Lots of older workers are staying in the workforce past what should have been their retirement day, and their numbers are expected to grow—confronting both them and their employers with the dilemma of how to proceed in, and with, an older workforce.

A Washington Post report says that the issue of an aging workforce is not just presenting a depressing reality to those who long to retire, it’s also challenging employers with the need to cope with older workers who just won’t—or can’t—go away.

Bloomberg reports that the percentage of U.S. workers lingering past the traditional retirement age hit new highs in the most recent jobs numbers; in fact, 19 percent of those 65 and older are working at least part time.

But it won’t stop there, with the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics predicting that over-65 workers will likely be the fastest-growing demographic in the workplace by 2024.

So where does that leave bosses?

Some, the report says, are redesigning manufacturing plants to adapt to the needs of an aging workforce, while others are increasing 401(k) matches to better prepare employees financially so that they actually can retire.

And then there are financial wellness programs, now popular among employers as they try to boost retirement preparedness among workers of all ages to try to forestall having to cope with workers past their prime who hang on out of financial necessity.

One thing not seen all that much is phased retirement, although when the concept surfaced about 15 years ago it was supposed to provide older employees with a way to segue out of their careers gradually, while continuing to provide them with some employment—whether part time or some other arrangement—and even maintain continuity to take advantage of their skills for an extended period of time, or to mentor younger employees.

Not happening—at least not much.

According to nonprofit human resources association WorldatWork, only 29 percent of companies offer phased retirement, and that number is actually down a bit in 2017.

Growth of such programs hasn’t made much, if any, headway over the last 6 years, with the Society of Human Resources Management reporting that only six percent of companies they survey actually use formal phased retirement programs. That’s remained at pretty much the same level over the last several years. Informal use of such programs has only risen to 13 percent.

If they’re not buying into phased retirement, though, it doesn’t mean employers aren’t doing anything.

Instead, says the report, “companies are offering the option to near-retirees under the broader umbrella of flexible work arrangements—a development that could help older workers in some ways, but possibly hurt if they work for organizations where flexibility isn’t as highly valued.”

Originally worried about a mass boomer exodus as they aged, companies came up with the notion of phased retirement around the beginning of this century as a means of keeping talent and experience—but when the Great Recession hit, workers clung to whatever jobs they could keep, fearing an impoverished retirement.

And gradually the notion of flexibility came into the picture.

Now the option is a much less defined program, particularly since employers are reluctant to offer promotions and big assignments to those who are contemplating leaving and employees are reluctant to tip their hands about an eventual departure.

The report quotes Jacquelyn James, codirector of the Center on Aging & Work at Boston College, saying, “If there’s anything employers want, it’s a committed employee. They don’t want a sign they’re one foot in and one out the door.”

Employees have an advantage with these less formal programs in that they won’t have to set a departure date or actually declare an intention to retire before they’re ready—but the flip side of that is that employers, particularly those who aren’t all that flexible, might not support such informal programs or actually penalize employees who take advantage of flexible work arrangements.

“There is this large shift from a world where employers really wanted people to retire at 65,” Renee McGowan, who leads Mercer’s global retirement savings and financial wellness business, is quoted saying, “to one where they realize that may not be a reality, either on the part of employers or employees.”

Employers, McGowan says in the report, are “realizing that I can’t expect my employees will want or be able to retire at 65. How do I help?’ That’s been a huge impetus for the financial wellness programs.”

As a result, such programs can include financial education, actual coaching and advice on everything from college savings to when employees can afford to retire. And while their popularity has been rising, they’ve “become really hot this year,” McGowan is quoted saying.

In fact, an Aon Hewitt report has determined that nearly 50 percent of employers it surveyed are working on strategies that will go further in helping workers’ financial health. And McGowan says that the most sophisticated companies recognize that this is an ongoing challenge that they’ll have to make the most of, expecting that the skills and careers of over-65 workers remain very much part of the workforce well into the future.

Instant Insights /

Workers, employers face new reality: receding retirement

More From HR Executive

Related Stories

Recommended For You