Focus shifts to recruiting older workers
"The need is more acute for older, experienced workers," Max Stier, president of the nonprofit Partnership for Public Service, said on Jan. 17 at the kickoff for the FedExperience Transitions to Government pilot program. It is designed to help experienced IBM workers who are looking for second careers to move to senior positions at the Treasury Department.
Stier sees no contradiction in recruiting older and younger professionals at the same time, especially when much of the urgent need is for those who can fill mid- and senior-level positions left vacant by retirements and a 1990s hiring freeze.
"The new generation is older and younger people who haven't been in federal service but now have an opportunity to pursue federal service," Stier said. "The workforce has to be diverse in all respects."
His call to arms was joined by Sen. Herb Kohl, D-Wis., chairman of the Special Committee on Aging.
"The federal government will be affected heavily by the retirement of the baby boomers. However, we also know that more and more older Americans are interested in second careers in public service," Kohl said. "We are hopeful that with supportive federal policy, and exemplary leadership from organizations like the Partnership for Public Service, we can turn this into a win-win situation for older workers and the federal government."
Kohl said he planned to introduce two bills in the coming months to address issues driving older workers out of the federal workplace or keeping them from entering it. He is working with the committee's ranking member, Gordon Smith, R-Ore., on the first piece of legislation, which would remove financial penalties for workers nearing retirement who want to move to part-time schedules. The second bill will be based partially on the Partnership's FedExperience report and on hearings Kohl will convene in the spring.
Sen. Daniel Akaka, D-Hawaii, inserted a provision in the 2008 Defense authorization bill to allow some federal annuitants to come back to government without losing their annuity payments, but President Bush vetoed the legislation in late December.
Marc Freedman, chief executive officer of Civic Ventures, a think tank in San Francisco, said focusing on legislative barriers to service was important.
"Policy-makers must get rid of vestiges of the old deal, the barriers and disincentives discouraging work and penalizing individuals for continuing to contribute," he said. "This means changes in Social Security, pension rules, health coverage and other areas where old policies have not yet caught up to the new realities."
COMMENTS
- Yes, I tried for years to get to work either straight swings (2pm to midnight) 4 days per week or part time (any 2 or 3 days of a 7 day week) and never could make it. I retired 2 weeks ago, I'll be 66 next year. My pappy worked until 72 and they finally threw him out of J.I. Case Co. Everyone should be given the opportunity to work part time IF they want to. kmp Posted May 12, 2008 4:04 PM
- As a supervisor and manager I tried to fill 2 positions on my maintenance staff. First applicant turned it down because "no pay to move you", the 2nd "didn't want a pay cut", 3rd took the job and quit 2 months later to work with someone else, the 4th was a "no show" and called 2 weeks later to see if he could still take the job. Now I am starting the whole process over again. I am trying to fill 2 positions and dotting the i's and crossing the t's. 7 months and no one on board yet. What a wonderful hiring system we have. At least under NSPS I could have someone hired in 3 weeks. Dennis Posted March 10, 2008 9:50 AM
- Incredible. I do agree that the barriers to more mature potential employees should be removed. Good workers are good workers; and the mature bring a number of positives AND negatives with them as do all generations passing through our career systems. But for the federal government to even consider a statistically significant number of recruitments in this age bracket makes no managerial sense whatsoever! One must state their assumptions; so saying, I must assume that the target population of OLDER workers discussed herein must be looking at least at their second career. NORMAL careers last from 20 years, for special or extremely difficult jobs, to 30 years on average. The average college graduate is 23 – 25 years of age; now throw in a couple of transitional years … That should bring them into the 55 – 59 age range. Please remember, you only have to be employed with the federal government for 5 years to retire at 62. But to look at a looming retirement crisis, and respond with a recruitment effort that MAY last 5 years and then turn into yet another of the same, is the epitome of ignorance. Perhaps that is why the Administration is pushing the NSPS; to force out their perceived “dead wood” and bring in ex-military, retired military, and those already subsiding on a pension or 401(k). Such employees may consider a secondary career with a lesser income, but a fulfilling mission, to be more than acceptable. Remember, all these new folks won’t be getting much at 62; what with salary caps, non-retirement qualifying bonuses, and only 5 years time in service. But what damage will they do to that next generation of supervisors? The capping effect of military crossing over into high level managerial positions is daunting enough to the civilian employees trying to chart their career progression. Add in some old codgers like myself and there you go; another recipe for migration. One can only hope someone does a business plan to look ahead at the results and possible pitfalls, before we leap. Tip off Posted February 5, 2008 10:22 AM
