Keeping Older Workers on the Job

T from CA

I am no engineer, but I am a Boomer who has seen the "downside" of how companies maneuver older workers out the door and off their pensions....regardless of the decades of loyal and exemplary service. It's sad that a person can give 20+ years to a company and then get hustled out the door without so much as a "thank you".

It has been my experience that 'sharing knowledge' with the younger worker can also have "negative consequences". If the older worker mentors a younger worker, the elder is put in a vulnerable position by being "encouraged" to pass on their expertise to retain their "usefulness", and simultaneously rendering themselves obsolete once the "transfer of knowledge" runs it's course. Many older workers have been "pushed out" whether they were ready to retire or not...

The new "norm" is for an employee to change companies every few years, or risk their skills becoming obsolete. Many younger workers have "milked" their mentors dry then promoted their own position by rendering their mentor obsolete. That is the downside of mentoring....

and shows that bottom line profits are more important to any company than any employee, regardless of decades of loyalty and service.

T of CA @ Aug 18, 2008 13:39:47 PM

Older Workers

Older Workers are very valuable. Over the last 20 years, I have assisted numerous companies with training needs. One of the items I discovered with large successful companies were job descriptions that required the transfer of knowledge to coworkers. In fact, when looking at people that failed to do so, their jobs seem to be eliminated under workforce reductions. Those that did transfer knowledge along with seeking out additional knowledge seemed to gain power ... and respect. By supporting the company's values, those individuals seemed to have excelled. They have proven themselves even more valuable.

Jim of AL @ Aug 15, 2008 10:21:39 AM

Where does an older worker sign up for this program?

This article and the comments are very interesting to me as a 46 year old accountant who has worked for defense contractors since 1985. I have a wealth of knowledge to share if there is truly a need, which I believe there is based on major lack of

familiarity with the basics by younger workers I have noticed.

I'm currently seeking new job and I would be willing to share my expertise. I have never worked for Northrop specifically,

but in response to above comments doubting the contractor's words, I challenge them to put thier money where their mouth

is, so to speak, and back up their words with an article and link here where myself and folks above can test this quote.

Teri of CA @ Jul 28, 2008 23:33:37 PM

Older Aerospace engineers are wanted? Really?

I hope other aerospace companies feel the same as Northrop Grumman and turn around the trend to dismmiss older engineers.

In my experience, aero engineers are considered "old" as soon as they turn 40 and nobody wants to hire them. And as everyone knows, many aero professionals bounce from company to company due to layoffs (Lockheed has those frecuently) or other turnovers inherent to most aerospace programs. It's so hard to be rehired once engineers are over 45 and in some organizations they are "encouraged" to leave. I know because I'm one of them.

Northrop Grumman is correct: the most qualified workers are those who have more experience and have more skills, and that means those engineers must have worked for more than 20 years.

I don't agree that older workers are more expensive. Actually, the company saves, as they don't need to be trained as a fresh- out-of-college engineer.

Let's give more respect to the older, most qualified workers, as they are an asset to any aerospace company. Let's embrace them back and give them the chance to contribute and teach younger engineers!

Steve of TX @ Jul 21, 2008 16:47:20 PM

Not usually an issue

Most companies are so busy trying to push employees out the door that they never stop to think about the knowledge that goes with them. Why keep those expensive old-timers when they can lay them off and hire Vietnamese, Chinese or Malaysian workers at a small fraction of the cost of the existing workers?

bucky of KS @ Jul 21, 2008 15:30:55 PM

competivie world market

Northrop Grumman is trying to maintain competitive position in a global environment. What might have been doable twenty years ago is no longer possible. Repositioning and change is inevitable in these times, for Northrop Grumman and other major companies (and local government agencies that provided generous pensions and benefits). That said, there is of course always the question of executive compensation and bonuses and the inequity of the workers taking the brunt of the repositioning.

c. of FL @ Jul 21, 2008 13:59:29 PM

Working from home?

'Tis a pity that Northrop Grumman corporate HR talks the line about allowing employees to work from home, but senior employees (near retirement) are told that they must be here to be counted. US DoD Government accounting is usually blamed, but of course many US DoD groups encourge working from home.

Connectr of CA @ Jul 21, 2008 13:25:20 PM

if that's true, why did they cut the pension out?

I have worked for NG for 20+ yrs. Starting this month, we will no longer accrue pension credits. We will get what ever we have up to this point, when we retire. The only thing we are promised is a cash value instead, and by the company's own admission, some of us will be taking a loss with the new plan.

That's a big thank you from an organization I have given 1/3rd

of my life to!

w of FL @ Jul 21, 2008 11:32:54 AM