jobs that require less physical strength like fitting or administrative work.
These mature workers will continue to leverage on their experience and industrial knowledge to contribute to the company. At the same time, the young ones in the company will also benefit from the rich exposure these mature workers had attained in the industry. For the mature workers, though their salary and responsibilities of these mature workers may be reviewed or reduced, it is a much better option than being retired altogether once they reached the magic age.
In my opinion, this is a better use of our scarce manpower and we should not be restricted by the artificial construct retirement age.
|
* * * * 31 votes |
Subscribe (RSS)
Hi Thomas,
interesting article! How do you think the retirement age will influence the future of our cities? Is it already influencing?
Best regards,
petter
As our population gets older, and the birth rate gets smaller, it seems that we could no longer simply “retire” those who reached the golden age and “assume” these matured workers could no longer contribute to the company as much.
After all, this golden age is a man-made artifact. Would this artifact changes as time goes by? I think so.
So how could we possibly tap on the experience, network and the solid exposure from these matured workers? It depends on our attitude to respect them and our willingness to learn from them, and.
Should you be able to make friends with people who are 30, 40 or 50 years older than you, trust me, you would be able to learn a lot more than your peers.
I have a few good friends who are 30 – 40 years older than me. They are in their 50s to 60s now.
Thomas Wai
Hi Thomas,
when I was in Japan last year, I experienced many officially “retired” men working in lighly exhausting jobs such as security officers on construction sites or securing construction sites on roads. These men want to continue working after their retirement or maybe they simply have to continue working for financial reasons. Is that simililar in Singapore?
Best regards
Benjamin H.
Hi Ben,
Of course, people who are “retired” by their previous companies could always be “re-employed” by some other firms. This happens in Singapore too. (one can see many matured stuff working in Subway, McDonald etc)
However, in Singapore, some companies would continue hiring their old stuff in the same company to contribute to the team. It is much better for both the employees and the company. For the matured employees, they could feel that their effort was appreciated; for the company, they could continue to have their valuable staff and have them to coach the younger officers. There is just one condition: these matured workers need to be willing to work, willing to share, and served as a contributor to the team.
Best Regards,
Thomas Wai