Employers, it’s time to talk about ‘gap years’ for older workers
Published on
05 May 2024
Published by
The Straits Times
Living longer translates to a higher retirement age. We need to look at what this means for employees who end up toiling away for decades.
Hau Boon Lai
A friend now two years over the legal retirement age of 63 recently told me that he has worked non-stop for 42 years, apart from annual, medical and other essential leave. Like many of his generation, it was taken for granted that one would work till retirement age. But now, they have been confronted by the reality that people are living longer, and he and many of his cohort have continued to work, though on re-employment terms.
The thing is, when he started out in the workforce in 1982, the unofficial age of retirement was 55, the same age when one could start withdrawing from the Central Provident Fund, and he was looking at about 30 years of work. But in that year, the life expectancy was 70.2 years for men in Singapore, so the expectation was that retirement would last about 15 years.
In 1993, Singapore officially set the retirement age at 60. The ceiling later rose to 62, then 63, and will become 64 in 2026, prior to becoming 65 by 2030, when the re-employment age is set to be 70.
Meanwhile, the life expectancy for men in Singapore is 80.7 years and for women, 85.2 years. Perhaps the more relevant statistic is the one on life expectancy of people at age 65 – 19 years for men and 22.3 years for women.
My friend never got around to considering whether he would have wanted to take a long break during the 42 years – and counting – of his work life. He did change jobs, but whenever he did so, the new employer invariably wanted him to start as early as he could. A last day at Company A on a Friday would see him starting work at Company B the following Monday.
Is this how it has to be? It’s time for a rethink of how we regard the later part of employment, with a possible 30 years of work now stretched to 40 or more – and with re-employment adding another five years, plus. This is especially so with the momentum for both retirement and re-employment ages to increase as life expectancy is still on the rise.
The juggling act of how long have I got?
It is well and good to look at life expectancy statistics as a base for determining the retirement and re-employment ages. But not everyone will live to be 80 years old, while a significant number will live beyond that. That is pretty much the law of averages.
I am approaching the 30-years-of-work crossroads and something has been occupying my mind: The men in my family are not on the right side of life expectancy. My grandfather died in his 50s, apparently from a heart attack. My dad had a longer life – still, he was only 70 when a massive aneurysm took him. My eldest brother died recently from cancer, a few days short of turning 64.
I like my job, so it would be easy to go with the flow and continue in it until retirement age, or even beyond.
But the conviction is growing that I should bank a few years of work-free life – which I can use to read a book a day, go for long walks whenever the weather permits, try out a new recipe every other day, help a friend out with his constituency meetings, travel with my beloved wife whenever we feel like it, and more.
There are no health issues involved. In fact, I have never felt better. But so did my eldest brother when cancer struck him.
There could be many people like me with the same idea of wishing for a break, just as there will be those who wish to carry on working continuously for as long as they can.
In other words, there should not be a cookie-cutter approach to how those 40 years and more of work should be distributed. Why should people have only a choice of finishing at retirement age or for as long as a re-employment contract is offered?
Thirty years of work may already be enough for people – especially for a growing number of couples with no children – to have accumulated enough to call it a day at age 55, if they have played their financial cards right. They may wish to continue in a job, but are looking beyond the financial incentive.
It will be new territory for both workers and employers.
Is there room for a “gap year” – usually associated with young people taking a break for a year from their studies – or two, or even three, for those mature workers who wish for it?
The issue of re-entry into the workforce
There is, of course, nothing to stop people from quitting, taking a long break and then try to re-enter the workforce.
But that’s easier said than done. It is no secret that there is still an age bias in recruitment, even as many companies assert that they are equal opportunity employers. The Government’s MyCareersFuture website even notes a study by Randstad: “Managers in Asia may struggle with age-diverse teams and may be reluctant to hire older workers due to common misperceptions, such as they may be less productive or less physically robust. As a result, for those over 40 in Singapore, jobs can often be difficult to land.”
Also, a common piece of advice on optimising job searches urges workers to be prepared to explain their resume gaps, underscoring how it is of concern among employers.
So one option for older workers wanting a break is for them to look to their current company, as it will be in a good position to know their value. Employers, for their part, can extend the length as well as expand the coverage of no-pay leave to workers in the long last mile of their careers.
To be realistic, not everyone will have a job still waiting for them after being away for a while. So companies looking at applications by re-entrants should stop seeing the career gap as a handicap. It is time to put this to rest – skills get rusty, not lost. If the work experience is relevant, a resume gap ought not to be an issue.
Pay may become an issue. If a person has had a long break, should he be expecting the same amount as his last-drawn pay, or even a higher amount that takes inflation into account? A company may think that a low-ball offer is justified, given his break, even if it is for a role similar to what he was last in. This is not exactly new territory as there are people who have taken long breaks before, but it is certainly timely for both sides to relook how to engage in some give-and-take that can help forge a fair pay offer acceptable to both sides.
Things are clearly changing. An ageing population means that the workforce will be an older one, and firms will stand to benefit from efforts to retain or hire from a proven pool of workers.
Employees returning after a long break may also feel refreshed and raring to go, after they take a step back from the daily grind of work and perhaps look at issues anew.
So, employers, think about what new ground to break and have that “gap-year” conversation with your older employees for a mutually beneficial end result. And live up to your equal opportunity aspirations when looking at older job candidates.
Close friends have told me that if I go ahead with my idea, I must be prepared to have nothing come along after my break. I can live with that.
It would be great, though, if after a break, I am able to get back into the workforce at a place I am familiar with. But who knows? Perhaps I will surprise my friends, who have also said that I will find it tough to have so much free time on my hands. When the year or two is up, it may just be the beginning of the rest of my retired life. I can live with that, too.
Source: The Straits Times © SPH Media Limited. Reproduced with permission.
ALL views, content, information and/or materials expressed / presented by any third party apart from Council For Third Age, belong strictly to such third party. Any such third party views, content, information and/or materials provided herein are for convenience and/or general information purposes only. Council For Third Age shall not be responsible nor liable for any injury, loss or damage whatsoever arising directly or indirectly howsoever in connection with or as a result of any person accessing or acting on any such views, content, information and/or materials. Such third party views, content, information and/or materials do not imply and shall not be construed as a representation, warranty, endorsement and/or verification by Council For Third Age in respect of such views, content, information and/or materials.
