Posts Tagged “mature age workers”

 

Rick Brimeyer

 

Posted: Thursday, November 6, 2014

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the number of workers 55-64 years old working is almost four percent higher than it was prior to the Great Recession.

The number of 65 and older workers is also up, but less than 1 percent.

Meanwhile, the number of younger workers is trying to recover to pre-recession employment levels with 35-44 year-old workers down 3.6 percent and 45-54 year-olds down 2.3 percent.

Some of the growth of older workers can be explained by the huge baby boomer pool holding on to their jobs and simply aging into the 55 and older category during the past seven years.

In addition, boomers are tending to work longer than prior generations, due to improved health, longer life expectancies, fewer traditional pension plans and perhaps less-than-stellar retirement planning.

This demographic phenomenon is being used to explain various economic trends:

* Tepid employment growth and underemployment among younger workers.

* Stagnant wages due to the larger labor pool and older workers being less likely to leave a job for higher pay.

* Continued low bond yields despite the Fed reducing its aggressive bond buying program as older investors pick up the slack in the bond market as a means of paring risk in their portfolios.

The intent of this column, however, is not to debate the impact of senior workers on the economy. Rather it is to discuss the intangibles that they can bring to your work team.

Too often, especially in organizations where pay is calculated primarily as a function of seniority, management sees experienced workers’ premium pay as a prime target for cost cutting.

That might be justified in cases where a low performance issue has been allowed to fester for years or if someone is coasting toward retirement.

But it’s a mistake in cases where highly experienced employees are engaged, learning and performing.

By definition, experienced workers bring experience. They’ve ate, slept, lived and dreamed about the technical aspects of the job. They are able to differentiate between the few vital aspects needed to make things run smoothly and all the myriad of other factors that are simply noise.

Long-term employees personify loyalty. As young employees attend the 25-year work anniversary for an admired co-worker, they’re likely to be thinking, “Wow! She’s been working here longer than I’ve been alive. She’s talented and certainly has other options. I made a good decision by joining this organization.”

Senior employees also bring perspective. During the tumultuous times of my career, I searched out respected, gray-haired colleagues to help make sense of things. Their experience with inevitable economic cycles, career highs and lows was invaluable in helping me see the bigger picture.

Thus, experienced employees also can bring a sense of stability to the team. They tend to ride a smoother roller coaster than their younger counterparts. That steadiness and consistency can be a welcome attribute in a work environment that is constantly changing.

Here’s a few thoughts for my fellow boomers on how to be that valuable resource for younger workers:

* When seeking advice, others usually aren’t looking for an answer. Rather, they’re looking for someone to listen and ask probing questions they haven’t yet considered.

* While younger workers might appreciate your ability to learn from the past, they don’t need you to replay it. Share the lessons, not the detailed war stories.

* Keep learning and applying new knowledge. You’re not likely to be sought out if you’re talking about “the plant expansion project that I led back in ’85.”

As 2014 grows long in the tooth, it seems an appropriate time to recognize those senior co-workers who have played a significant role in your career or within your organization through their dedicated service.

Balance needs to be struck to ensure younger workers can access skilled jobs.

Australia is facing a unique challenge with its ageing workforce and must work to ensure a good talent pipeline to highly skilled jobs in order to remain competitive says Hays. This warning has come as the recruitment company notes that an ageing workforce and delayed retirement means older workers are staying longer in highly skilled jobs. The danger is that this trend is restricting younger talent from accessing these more challenging roles.

“Over the past decade, successive Australian governments have recognised that increasing the labour force participation rate of older people is a way to help soften the economic impacts of an ageing population,” notes Nick Deligiannis, managing director of Hays in Australia & New Zealand. “While older workers have always been an important part of the Australian workforce, in recent years the importance of this contribution has grown. Research from the Australian Bureau of Statistics shows the labour force participation rate of Australians aged 55 and over has increased from 25 per cent to 34 per cent over the past 30 years, with most of the increase occurring in the past 10 years.

“It therefore makes sense to retain mature age workers for as long as possible,” he continues, “but we must not do so at the expense of training and developing new entrants to the labour market. If we look to the future, in order to maintain our competitive edge we need to ensure the country has a future pipeline of talent who have the skills and experience necessary to replace our ageing workforce when they do eventually retire. Otherwise there will be a skills vacuum that will take many years and a huge amount of investment to fill.”

Deligiannis believes employers have to strike the right balance between retaining highly-valued, well educated and experienced older workers, and recruiting and developing the next generation of employees. Ultimately, of course, the focus should be on the recruitment, development and training of staff at all levels and of all ages.

“The ongoing training and development of competent people – of all ages – is essential to the future success of businesses,” concludes Nick. “After all, organisations need to ensure their workforce continues to evolve to changing market conditions. And when someone does decide to retire, they need to have suitably trained and experienced professionals to replace them.”

 

Source;  Global Recruitment

Older workers — those who are at or approaching the traditional retirement age of 65 ­— are the fastest-growing segment of the workforce and one of the fastest-growing groups in the overall population. In the U.S. the number of individuals aged 65 or older will increase by about 66% between now and 2035. The growth is driven in part by the Baby Boomer generation, but even more so by an increased life expectancy that’s creating more healthy years for more people.

As we learned in our research for our bookManaging the Older Worker, people who are 65 today have about the same risk of mortality or serious illness as those who were in their mid-50’s a generation ago. The percentage of the population over age 65 who are at serious risk of mortality or life-threatening illness will grow by only about 16% between now and 2035, which means that there will be a huge cohort of healthy individuals in that age group who want and need to work. These changing demographics will transform the U.S. labor market and society as a whole. Any employer who wants to engage a skilled, motivated, and disciplined workforce cannot afford to ignore them.

And yet, these workers are being ignored to some extent. About three quarters of individuals approaching retirement have for some time said that they would like to keep working in some capacity, yet only about a quarter of them actually do. Something is keeping them from working, and that something is on the employer side.

Engaging the older workforce should not be such a big challenge. Older workers tend to be in the workforce because they want to be — relatively few look for jobs because they need them to survive. (During the Great Recession we heard a lot about people not being able to retire because of finances, but we’re hearing that less now.) Older workers want to keep working first and foremost because it keeps them engaged with other people, and also to feel as though they’re contributing. Money is further down the list. Older workers also know what they are getting into and what is required when they accept a job — much more so than younger workers.

So, why aren’t we seeing more older employees in the workforce? The problem seems to be getting them in the door in the first place. Discrimination is certainly one reason. Evidence suggests that we are more biased in our views of older individuals than we are of minorities and women. It’s easy to see that bias if we compare the images that come to mind when we contrast the words “older,” which brings up negative stereotypes, and “experienced,” which brings up positive ones.

The other challenge is fear. Younger supervisors are often afraid of managing older employees because these older workers have more experience than they do. The less experienced managers may wonder, “How can I say, ‘Do this because I know best’ when often I don’t know best?” Older workers may also have some initial trouble being managed by younger supervisors, especially those with less practical experience than they have. But it’s up to supervisors to shape the relationship beginning with the first interaction by saying how they want to use the older worker’s experience, while pointing out what their own responsibilities are for setting goals and holding people accountable.

It’s not just a confidence issue. Younger supervisors may find that what works with most of their staff doesn’t work for older employees. They aren’t as fearful of being fired (they’re already at retirement age) and they have less interest in promotions or a big payout in the future.

So how do you keep an older worker engaged? Start by acknowledging and using their experience. Certainly this is true for any age group: Everyone wants their expertise to be recognized, especially by the boss. But with older workers, it’s even more important, because they typically have a lot of experience — so ignoring it is especially irritating. And older workers themselves can be prickly about being managed by someone who knows less than they do.

The military has developed some good tactics for recognizing and appreciating older workers’ expertise based on the efforts of generations of junior officers fresh out of college and struggling to manage older, more experienced sergeants. Military leaders now advise those officers to treat their experienced subordinates as partners, at least behind the scenes.  The supervisor is still in charge, but he’s missing an opportunity (and is more likely to make a mistake) if he doesn’t check in with his more experienced subordinates — at least to hear their thoughts — before making important decisions. The supervisor still sets the goals and holds people accountable for meeting them. But the subordinates have a big say in the execution, and when they walk out of their private meetings with their managers, they need to be on the same page.

In the workplace, it’s useful to check in with individual older workers to ask them what problems they could foresee in executing a specific task (“Here’s what we need done”). If you don’t take any advice they offer, it’s helpful to explain why not (“I know it’s an aggressive deadline, but it’s important to finish this before the new manager takes over”).

In terms of their interests, older workers tend to be more like young workers than like their middle-aged peers. Their big financial needs are typically behind them, work is often a source of social interaction for them, and they care more about the good works that their employer might be doing than the cohorts in middle age. Supervisors should consider giving older works jobs with more customer interaction (frontline jobs) or those dealing with internal customers.

Research also suggests that putting older and young workers together helps both groups perform better. They make good allies in part because of their similar interests, but because of their different stages of life, they are less competitive with each other than workers in the same age cohort might be. That means that they are more likely to help each other and to form good teams.

The bottom line is that companies looking to increase engagement, performance, and loyalty need to do a much better job of engaging this growing — and valuable — segment of the workforce. For employers who say they want a workforce that can “hit the ground running,” that doesn’t need training or ramp-up time to figure out what to do, that will be conscientious, and that knows how to get along with others, older workers are the perfect match.

More blog posts by 
80-peter-cappelli

Peter Cappelli is Professor of Management at the Wharton School and the author of several books, including his latest, The India Way(Harvard Business Review Press, 2010).

Victorian Business Editor
Melbourne

ALMOST half of all workers believe they will remain in their current job for less than five years, and one in seven say they will stay less than a year as employees become more demanding of employers and seek to broaden their career experiences, according to a Newspoll survey.

The survey, conducted for The Australian last month, of 700 people involved in full and part-time work found those aged 18-34 years were significantly more likely to believe they would stay less than five years in their current job (57 per cent) compared with those aged 35-49 (38 per cent).

It found there were no significant differences between genders or geographic areas.

The survey also found an overwhelming majority of workers (80 per cent) believed their job would be more difficult or impossible without access to computer technology.

The trend was even more pronounced among those aged 35-49 (86 per cent) and those living in the five main capital cities of Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Adelaide and Perth (84 per cent).

Searching for work when you are 50 years+ can be daunting, frustrating and deflating. I talk to people on a weekly basis about this issue and their comments are always the same:

  • “I’ve got all the qualifications, why can’t I get an interview?”
  • “Why doesn’t anyone see my experience as a positive?”
  • “Employers are only seeking young people!” 

It is a tough market, but its tough for jobseekers at every level. Reality TV shows have mastered the art of shocking people into action by measuring their actual age against their physical age or mental age etc. It’s a wake up call for many. Imagine being told as a 35 year old women that you have the physical age of 48 years! Yikes!

Job seekers in the 50-something category could benefit from a ‘job seeker age test’. How old are you based on the content of your resume and comments made to employers? Many of you would be quite surprised by the results.

In my experience there are a number of mistakes mature job seekers make without realising it, that are far more damaging than their perceived idea of racism based on age. As a mature job seeker you have to ‘modernise’ your approach to compete in today’s market, not only in your resume, but your attitude as well.

Many mature jobseekers start their search with a pre-determined idea that no one will employ them because they are over 50 years. Self defeating thoughts will not help your cause. Sure, there are organisations that prefer younger employees, and sadly some that do discriminate, however, there are a number of companies who value the wealth of experience mature candidates offer.

I know a medium sized organisation here in Western Australia who actively seeks mature age candidates. In the Managing Directors own words “we prefer 2 part time mature employees to 1 full-time person. We’ve found their work ethic, output and longevity is much better than their younger counterparts”.

When it comes to staying young, a mind-lift beats a face-lift any day. 

 ~Marty Bucella

As a mature job seeker you need to ask yourself how you present to an employer. Do you come across as confident, happy and motivated? Or have you become cynical, a product of your self-defeating thoughts?

  • Do you call people ‘pet’, ‘lovey’ or ‘dear’?
  • Have you made statements like “back in my day” or “way back when”?
  • Is your resume as thick as a novel because you’ve included every position ever held?
  • Are you including your date of birth, social security pension card number, dates of high school education and qualifications?
  • Do you hand deliver applications despite the employer’s request for emails because you hate using the computer?
  • Are you still submitting resumes that read like job descriptions because “they always worked for me in the past”?
  • Do you rely on print media to source vacancies because you aren’t a computer person?
  • At interviews have you asked how old other staff are to determine if you will have to work with “whipper snappers”?
  • Do you give the impression at interview of wanting to take over? Eg. “I can teach him a thing or two with all my experience”
  • Are you positively selling your experience … “I have a great deal of experience and skills which I can share with the team” as opposed to “I could teach these young pups a thing or two!”
  • Do you make excuses for your age … one of the worst I ever heard as a recruiter was “I know you probably want someone younger” … this was during the interview  – she already had one foot in the door!

Your attitude counts for a lot and will affect people’s impression of you. Be aware of your thoughts and focus on the positive aspects rather than the negative. I bet your job seeker age goes down in the process.

 

Michelle Lopez, Owner/Career Consultant

w: www.one2oneresumes.com.au

 

Date: November 1, 2014 
Ross Gittins

The Sydney Morning Herald’s Economics Editor

<i>Illustration: Glen Le Lievre</i>

Illustration: Glen Le Lievre

Politicians and economists have been banging on about the ageing of the population for ages, but how much do we actually know about the likely economic consequences? Not much – until now.

We’ve been told incessantly that ageing spells bad news for the budget – greatly increased spending on pensions and healthcare – with ageing used to help justify the harsh spending cuts proposed in this year’s budget.

In truth, it has suited the powers-that-be to exaggerate ageing’s effect on the budget. And oldies are right to resent the way ageing has been presented as nothing but a terrible problem. If the fact that we’re living longer, healthier lives is a “problem”, it’s the best kind of problem to have.

So let’s ignore the budget and focus on ageing’s other economic consequences, some of which are good. We’ll do so with help from a speech given last week by Dr Christopher Kent, an assistant governor of the Reserve Bank.

Kent says population ageing is driven by three factors: the boom in babies in the early years after World War II (1945 to 1960), the subsequent sharp drop in fertility rates that created a baby-boomer bulge, plus rising longevity thanks to decades of prosperity and advances in medical science.

The authorities have been warning about the coming consequences of ageing for so long – and how bad it will be by 2040 – that I suspect many people have given up waiting for it to start.

Well, get this: although it’s got a long way to go, it’s already started. The baby boomers have been retiring since the turn of the century, thus reducing the share of the population that’s of usual working age (15 to 64).

Kent says that, taken by itself, ageing is estimated to have subtracted from the labour force participation rate by between 0.1 and 0.2 percentage points a year over the past decade and a half. This effect has increased a little in recent years as baby boomers have begun reaching 65.

Point is, ageing’s biggest and most obvious effect is not on the budget, it’s on the labour market. Everyone alive contributes to the demand for labour, but only those of us willing and able to work contribute to its supply.

So ageing constitutes a reduction in the supply of labour relative to the demand. That suggests we can expect it to cause unemployment to be lower than otherwise (which is not to say it won’t continue to go up and down with the business cycle).

Since Australians have worried that there aren’t enough jobs to go around ever since the middle of Gough Whitlam’s reign, that sounds like good news to me. We’re in the process of switching from not enough jobs to not enough workers.

(What I wonder is how long it will take for our mentality to shift. The perception that there’s never enough jobs is now so deeply ingrained that any shyster with a profit-making scheme he claims will “create jobs” is greeted as a hero and demands that he be showered with subsidies.)

And with demand for labour stronger than supply, this implies upward pressure on wages. Again, sounds like good news to me. Kent adds that the converse of higher wage rates is lower returns to capital.

Kent points out that the pressure on labour supply will be felt most by industries that rely more heavily on labour, mainly service industries. Prominent among those industries will be aged care and healthcare, of course.

But, Kent adds, there’s likely to be scope for labour to be reallocated among service industries, with a lower proportion of young people meaning we’ll require fewer workers to care for and educate children.

There’ll also be relatively less demand for workers to produce goods. That’s for several reasons. First, because older people tend to devote less of their spending to goods and more services. Second, because all of us tend to spend an increasing share of our rising incomes on services. There are limits to our consumption of food, wearing of clothes and how many TVs, fridges and cars we can cram into our house.

Third, because of its greater reliance on machines, the production of goods is more amenable to continuous improvement in labour productivity than is the production of services. As one economist famously observed, you can’t improve the productivity of a quartet by reducing the number of players.

All this implies the prices of services are likely to rise relative to those of goods.

But now, gentle reader, if I’ve trained you well enough you’ll have noticed a weakness in my argument so far. I’ve described only the immediate effects of ageing – what economists call the “first-round effects”.

That’s where most people’s analysis stops, but economic analysis keeps going. One of the most important questions economists ask is: “And then what happens?” It’s the second-round and subsequent effects economics is supposed to illuminate.

Seen from an economist’s mindset, what I’ve described is a change in relative prices: the price of (or return on) labour relative to the price of (or return on) capital. The prices of services relative to the prices of goods.

Kent says it’s important that these relative price changes not be prevented from occurring. Why? So market forces can go to work on them, adapting to them, modifying them and, to some extent, reversing them.

The higher relative price of labour should encourage more middle-aged people to take jobs and more oldies to delay their full retirement, thus reducing the upward pressure on wages a bit. The higher relative prices of services should encourage more people to acquire the education and training needed to work in the services sector.

And greater longevity should encourage workers to save more for their longer time in retirement.

That’s what happens in market economies: things adjust.

Ross Gittins is the economics editor.

Source:  SMH

Date:  October 30, 2014

Ian Yates

This week the Federal government is again taking to the Senate a bill that contains its proposed changes to the age pension after redrafting earlier blocked bills.

The ALP Opposition has already waved through the freezing of the assets test for three years from 2017 in the House of Representatives and will do the same in the Senate. Compromises may emerge from the cross-bench on freezing the income test, slashing the deeming rate thresholds, and raising the eligibility age to 70.

The Prime Minister and his tense backbenchers must be concerned about the potential for political fallout because Mr Abbott took pre-emptive action this month and sent a personal letter to every age pensioner assuring them that what he was planning to do with the pension was OK.

Interestingly, in this letter the Prime Minister avoided mentioning the big-ticket item that pensioners are deeply concerned about – changes to pension indexation.

Pensions currently go up every six months by the higher of the increase in average weekly earnings, the CPI, or the Pensioner and Beneficiary Cost of Living Index or PBCLI. This ensures the pension keeps up with the real cost of living.

The government’s plans would remove both average weekly earnings and the PBCLI in 2017 and only index by CPI. Occasionally that would be all right because the CPI is the higher. But generally this is not the case. In fact only twice in the pastfive years has the CPI been marginally higher.

The Parliamentary Budget Office reports that by 2024-25 the proposed changes will reduce the total value of age pensions that year by $6.9 billion. That’s about $2000 a year less for a single pension, more than $3000 less for a couple in today’s dollars.

Why is the government taking such drastic steps and targeting pensioners – many of them Coalition supporters?

According to Treasurer Joe Hockey, it is all about avoiding the budget crisis precipitated by the advent of the ageing population.

Indeed the population is ageing. The population aged 65 plus will increase by 85 per cent between 2011 and 2031 and the percentage aged 65-plus will increase from 13.8 in 2011 to 18.7 in 2031.  That’s more people potentially on the pension and fewer  workers paying income tax to help fund it.

But the sky isn’t falling. We have known about our changing demographics for a long time and have built a pension system which is repeatedly named internationally as one of the most modest and sustainable in the western world. Our pension system costs government only two-thirds of the average for the OECD.

Yet we do have a superannuation system that provides high-income earners and wealthy retirees with very generous tax concessions – in some cases more than the equivalent of a full age pension.

When it comes to retirement, there are big winners and even bigger losers and it is all in the interplay of taxation, pensions and superannuation policies that creates this great inequity.

While the debate around pension changes rages on, the Financial Services Council has calculated that working Australians will have $128 billion less in their superannuation savings by 2025 following the decision to delay the 12 per cent superannuation guarantee.

If the government is so concerned about the sustainability of the pension in the long term why would they even consider a move to reduce most workers superannuation savings?

What is happening is that decisions are being made about pensions, superannuation and tax in a piecemeal way, in isolation, and without consideration for the flow-on effect they will have in other areas.

Instead, we urgently need the government to agree to an independent and comprehensive review of retirement income policy in Australia.

It’s time we got in the same room all the best minds who have looked at the ins and outs of current polices, and also talked with older people and other stakeholders, to discuss the best way forward, taking in the whole picture – pensions, superannuation, taxation and mature age employment issues.

Let’s take the current bills off the table and take a proper look at the best policies that will address the challenges and opportunities our ageing population. Policies that are equitable, co-ordinated and sustainable and don’t just entrench disadvantage for millions of older Australians.

Ian Yates is chief executive of  COTA Australia

Read more: http://www.canberratimes.com.au/comment/age-pension-changes-risk-entrenching-disadvantage-for-millions-20141029-11doob.html#ixzz3Hhh5H98Q

 

Generation gaps still not understood by bosses

The report recommends collecting data on the different generations to adapt approaches.Photo: istock

RACHEL NICKLESS

Employers are out of touch with what generations of workers really want, a report has found.

The latest report by recruiting giant Chandler Macleod released on Wednesday found that while business leaders thought they were catering well for the needs of Generation Y (born in 1980-1994), Generation X (1965-1979), Baby boomers (1946-1964) and Traditionalists (born before 1946), the workers had far less glowing perceptions.

The report, Talent Management: The Next Wave, was based on surveys of 233 senior managers, leaders and specialists and 287 employees across Australia and New Zealand.

It found all generations most wanted flexible work conditions, which included flexible hours and part-time work. However, only 12 per cent of Generation Y, 21 per cent of Generation X and 27 per cent of Baby boomers gave their employer good marks in this area.

Employers were also out of step with the top priorities for each generation, particularly generations X and Y that now account for 69 per cent of their workforce.

YOUNGEST WORKERS FARE WORST

 

Employers were worst at identifying what their youngest workers wanted, believing Generation Y wanted “employee development”, “regular goal setting” and “continuous review of talent”, when in fact these workers said they most valued “flexible work conditions”, “employee-focused development” and “regular goal setting”.

Employers underestimated Generation X’s desire for “training to keep up with the times” and Baby boomers’ and Traditionalists’ desire for “continuous coaching and feedback”.

Generation X and Y workers were also more negative about how successful their employer had been in catering for their generation than older workers were. While 17 per cent of employers thought their use of social media was effective as part of a strategy to manage younger workers, only 1 per cent of Gen Ys saw this as effective in practice.

Staff wanted flexible working conditions, as well as flexible work environments (this included being able to work from anywhere rather than having to sit at a desk). While 76 per cent of employers agreed that flexible working arrangements provided a positive return on investment, a third of employers surveyed said there was an inverse relationship between flexible work arrangements and productivity. The report also found 50 per cent of employers did not have any generation- specific talent management strategies and only 48 per cent of employers thought that age had an impact on the needs of their workers.

DISCONNECT UNSURPRISING

 

Chandler Macleod chief executive Cameron Judson, said he was not surprised that there was such a disjunct between what workers wanted and what employers presumed they wanted.

“We have four different generations working side by side, each with their own traits and tendencies; so clearly a one-size-fits-all approach to attracting and retaining talent isn’t going to work,” he said.

He said the key message in the report for leaders was to be relevant to employees. “This means management by walking the floor, knowing your team, being interested in them and not sitting at a PC screen all day,” he argued.

He suggested the reason that employers seemed to misjudge younger workers the most was because the “default approach to leadership is to lead others the way they were led”.

“As we gain better insights into Gen X and Millennials in the workplace, employers have to adapt from traditional talent management approaches (hierarchical, top-down, process focused, external rewards) to emerging trends (networked, outcome-focused, intrinsic rewards, matrix organisations) he said

The report recommended collecting data on the different generations to adapt approaches that are relevant to each generation. It suggested offering flexible work arrangements equally across the workforce and making it easier for managers to produce and retain talent with policies that support ongoing education, talent mobility, career growth and internal development.

 

Source:  AFR

National Correspondent
Brisbane
Fifties Worker

Karenn Elmer, with work colleague Angela Pickering, found full-time work with Hallmark Homes on the Gold Coast. Picture: Lyndon Mechielsen Source: News Corp Australia

THE Employment Department has accused baby boomers of ­“retiring’’ on the dole, as the number of over-50s on Newstart jumped 9 per cent in a year.

Unemployment is rising five times faster for Australians in their 50s than for those in their 20s, the latest social-security data reveals, creating a “grey army” of 50,000 long-term jobless.

Older jobseekers will soon be forced to hunt for full-time jobs, or lose their Newstart payments, as part of an Abbott government welfare crackdown.

“Given the ageing workforce and the fact that most people aged 55 have many potentially prod­uctive years ahead of them, it is no longer acceptable for 55-59-year-old jobseekers to effectively retire on Newstart while undertaking a bit of voluntary or part-time work,’’ the Employment Department has told a Senate inquiry into the government’s welfare bill.

Federal Age Discrimination Commissioner Susan Ryan yesterday blasted the department’s “completely wrong’’ choice of language.

She said many older people applied for hundreds of jobs, yet never got an interview due to widespread age discrimination by employers.

“If you’re 55, you’ve got 10 years before you get the Age Pension, so imagine trying to spend 10 years on the tiny amount of money you get on Newstart,’’ Ms Ryan said yesterday.

“The implication that they are willing to hang around on New­start while doing a bit of volunteer work as a preferred position is completely wrong.

“People in that age group, more than young people, are desperately seeking employment — often they have mortgages and are still rearing kids.’’

The number of over-50s who have been out of work more than a year soared 16 per cent to 49,985 in the 12 months to September, while the total number on the dole rose by 9 per cent to 79,163.

Unemployment among 21-29-year-olds rose just 1.7 per cent, to 112,130, including 67,139 who have been on the dole more than a year — an 11 per cent jump.

But 384 unemployed Australians in their 50s — including 135 with disabilities — have found work through the government’s Restart wage subsidy scheme. Employers can pocket $10,000 over two years if they hire a worker aged 50 or older, who has been out of work for at least six months.

Queensland builder Hallmark Homes recently hired 58-year-old receptionist Karenn Elmer, who spent two years on the dole after being made redundant from her previous job.

Sales and marketing manager Stephanie Long praised Ms Elmer’s experience and mature attitude.

“She’s so switched-on and nothing’s ever too much trouble,’’ she said yesterday.

“I’ll be going for more mature-aged workers from now on — they are very knowledgeable, there are no excuses and they have a great work ethic.’’

Ms Elmer said she had struggled on Newstart after losing her job in 2012. “It’s like I went from zero to hero when I got this job,’’ she said yesterday.

“I’m so glad someone believed in me; I guess it’s my old-school training and respect, and things like manners .’’

Ms Elmer said it was “ridiculous’’ for the Department of ­Employment to suggest older people wanted to “retire” on the $258-a-week Newstart allowance, which pays $130 a week less than the Age Pension.

“My world turned upside-down when I lost my full-time job and I was living below the poverty line for two years,’’ she said.

Under the existing welfare rules, jobseekers aged 55 or older do not have to seek full-time work to get the dole, so long as they are volunteering or working part-time. Under the draft legislation, they will be required to apply for full-time jobs, in line with young­er jobseekers, from January 1.

 

Declining infrastructure is behind staggering pockets of unemployment.

CENTRELINK OFFICE SYDNEY UNEMPLOYMENT FIGURES

Unemployment figures in some areas are at 50 per cent. Photo: AAP

 

 

Unemployment rates in some Australian suburbs are as high as 32 per cent, five times the national figure, creating pockets of disadvantage and leaving local councils scrambling to create jobs.

Both inner-city suburbs and remote towns feature in the top-10 areas grappling with high unemployment rates, with mayors saying they are struggling to provide jobs amid a decline in manufacturing.

Unemployment figures have skyrocketed in some suburbs in the past year, with Melbourne’s Broadmeadows and Brisbane’s Wacol both experiencing an almost 40 per cent jump in unemployment in 12 months.

• Find out the jobless rate in your area. Read the full report here

Broadmeadows in Melbourne’s north-west has an unemployment figure of 26 per cent, and has been rocked by the steady closure of local manufacturing since the global financial crisis in 2008, including more factory closures in the past year.

The current national unemployment figure is 6.1 per cent.

 

A source at the local Hume City Council said long-term disadvantage and the closure of the local Ford plant were to blame for unemployment in the area.

“The impact of the pending closure at the Ford plant in Broadmeadows, and the flow-on it has had on other supporting manufacturing industries has also played a part,” they said.

Unemployment rate map

Tasmania’s Brighton Council Mayor Tony Foster says high unemployment has been a problem in the Ravenswood area for generations.

His local government area currently endures a jobless rate of 23 per cent.

“The main thing that is going to turn this around is education but we can’t get kids to go to school any further than Year 7. There’s no thought of them even going to Year 11 or 12,” Cr Foster says.

“It’s a difficult area because there are few places like it in Tasmania. Other parts of the community are really vibrant and have high employment,” he laments.

The highest unemployment figure in Australia belongs to the indigenous community of Palm Island off the coast of Cairns, with unemployment at 49.8 per cent.

Ford factory closure Broadmeadows

Other remote towns such as Halls Creek in the Kimberley and APY Lands in South Australia both face unemployment rates of 42 per cent and 38 per cent, but languishing city suburbs aren’t far behind.

The new data shows suburban areas are not immune from staggering unemployment, as suburbs in Launceston, Melbourne, Brisbane and Adelaide also face some of the highest unemployment rates in the country.

The suburb of Elizabeth in Adelaide has the highest inner-city jobless rate in Australia with 32.4 per cent of locals unemployed.

City of Playford mayor Glenn Docherty warns this will only be made worse by the closure of the local Holden plant.

“We’re trying to get unemployment down across the city but from our point of view we have challenges with Holden closing in 2017,” says Cr Docherty, who is hoping horticulture can lift the area out of unemployment.

“We’re working with local food growers and training providers to secure work in a variety of entry level jobs in the expanding horticultural industry.”

Top five worst suburbs for employment state-by-state

QLD

Palm Island – 49.8 per cent

Aurukun – 32.1 per cent

Wacol – 26.3 per cent

Riverview – 23 per cent

Inala – 22.8 per cent

NSW

Lethbridge Park, Tregear – 23.2 per cent

Bidwill, Hebersham, Emerton – 22.8 per cent

Ashcroft, Busby, Miller – 21.7 per cent

Walgett – 15.4 per cent

Brewarrina – 14.6 per cent

VIC

Broadmeadows – 26.4 per cent

Campbellfield, Coolaroo – 22.9 per cent

Meadow Heights – 22.9 per cent

Dandenong – 20.8 per cent

Doveton – 19.5 per cent

TAS

Bridgewater – Gagebrook – 26.4 per cent

Ravenswood – 23.7 per cent

Rokeby – 16 per cent

Risdon Vale – 15.3 per cent

Invermay – 15.0 per cent

SA

APY Lands – 38.8 per cent

Elizabeth – 32.4 per cent

Smithfield – Elizabeth North – 23.6 per cent

Davoren Park – 19.6 per cent

Christie Downs – 19.4 per cent

WA

Halls Creek – 42.7 per cent

Roebuck – 31.1 per cent

Derby – West Kimberley – 20.7 per cent

Mandurah – 15.8 per cent

Balga – Mirrabooka – 15.3 per cent

NT

Yuendumu Anmatjere – 23.7 per cent

Sandover – Plenty – 22.5 per cent

Thamarrurr – 21.6 per cent

Anindilyakwa – 16.1 per cent

Tanami – 15.7 per cent

ACT 

ACT East – 15 per cent

Reid – 12.1 per cent

Florey – 6.9 per cent

Holt – 6.7 per cent

Belconnen – 6.2 per cent