Stories predicting a "talent crunch" in parallel with the retirement of the first Boomers have been showing up in the trade and popular press for about two years. At the same time, AARP and SHRM studies highlighting the desire (and need) of Boomers to keep working and a recent Merrill Lynch survey (". . . 80% of the 76 million baby boomers plan to keep working in the future.") lead one to question just how severe the "crunch" will actually be.
The key variable which will either drive or forestall the predicted talent shortfall is often buried in the reports. More balanced reporting is finally beginning to emerge; for example, the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College, quoted in Workspan Weekly tells us:
"Overall, more than 80% of employers said older workers were “as attractive” or “more attractive” than younger employees. According to Alicia H. Munnell, the center’s director, “the survey results are encouraging given that many people nearing traditional retirement ages will need to work longer to ensure their retirement income security.”
However, the report goes on to say:
"While generally encouraging, the survey results raise two important cautions. First, older rank-and-file workers, who face the greatest retirement income challenge, appear to have weaker employment prospects than older white-collar workers. Second, other surveys have shown that positive evaluations of the productivity of older workers do not necessarily translate into actual employment opportunities."
More succinctly put:
- Blue-collar skills (other than the skilled trades, which are needed outside the factory) don't translate into post-retirement opportunities.
- Employers, particularly those with post-Boomer managers in the hiring role, have a significant list of "reasons" to shun older workers who attempt to stay in the workforce.
Is the talent crunch real? It's really a matter of choice . . . on the part of the employers.
Comments