ReServe is an innovative non-profit organisation that links people over 55 with meaningful second careers. ReServists are given responsibilities that allow them to use their skills, which doesn’t always happen with volunteering. Some ReServists use the same skills they always did – retired accountants, for example, are very popular; but most of the time, the ReServe career is something new. 

The pay is low – $10 an hour. But ReServe never uses the word volunteer; it’s work and the pay matters – on a number of levels. ReServe also requires organisations to pay because it ensures the work is valued.  

ReServe began in 2005, and now operates in Miami and Westchester in addition to New York City, with plans to develop elsewhere. According to the article, hundreds of retired professionals are currently on a waiting list to be matched with meaningful part-time jobs in schools, libraries, hospitals and other city agencies and nonprofits.

“The concept of retirement is fading,” said Mary S. Bleiberg, ReServe’s executive director.  “There is a steady increase in people over 65 going into or staying in the workforce.  People are realizing they’re going to be around a lot longer, and there’s a limited number of golf clubs they can swing.”

As a model for what is needed to address the nature of later life careers for a sector of the population ReServe appears to have much to offer. It is founded on the notion of skilled, paid work which at the same time is useful, fulfilling – and valued.

Intuitively one feels that enduring solutions for later life working will come from a proliferation of such initiatives rather than merely extending the timespan of existing career structures.

To access the article go to http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/in-a-second-career-working-to-make-a-difference/

As part of the preparation phase NEST has commissioned a survey from YouGov covering people’s understanding/attitude towards pensions with the following rather predictable findings. Only 6 per cent of people interviewed think pensions are ‘straightforward’. Only 4 per cent believe pensions are ‘easy to understand’ and just 3 per cent agree that pensions are ‘simple’. In addition, only 5 per cent of respondents found pensions ‘interesting’ and 2 per cent agreed they are ‘engaging’ (who are these people?). The words people more strongly associate with pensions are ‘confusing’, ‘complicated’ ‘boring’, ‘difficult’ and ‘off-putting’.

NEST will be competing with many other pension providers in trying to convince individuals that pensions and, in particular, saving through NEST is in their best interests. And even if people had the spare cash to save, bad publicity regarding low investment returns, plus high fees and administration costs have made savers highly sceptical.

Nor is the only way to save for later years through pensions alone. There are other ways, for example investing in property and then downsizing later or releasing equity. These have their pros and cons and also their problems, as a recent Which? survey has revealed.

The point is that the vast majority of the population has a long, long way to go to become sufficiently adept and confident in financial matters of any kind but, in particular, saving for retirement.

There will also continue to be a major problem as long as products are pushed by those with particular vested interests, “bigging up” the merits of their offering while failing to give people a detached, dispassionate and objective real understanding of the issues.

No number of whizzy phrasebooks or self-indulgent videos will remedy this.

This phrase in itself actually sounds quite inspiring (despite the oxymoron about working and being retired) – working, active and entrepreneurial, the essence of what we know today’s older people to be. But weary? Not a bit of it!

No doubt whoever came up with this didn’t actually think through the damage that such witticisms inflict on older people struggling to overturn ageist stereotypes in the workplace and society in general. It isn’t helpful at all to have this broadcast in the mass media associated with a story which, in many ways, is actually quite positive.

Yes, many older people are going to work longer. But as Max Davidson explains in the Telegraph this can be a benefit. As he says, “work, however humdrum, is what makes leisure palatable. It is the contrast between the two – the labouring in the vineyard followed by the glass of wine at the end of the day – that gives shape and meaning to our lives.”

So are older workers weary? The active and entrepreneurial, no. We’re not weary – just really, really irritated.

For the Telegraph article see http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/pensions/9002593/Give-me-a-Weary-old-age-over-a-stultifying-sun-lounger-any-day.html

The release relates to National Seniors’ recent report, Stereotype Threat and Mature Age Workers which reveals that many older workers’ perceived belief that they’re the target of demeaning stereotypes such as frailty, inflexibility and a fear of technology is pushing them towards premature retirement.

The report revealed that 56% of those surveyed suffer medium to high levels of what they term “stereotype threat”, with a further 42% experiencing low stereotype threat.

The experience of stereotype threat was linked with negative workplace attitudes and behaviours on the part of older workers including: lower job satisfaction; lower emotional commitment to the organisation; lower job involvement; higher retirement intentions; and greater intentions to quit.

Personal comments about this situation from older workers included several more which struck a chord, including:

“I sometimes feel that I am invisible because of my age. I have difficulty at times with getting people to include me and listen to me.”

“I’m constantly overlooked in favour of younger people, I’m starting to think I’m hopeless and useless.”

The report calls for more positive older role models, stronger anti-discrimination policies, increased training opportunities and greater recognition of mature age staff. Once again this is not UK research, but it resonates with the position of many older workers here.

You can access the press release at:

http://www.productiveageing.com.au/userfiles/file/Stereotype%20threat%20-%20Press%20Release.pdf

A recent (2010) report from Civic Ventures (which I’ve only just come across) seems to suggest that they may be. The report, “After the Recovery: Help Needed – The Coming Labor Shortage and How People in Encore Careers Can Help Solve It” suggests that in a comparatively short period of time employers will be having to consider how to make work attractive to older people in order to overcome skills shortages.

Its core premise is that by 2018, with no change in current labor force participation rates or immigration rates and an expected return to healthy economic growth, the US will have more jobs than people to fill them.

The report states, “In the current economy, there are so many unemployed people that younger workers seem to be competing with older workers for available jobs. If the economy recovers, as employment projections predict it will, this competition will all but disappear. Instead of workers jockeying for jobs… we may find that employers are forced to find ways to enhance their jobs to attract older workers to fill them.”

It continues: “Not only will there be jobs for these experienced workers to fill, but the nation will absolutely need older workers to step up and take them – to assure continued economic growth and to provide the critical social and government services on which we all depend.”

The report makes interesting reading in that if its predictions are realised, those in their fifties and early sixties who are currently being cast aside soon may be being courted back into work. Of course, this scenario is underpinned by lots of ifs and buts – not least of which is how quickly there will be an economic recovery and how closely the UK will follow the US model.

But, at the very least, it reminds us of the underlying reality of demographically driven skills shortages – all too easy to forget in these economically difficult times.

Access the report at: http://www.encore.org/files/research/JobsBluestonePaper3-5-10.pdf

Two thirds of those ‘working later’ apparently will do so because they can’t afford to retire.

The report goes on to state that one in five over-50s – equivalent to 4.3 million people – who had retired have since gone back into work. Of those who have gone back into work: 

• 11% returned in a part-time capacity, 6% into voluntary (unpaid) work and 3% back full-time
• 37% went back to work because they felt they were too young to retire
• 32% missed being part of the working environment
• For 30% it was financially-related: 20% said it was a necessity as their personal and/or state pension wasn’t enough to support them in their retirement, and one in ten (10%) needed to go back to work to help continue financially supporting their family

However, going back into employment after retirement has given some over-50s an opportunity to fulfil other ambitions. A fifth (19%) made a complete career change and 12% set up their own business. Many have chosen to go back to work in a role that requires fewer hours than before (27%), and 18% are doing a job that is less stressful than their previous job.

In terms of these findings this is an interesting study. However LV’s use of the phrase “state retirement age” isn’t helpful in a society in which we have now abolished mandatory retirement. Obviously they mean state pension age as they say “as the state retirement age increases to age 65 years for women in 2018, and to 66 for men and women in 2020”.

This wouldn’t matter except that it seems clear that the sooner we decouple the concept of retirement from that of drawing a pension the more helpful this will be for people in terms of understanding the options open to them in later life.

It suggests that many retirees are settling in towns that boast major universities. One survey of people 55 to 75 years of age found that more than half had a favourable view of retiring to a university town, and that in response a large number of campus communities have put out the welcome mat.

Retirees are attracted by the chance to take courses, find volunteer work at the universities, and enjoy the cultural activities that are part of the academic scene.

In the UK increasing numbers of older people are participating in the Open University and the University of the Third Age as well as enrolling in degree courses at mainstream universities. The question of the extent to which specific “third age” programmes should be designed for older people is open to debate but certainly a more positive drive to openly recruit more mature+ students could be a profitable move.

To see the full story:

http://www.middletownjournal.com/news/middletown-news/senior-citizens-attracted-to-campus-settings-1259893.html

Although, as she pointed out, one in four of us born today can expect to live to 100, the factors mitigating that in terms of our own poor health are startling. As the fourth fattest nation in the world we are facing a situation where 40% of all UK adults will be obese by 2025 and three quarters of the population will be too ill to work to the projected retirement age of 68.

Her presentation clearly underlined Abraham Lincoln’s point that “It’s not the years in your life that count but the life in your years”. The spectre of so many of us living longer in ill health and disability is an appalling prospect at every level – individual, societal and economic – and tantamount to a total disaster.

In the main the session focused on what employers can or could do to help the situation through health and wellbeing programmes and what these might encompass. Little mention was given of individual responsibility and how, rather ironically in light of this topic, you can lead a horse to water…

Realistically lack of knowledge about lifestyle habits and their effects generally isn’t the problem, and neither is lack of employer support. What is the problem is lack of motivation, good role models and a realistic understanding of the consequences of our actions (or inaction).

If those of us “in the know” in the ageing arena can be startled by such figures, surely a well-produced TV documentary series would have considerable impact on the man (and woman) in the street?

Being over 50 is one of the very best times of life. Many of the struggles of youth are behind us but with the likelihood of decades of life still ahead of us we still have time to realise our full potential and achieve our remaining dreams.

The choices surrounding what to do with the rest of our life are limitless. Yet age provides us with the wisdom to know that having choices means making changes – and change can be  both exhilarating and challenging.

This workshop has been designed to help you rethink the rest of your life. Using our unique development model, we help you identify and prioritise which areas you want or need to change, why you want to change, and what might be the outcome.

Saturday 28 January 2012 9.30 am to 5.00 pm

Room 354, Malet Street Building, Birkbeck College, University of London, London WC1E 7HX

For details click here

The article continues:      

“An even more direct way to show the decline in career employment is to see how many work­ers toward the end of their careers are still with the employer they had at age 50.  In 1983, 63% of men 58-62 were with their age-50 employer; by 2008, that figure had dropped to 47%. Although career employment is more common among workers with more education the shift away from career employment was consistent across educational groups.”

The question, of course, is whether the increased mobility is voluntary or enforced to which the answer is “we don’t know”. 

“On the one hand, data on displacement rates, which report layoffs for reasons other than job performance, have not increased for older workers.  These data would suggest that separations of older workers are largely due to quits, not layoffs.  The distinction between layoffs and quits, however, is not always clear.  Employers can reduce a worker’s compensation or increase job demands.  Workers could also feel insecure in their current job, due to technological change or increased competition, especially from overseas.  If workers quit in response to such pressures, they would be leaving on their own volition, but the decline of career employment could not be characterized as a positive development.”

In respect of whether increased mobility of older workers is helpful or harmful to working longer the picture is similarly cloudy.

“The new jobs generally pay less and are less likely to offer pension and health insurance coverage. This fall in wages and benefits makes continued employment less attractive vis-à-vis retirement.  On the other hand, workers who shift jobs often report less stress and an increase in job satisfaction that makes work more attractive vis-à-vis retirement.  The fall in wages and benefits also reduces household wealth, and this “wealth effect” also encourages con­tinued employment.  How workers respond depends on the strength of these various effects.”

The article bears out my own research that older people want to work longer but not just by doing more of the same. It also highlights some of the complexities in terms of factors affecting objective and subjective work and career motivation in later life.

In light of the current focus in the UK around the abolition of the default retirement age, this interesting insight into what later life working actually looks like – or is going to look like –  is invaluable. To the best of my knowledge we don’t have similar information available for the UK; it would be good to hear about it if anyone knows differently.

To read the full article go to: http://blogs.smartmoney.com/encore/2011/08/15/are-older-workers-job-hopping-more/

However in direct opposition to this is the fact that large numbers of retired people are entitled to a higher income in their retirement if they have underlying health conditions which would qualify them for an enhanced annuity.  Qualifying conditions for an enhanced annuity include high blood pressure, high cholesterol, heart disease and diabetes – all of which are, to some extent, preventable, lifestyle-related ailments.

A new press release issued by MGM Advantage, a specialist in retirement income, contains the following comment from their Sales and Marketing Director: “It is an unfortunate fact of life that as we get older, we are more at risk of getting underlying health conditions. Those buying an annuity should have a health check and be sure to inform their annuity provider of any health conditions to see if they qualify for an enhanced annuity. The difference between a standard and an enhanced annuity can be significant and would make a real difference, particularly when the cost of living is squeezing finances.”

So sod the salad and gym. Hunker down in front of the TV and have another pint and pie…

Coaching, counselling, and even physical makeovers can all help improve an individual’s chances but ultimately nothing can be done to remove the elephant in the room – age – that is the barrier to their employment.

I have yet to meet an employer – whether a business owner, HR professional or individual manager – who is prepared to admit that they are reluctant to employ older people. And I am unlikely to.  After all, such an admission would amount to age discrimination and, what’s more it is easy to concede that there is little wrong with older people in principle.

So where is the sticking point?  Is it fear of the unknown i.e. employers are happy with the older workers they already have – whose strengths, weaknesses and work proclivities they know, but don’t want to risk any unknown quantities in terms of older workers who may have issues? Or is their reluctance based on perceptions of their past and current older employees who they certainly wouldn’t want any more of, thank you very much?

Would knowing the answer make any difference?  Probably not.  But it might help individual older job seekers if they could be convinced that really and truly it had very little to do at a personal level with them.

The Prize awards up to $100,000 each annually to five people in encore careers creating new ways to solve tough social problems.

A similar scheme in the UK would do wonders for encouraging entrepreneurship and social innovation in the over 50s. These talents are already plentiful but tend to be sidelined in comparison to younger individuals.

See this year’s winners – announced last week – at http://www.encore.org/prize

The study suggests that as we age we become more suited to social and compassionate activities. Changes in our nervous systems which bring about these emotional intelligence changes are likely not only to give older people social advantages but to give them (us) an edge in the workplace in those tasks involving social relationships and caring for others.

An interesting article on these findings: Customer Service Roles: The New Frontier for the Over 60s? at  http://customerservicepsychology.wordpress.com/2011/03/22/customer-service-roles-the-new-frontier-for-the-over-60s/   quotes Tracy Burrell, HR Manager at D&G’s Nottingham call centre  who, having recognised this strength in their staff, has conducted  a campaign to recruit more older people.  She says “We find that our mature workers have much more empathy with our customers. They understand the issues that the person at the other end of the telephone is having.”

Other studies have shown that older people tend also to have more patience and emotional stability in dealing with potentially stressful situations such as these.

Whilst not every older worker wants to work in a call centre the study underlines the need for employers to recognise, understand and hopefully act upon some of the diverse range of strengths that older people can contribute in the workplace.  Studies such as this also may help older people themselves in strengthening their case for employment.

The decrease was predictable, varies according to course and university, and arguably can be commended at a theoretical level for starting to reverse the previous government’s economically unsound policy of university education for all. Regardless of the recession, this strategy was inevitably going to result in a generation of university-educated young people with unrealistic and unrealised expectations in respect of the post-graduation jobs market.

However, a figure which seems to be somewhat buried in the news story above is that mature students appear, understandably, to be particularly deterred by the new higher fees for 2012. The number of applicants aged 40 or older has fallen by 27.8%, and among those aged between 30 and 39 the number has dropped by 22.7%.

The implication of this in a climate when it is no longer realistic to expect one career and one set of skills to be adequate throughout life, particularly when working life may extend to well past 70, is potentially disturbing and should not be allowed to be overlooked.

Whilst the education and employment of the younger generation is, of course, a source of concern and a priority it is easy to overlook the changing career needs of those who are already in work. Many of these, from either choice or circumstance need to increase their qualifications or re-train as they move through working life; how this will be funded and the impact of withdrawing this option is equally as important as the situation of school leavers.

Among those we met there were some familiar faces who work in the same field as us together with many interesting people who represent other aspects of diversity – their issues and priorities were similar to ours but noticeably different.

In his Keynote speech Trevor Phillips, Chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, appealing in particular to employers, made the following fundamental observation. The lobbying now has largely been done and the enabling legislation is now in place. That phase is now complete. The talking can now stop. The next phase is to develop and implement solutions, in the workplace and in society at large.

We endorse that view wholeheartedly and also believe that employers are the “gatekeepers” to change taking place. Without significant movement by them nothing substantial will be achieved.

And while it may be convenient to lump together all forms of diversity (and where does the scope of diversity and discrimination start and end?) it may be optimistic for one organisation such as enei to believe it has the expertise to develop the detailed solutions to a whole raft of different situations and issues. As an umbrella organisation it may be fine but broad brush remedies will not be enough. Let us hope that enei uses appropriate, focused expertise to deal with each particular diversity arena.

Simon Read (the Independent journalist responsible) wrote:

 “It still leaves women born between 6 March and 5 April 1954 facing having to work for an extra 18 months [sic] than they had expected. And it’s estimated that they’ll still end up with £7,500 less than if they had been able to claim the state pension when they had been told they would be eligible. Sure, they have a few years to make some adjustments to their finances; to cope with the change in dates and anticipated income, but adequate pension planning needs to be done over a lifetime of work, not mucked about with when you’re approaching retirement.”

Whilst this situation is irksome and disappointing for those affected, it is not a massive injustice compared to the situation of those who a) are older and cannot find work or  b) have suffered from a poorly performing personal pension which may well have left them far more than £7,500 out of pocket.

Read’s comment on the work situation is strange. He writes:

“many of these woman [sic] may not simply be able to work for another 18 months to make up for the lost state pension. Many, for instance, have been busy raising families rather than concentrating on their career and so would find it nigh-on impossible to find work now, with unemployment soaring.”

The last sentence is a complete non-sequitur in as much as if you are a woman who has not been working at all until later life your state pension will be negligible or non-existent anyway. For women such as this, to echo Simon’s words, “adequate pension planning needs to be done over a lifetime of work” not, figuratively speaking, in the last few days.

Even more strange however was that BBC TV, announcing the development, used footage of an older woman complaining that raising the pension age had ruined the plans she and her husband had had since they first married in their twenties. That is unfortunate but for most of us the majority of rosy plans we had in our twenties have never materialised.

In light of this and more it’s surely time for everyone to get real concerning the fact that a state pension is neither a right, a lottery grant or a holiday fund. “Adequate pension planning” can no longer be a case of anticipating that the state pension will or should fund our pipedreams as and when we want.

Link to article

http://www.linkedin.com/share?viewLink=&sid=s644829162&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eindependent%2Eco%2Euk%2Fmoney%2Fspend-save%2Fsimon-read-women-are-still-set-to-be-unfairly-hit-by-raising-the-retirement-age-2370898%2Ehtml&urlhash=imQZ&pk=member-home&pp=3&poster=56672611&uid=5531661737402564608&trk=NUS_UNIU_SHARE-title

The article is based on a report by the charity the City Bridge Trust developed with the help of what the DM calls “Labour-leaning think-tank” the Institute for Public Policy Research.

“75 is the new 65”, it says. “Many in the traditional pensioner age group – those over 65 – continue to lead lives similar to those of younger middle-aged people.”

The report said that efforts to help the vulnerable elderly should be adjusted and “a simple but blunt way of targeting those most at risk could be to focus on the over 75 age group rather than the over 65 group as most programmes and benefits currently do.”

I hope in these straitened times that it didn’t cost too much to produce this report.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2047683/Why-youre-really-old-youve-hit-75-pensioners-continue-live-like-middle-age.html#ixzz1aSTLSqgh

First, The BIG Lottery Fund last week announced it was to make its biggest single investment in older people with a £110 million package of Lottery funding to be used on voluntary and community initiatives.

Second, the government – through the DWP –launched The Age Action Alliance, an initiative designed to “improve the lives of older people and help transform communities into better places to grow older”. 

The latter initiative was launched to coincide with Older People’s Day – in itself a third example of the problem.

The press releases announcing these initiatives are both littered with the phrase “older people” with no explanation as to who exactly this means. Only a statement from the Daily Mail – which is helping promote the Big Lottery fund handouts – threw light on the situation by referring to its “previous campaigns on behalf of the elderly”.

In general parlance it is recognized that the phrase “older people” relates to anyone over about 50. Yet the 50 -70 age group is a whole generation below today’s “elderly” population and has a vastly different – although arguably equally pressing – set of needs.

Our requirement for a new vocabulary to clarify who exactly we’re talking about couldn’t be more urgent. Using a blanket term such as “older” in relation to today’s demographics meets no one’s needs at all.  

http://www.biglotteryfund.org.uk/prog_silver_dreams_fund.htm?regioncode=-uk

http://ageactionalliance.org/

The cost structure associated with using a financial adviser is going to change in 2013 to make it more transparent and, hopefully, perceived better value for money. Unsurprisingly, surveys suggest that this will lead to a significant exodus of financial advisers from this kind of work. For more on the changes see a Which? summary:

(http://www.which.co.uk/news/2011/09/60-second-guide-to-the-future-of-financial-advice-264445/)

Financial advisers are people qualified in their field and are allowed to sell/advise specific products. OK so far.

But the overwhelming need is for people to understand what money is all about in a much more basic sense. Hence, amongst other things, the very laudable campaign by Martin Lewis of Martin’s Money Tips fame to start at a very early stage and bring such education into schools.

Another initiative is the Money Advice Service. Here are a few extracts from their site:

“Our vision is to enhance people’s lives because they take control of their money as a matter of course.”

“The Money Advice Service is here to help everyone manage their money better. We do this by giving clear, unbiased money advice to help people make informed choices.

We believe that the right money advice can make a difference to people’s lives. And when people take steps to manage their money better, they can live better too.

The Money Advice Service is a free, independent service. We were set up by government and are funded by a levy on the financial services industry.

Because we’re not selling anything ourselves, or for anyone else, you can trust our advice.”

Again, a very laudable idea, but in my opinion an underwhelming, low profile service which still does not attack basic financial illiteracy.

But that’s not the fun part. As can be seen above the service is funded by a levy on the financial services industry that is, in part, financial advisers who see this as a threat to their existence that they are having to pay for, adding insult to injury.

And, so, while the British population struggles with problems like “shall we do without heating to pay for food?” what debate is taking place between Financial Advisers and Money Advice Service? It revolves around the difference between “financial advice” and “money advice” and when does “advice” become “guidance” or, indeed, “education”.

The words “burns”, “Nero” and “Rome” spring to mind.