phased retirement

KAMINSKI

Anyone out there dealing with phased retirement, in which older workers gradually depart through shorter work weeks. My question is: how do you handle their full time benefits?

Don D

I've never heard of exactly what you propose. But, I wouldn't think their benefits would be slashed if you enacted this program. Why would you though? People don't need to slide into retirement. Retirement is a destination, not a process like easing into a hot bath toe first, then a whole foot and finally a butt. Sadly, though, for too many people in the workforce (or rather sadly for employers), it is considered a right of passage, a process, during which time one starts to lag and slouch and visit around and smile alot and produce less and show up late and knock off early and ease into their retirement while on the employer's clock. That sounds very enabling to me and I would not suggest it. Tell me what I'm missing.






Note: The preceeding is my personal opinion and has no value beyond that. Although it may be 'sorta offensive' or 'indeed offensive' to someone out there, it is offered without regard to that possibility. Should you find yourself alarmed by my post, you may privately mail me to protest or you may alert the principal's office. x:-)

deniseE

[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 03-26-04 AT 08:01AM (CST)[/font][br][br]We have a lady doing this now...she's still a full time ee...and using vacation time that she's racked up over her 35 years to ease out slowly.

In some situations, I can see this being beneficial for both the ee and the company...in our case....not so much. We had enough time to train a replacement and should have taken advantage of that time rather than agree to the transitioning---for all of the reasons Don outlined above.

KAMINSKI

I always like the respondent that is not afraid to "tell it like it is" or how they perceive it is.
Anyway, phased retirement is something that a lot of companies are looking at (as I read daily) to handle a couple of things. First, the aging workforce that is working longer (in years) and secondly is a value (for whatever reason) to the company.
Many older folks who are collecting social security for instance, can only make a certain amount of money but still want to work. They often will change from 40 to 20 hours and are still vital to the company even if it is in working alongside a replacement person.
My concern is how employers are handling the benefits in the phased approach.
We have one employee who has been with us 15 years and is an expert in a particular function that takes years to ascertain such a level in this field. Keeping her 20 hours a week and paying her full benefits does make sense to us for a number of reasons financially and otherwise.
Now Don, try and understand and think about the benefit portion question!

Don D

Other than being a buzz-word, in reality there's no such thing as phased retirement. You've given examples of a retiree working part time to make extra money. The law limits what they can make and not suffer a penalty. That's simply an example of a retired worker taking or keeping a part time job. You've given another example of an employer who wishes to retain the skills of the individual but doesn't wish to maintain the benefits downside of the equation. That's simply an employer holding on as long as it can to transition the job when it should probably have better planned succession....and hoping that somehow her skills will rub off on the other employee in the process and eventually the 'Phasee' can ease into 'fully phased'.

I suppose we might look at the Wal-Mart greeter or the 80 year old guy in the Wendy's window. Do you think they're 'phased retirees' and simply love the interraction that work brings? Perhaps, but rarely. They're broke and can't live on SS alone so they work part time. They're not phased, just surviving. But, I thank you for the latest buzz word. I should read more.



Note: The preceeding is my personal opinion and has no value beyond that. Although it may be 'sorta offensive' or 'indeed offensive' to someone out there, it is offered without regard to that possibility. Should you find yourself alarmed by my post, you may privately mail me to protest or you may alert the principal's office. x:-)

Hunter1

It is a new buzz word, and if the economy ever heats up, we may all be dealing with it. Remember a few years ago when there was going to be this huge shortage of available employees as the boomers retired? So far, the economy has taken care of the problem.
We would treat the employee the same as any other part time employee. We provide some pro-rated benefits to part timers. AND, it would have to be a situation which was good for both the employee and us. Unlike private sector, we have employees who retire and come back to work for us as volunteers. We'd hate to ruin that by paying some of them! Who'd volunteer?

ray a

"Now Don, try and understand and think about the benefit portion question! "

You're trying to get Don to think about work related stuff on a Friday? Good luck. His mind is probably on what to barbeque this weekend.

We have a program manager who begins his first day of semi-retirement this coming Monday. He will be working just 3 days a week as of then. We will treat him like any other part time ee we hire, no benefits. He will be paid for the hours he works and that is it. His intention was to cut the cord completely, but our leadership asked him to stay on PT for about 3 months as a transition. The hard part personally, is that he lives 3 blocks from me and I drive by his house on the way home from work everyday. I'm sure this summer, he will be out there waving to me with a big grin on his face.

Gillian3

If it works for BOTH, employee and employer, why not? Since I am sort of going through that process myself, I think its cool. I get to work 25 - 35 hours per week (no benefits) but the employer is getting what they thought they would get - the same level of work that I always have provided. I want to work so that I don't use up my retirement funds for living expenses and the employer needs an interim HR chief.

Don D

I cannot picture you in that blue vest Gillian3. Can you please post for the calendar? Yes Ray, that wave of your neighbors with the broad grin will be the single-digit-Bronx salute.

KAMINSKI

DON you always make me laugh in these forums! Thanks for that any day of the week.

This small company I work for is specialized in that some employees need certain certificates etc. that require time to obtain and tasks that take time to become "great" at.

We receive Federal and State funding that require us to have certain levels of expertise "on board" that take time to accomplish.

In that light (could lose funding)we sometimes want to keep "old timers" (please no age discrimination responses) with certain expertise. They often are over 60 and welcome or want less hours than 40 per week per se.

So let me ask the question so I can get all the bottom line responses: What if a 40 hour full time hourly employee starts working 20 hours and maintains the same health, dental etc. benefits (including same % paid by employer) because of their being shall we say valuable to the company?

Let 'er rip....

Gillian3

[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 03-26-04 AT 11:44AM (CST)[/font][br][br]I don't think that there is a right or wrong. You must weigh the cost vs. the benefits. The biggest downside is probably the unhappiness that others might have when they have to work twice as long to maintain the same benefit as the part timer. If it were me, I would probably go with some sort of adjustment to avoid that situation.

Gillian3

No.

ray a

OK, I just got clarification from corporate about how we are going to handle the pm going part time. Because he is a professional, we are giving him a decent package. He will receive 3/5ths of his earned vacation (based on a 3 day per week schedule), we will continue his health insurance at his current rate, and if a holiday falls on his scheduled workday, he will receive holiday pay for that day.

Don D

Regarding your final question, which was actually the same as your first and we've danced around it, If you are self insured, it is basically your call. The company owns the policy and can change it, if need be, to accomodate the existence of those part timers on the policy.

If you have an insurance broker/consultant, you might ask her how that could work for the benefit of both. The third party administrator will probably balk and tell you that the plan doesn't allow them to be covered, but you can tell them to change the plan, although you may have to wait for the open enrollment period. If you purchase insurance, it may be a bit harder to keep those enrolled after they no longer meet the policy's definition of 'eligible employee'. Or, another option might be for the company to pay their COBRA continuation coverage, if you could figure an angle on that. I'm no expert, but it might be worth looking into.

You know as well as I do that some employees who have not actually reached a formal retirement event/date yet, have been actually semi-retired for some years and have benefitted from your package right along and have not contributed the degree of expertise your current 'consideree' does. I don't know why I'm getting off on this rabbit trail. Perhaps Gillian and Ray made me think of this. Sorry to digress. x:-)
No offense Gillian3 and Ray - it probably was that engineer who just walked by my door.









Note: The preceeding is my personal opinion and has no value beyond that. Although it may be 'sorta offensive' or 'indeed offensive' to someone out there, it is offered without regard to that possibility. Should you find yourself alarmed by my post, you may privately mail me to protest or you may alert the principal's office. x:-)

ray a

Engineers can have a deleterious effect.

POPEYE

I began the first phase of my retirement in 1966 when I took my first "job" de-tasseling corn for Funks @ $.75 an hour. I'm still waiting on the last phase to get here.

Don D

I've accused you of Jivin' but didn't know you wuz shuckin'.





Note: The preceeding is my personal opinion and has no value beyond that. Although it may be 'sorta offensive' or 'indeed offensive' to someone out there, it is offered without regard to that possibility. Should you find yourself alarmed by my post, you may privately mail me to protest or you may alert the principal's office. x:-)