MegaCorp strategy to keep babyboomers

[Keopele]

The company I work for is coming out with a plan to entice baby boomers to keep working. The fear of losing a substantial amount of company knowledge in a short period is scary. So, two new options are:

1) If you are eligible to retire and vested, you may choose to take a 20% pay reduction and work only 4 days/wk.

2) If you are eligible to retire and vested, you may choose to take a 20% pay reduction and get an extra 4 weeks of vacation. Many employees who have been around 25 years could have 10wks total.

Does that entice anyone here? 10wks vacation or 3 day weekends every week? I'm pretty sure I know the answer!

 

[jIMOh]

The company I work for is coming out with a plan to entice baby boomers to keep working. The fear of losing a substantial amount of company knowledge in a short period is scary. So, two new options are:

1) If you are eligible to retire and vested, you may choose to take a 20% pay reduction and work only 4 days/wk.

2) If you are eligible to retire and vested, you may choose to take a 20% pay reduction and get an extra 4 weeks of vacation. Many employees who have been around 25 years could have 10wks total.

Does that entice anyone here? 10wks vacation or 3 day weekends every week? I'm pretty sure I know the answer!

This is all in how the product is "sold" or positioned.

20% pay cut is probably the real goal here, not keeping "valuable" employees around.

Consider- what is better for company- hiring college grads for 50% the pay, but none of the experience, or having experienced employees at 80% the pay of the current employee.

If my company came in and said 80% the pay with more benefits, people would take the benefits, then find another job sooner or later. The benefits are really not that valueable. I saw nothing indicated in the OP which suggested that workload also decreased 20%. So if employer can get 100% of the work for 80% the pay, why not?

option 1 looked good to me. 52 days off is better than 20 more days of vacation.

 

[lazygood4nothinbum]

my company never even honored the vacation time we supposedly had as we were judged according to "metrics". the standards were the same whether you got 2 weeks or i got 4 weeks. i still had to make up the work lost to my "vacation time".

 

[Achiever51]

my company never even honored the vacation time we supposedly had as we were judged according to "metrics". the standards were the same whether you got 2 weeks or i got 4 weeks. i still had to make up the work lost to my "vacation time".

By the time I retired, I had five weeks annual vacation - plus about 17 or so corporate "holidays". My final boss used to make a big deal out of anyone in his department taking all their vacation. He would often remind us that he only used 2 or so weeks of his five weeks...implying that the rest of us should do the same. And, he'd never ok a vacation longer than two weeks -- no matter what -- so it was sometimes hard to get all your vacation time in. And, of course, he'd expect us to be "available" during vacation (ie., cell phone, blackberry, etc.)

I'd rather have 100% time off rather than ever work for another j**k like that!

 

[donheff]

I am only happy with the 52 week vacation.

 

[W2R]

I am a working baby boomer, and I am just too burned out for a four day week to help. If such had been offered five years ago (even for reduced pay), I probably wouldn't be so burned out and I probably would have worked more years. But as things stand now, I need to ER next year and no four day week nor 10 week vacation will deflect me from that goal.

 

[Rustic23]

Can you retire, draw retirement pay, work 4 days a week for 80% pay?

 

[DangerMouse]

I have recently taken a 20% paycut and gone to 4 days a week and have to say I love it.

However, it hasn't changed how I feel about my place of employment, it is time for me to move on.

 

[Midpack]

The company I work for is coming out with a plan to entice baby boomers to keep working. The fear of losing a substantial amount of company knowledge in a short period is scary. So, two new options are:

1) If you are eligible to retire and vested, you may choose to take a 20% pay reduction and work only 4 days/wk.

2) If you are eligible to retire and vested, you may choose to take a 20% pay reduction and get an extra 4 weeks of vacation. Many employees who have been around 25 years could have 10wks total.

Does that entice anyone here? 10wks vacation or 3 day weekends every week? I'm pretty sure I know the answer!

I'm probably off the mark but I'd say the Managers are pretty clever...and manipulative. For most "salaried" jobs (which I assume is what we're talking about here), I suspect you'd end up doing the essentially the same work in 4 days a week (or in 4 fewer weeks per year) for 20% less pay. I would think an employee would have to be pretty naive to go for this, but the company (responsible Managers) would benefit substantially with a net labor cost reduction of almost 20%. I'd be very suspicious of the Managers on pretty much anything after this "offer."

Unlikely: If you do "factory work" where it could be same pay/hour it might be "fair" but I seriously doubt that's the case because the Company would have to hire more workers to cover off days and personnel scheduling would be much more difficult. Even so I wouldn't do it, 5 days/week of grief isn't much different than 4 days/week, might as well make the extra 20% while you're at it. My 2¢...

 

[RunningBum]

My megacorp has a part time plan and I've asked to do it. 50% pay for 20 hours / week, some reduction in benefits. My manager is for it but his managers are dragging their feet. If they drag too long, I'm outta here.

 

[RunningBum]

For most "salaried" jobs, I suspect you'd end up doing the same work in 4 days a week (or in 4 fewer weeks per year) for 20% less pay.

That could definitely be the case. In my case I have a combination of on-demand work (customer problems) and long term projects. If I go 1/2 time, I expect that many customer problems will be saved for me, but urgent ones will get looked at. Long term projects will slide out. I plan to stick to 20 hours, and don't mind if I'm jamming in more work during that time.

 

[clifp]

I had a number of 4 day/week woman working for me. I got about 90% of the work out of them as when they were working full time. Mostly because they were dedicated, and able to work from home on their off days.

The extra 4 weeks for a 20% pay cut is a horrible deal. I would think you'd should be able to get an extra 8 or 9 weeks. Basically, give the option to take most of the summer off. To me that would have a lot of appeal.

 

[Arc]

I think I'd prefer 4 10 hour days to the pay cut - though I understand that is not one of the options.

 

[Rivrider]

I'm really looking forword to my seven day weekends. So, the four day week for 80% pay doesn't appeal to me.

 

[Marquette]

So our corp is going through layoffs / outsourcing. Our group has been told several times that we have nothing to worry about, we're the only group not losing people. My boss just quit (last day is next Friday) and they're freaking out a bit trying to keep him and keep the rest of us from following him. Just because I can, I think I'll negotiate in some extra vacation days. I can already work remotely as I feel like, but I'd like to not have to pretend to work on some of those days...

 

[Keopele]

There may be some truth to the cost savings, but I heard a figure (can't remember the specific #'s) that about 20% of the company workforce is 50+ and in 5-7 years it will drop to about 5-10%. I think they are truly concerned about losing the "grandfather wisdom" of the company. I myself would be outta there regardless at 50, and plan to be

 

[jIMOh]

There may be some truth to the cost savings, but I heard a figure (can't remember the specific #'s) that about 20% of the company workforce is 50+ and in 5-7 years it will drop to about 5-10%. I think they are truly concerned about losing the "grandfather wisdom" of the company. I myself would be outta there regardless at 50, and plan to be

Be careful with the statistics like this.

My company was bought out by EDS a while back.

At the benefits presentation (the second year) there was a slide

Title "why cost of healthcare went up"

bullet 1- the average age of the EDS worker went from 56.7 years old in 2000 to 57.6 years old in 2001.

Does anyone else in the audience have an issue with that being the #1 reason? Did EDS think the average age of it's employee base was going DOWN? I want some of that to smoke too.

Maybe the ages were 46.7 and 47.6... but you get the idea (of course average age of company would increase by a year one year later- EDS had a hiring freeze on and we just laid off 10% of workforce).

DUH!

 

[Midpack]

Probably nothing, but these last few posts highlight a good question. The MegaCorp I work for provides health care only if you work at least 32 hours a week. Hopefully the MegaCorp in this thread doesn't get out from under health care or other benefits as a result of their "offer." I'd like to think they covered that with the "offer." FWIW...

 

[Ronstar]

I've been on the 4 day a week plan for several months and I cant wait to go to zero. I'm developing too many outside interests to fit work into my schedule.

 

[chinaco]

Weaken the USD internationally. Big inflation. Lowering the value of your hard earned and saved assets.

Those will work just fine to meet their needs. Put you chains back on... time to go back to w*rk.

 

[Gotadimple]

Retired & Working for the Same Company

Can you retire, draw retirement pay, work 4 days a week for 80% pay?

Actually, according to HR at my Megacorp you can -- but you have to wait 6 months before you do. There needs to be a six month period between when you start retirement and when you return to work according to ERISA rules.

I'm getting ready to start 7 weeks vacation in May before my official July retirement date. Yes, they're making noises about can I come in periodically to help out in those first 7 weeks.

I don't care, if they want to pay me for it. Would I go back after the first of the year on part time? Not a chance.

As others have said, the offer of 80% pay doesn't equate to 80% work.

-- Rita

 

[ziggy29]

The company I work for is coming out with a plan to entice baby boomers to keep working. The fear of losing a substantial amount of company knowledge in a short period is scary. So, two new options are:

1) If you are eligible to retire and vested, you may choose to take a 20% pay reduction and work only 4 days/wk. I suspect you'll still be expected to keep nearly the same output level, not 20% less.

2) If you are eligible to retire and vested, you may choose to take a 20% pay reduction and get an extra 4 weeks of vacation. Many employees who have been around 25 years could have 10wks total.

Questions here.

(1) Does that 4-day work week come with a 20% reduction in actual hours worked and a 20% reduction in expected output as well? If not, what are they really giving you? If there is a 20% lower expectation, then the 20% pay-cut math works.

(2) Let's see. If someone got 6 weeks (!!) of vacation already (using your example), that leaves 46 weeks of work left. Getting 4 more weeks of vacation only reduces your workload by 8.7%, and yet you are taking 20% less pay for it! What a deal! And if you are expected to "catch up" for the work that piled on your desk in your absence with longer hours when you return, it's an even worse deal. To justify the 20% pay cut, you'd probably need at least a 15% cut in the number of weeks you work (the 5% difference accounts for benefit costs which remain relatively fixed).

For a couple of years, something like a dozen years ago with a former employer, you were able to "buy" vacation as a cafeteria benefit. Employees could buy one or two weeks for 1/52 of their annual salary per week, taken from payroll deductions weekly. So if you earned $52,000 a year, you could buy up to two more weeks of vacation for $1,000 per week, taken out at the rate of $19.23 per week. Back then I needed the money more than the time, so I didn't do it. Today I'd be all over that deal. Of course, next year I'll start getting five weeks off anyway (in my 10th year of service), so that's not too shabby, especially by U.S. standards.

 

[CuppaJoe]

...And if you are expected to "catch up" for the work that piled on your desk in your absence with longer hours when you return, it's an even worse deal....

My current j*b (15 years) has always been like that. The "catch up" is what makes an otherwise nice position, evil.

 

[BunsGettingFirm]

By the time I retired, I had five weeks annual vacation - plus about 17 or so corporate "holidays". My final boss used to make a big deal out of anyone in his department taking all their vacation. He would often remind us that he only used 2 or so weeks of his five weeks...implying that the rest of us should do the same. And, he'd never ok a vacation longer than two weeks -- no matter what -- so it was sometimes hard to get all your vacation time in. And, of course, he'd expect us to be "available" during vacation (ie., cell phone, blackberry, etc.)

I'd rather have 100% time off rather than ever work for another j**k like that!

He needs to get a life. These type of face time bosses don't realize that just because your face is in the office doesn't mean your mind is on the job. If you're burned out, you're probably costing more money with the mistakes and indifferent attitude. I just don't get the American work ethic.

 

[ziggy29]

If you're burned out, you're probably costing more money with the mistakes and indifferent attitude. I just don't get the American work ethic.

I've been pretty lucky with my bosses. I've never had a boss I couldn't stand, and most of them realize that stress and burnout reduces the quality of work. I've had bosses telling their staff to go home after long days because tired employees, whether physically or mentally tired, make mistakes and get sloppy in their work.

I guess I'm fortunate that I haven't had a Bill Lumbergh yet.