 |
|
|
|
|
|
The old as dead wood?
|
|
|
Fri, Mar 07, 2008
The Straits Times
|
|
|
|
|
|
TH | ERE are signs of a growing mismatch between the Government's push to get older persons into steady employment and the receptivity of employers. The programme has become a mantra which every industrial and service sector has embraced. But are many firms only paying lip service, in that they turn away these job applicants for being too old, too slow, too inflexible? In short, too much of a bother. There is a variation to the issue: How many firms which are serious about giving oldsters a break are impeded by market practices that make their hiring impractical or uneconomic? These questions need investigating to establish how widespread the mismatch is. Indicative of the problem is what an Upfront report in The Straits Times on Tuesday uncovered of the discouraging experience of Community Development Councils (CDCs) in getting jobs for those who sought their help.
The five CDCs were not intended to be job placement agencies. But they have become the source of community help for retrenched workers, the modestly educated and the semi-skilled, as well as casual workers looking for jobs that will be good for one or two years. These workers are typically aged 40 and older. Despite their collaboration with businesses and job-matching databases, the CDCs succeeded in placing only a fourth of the 36,000 people who went to them for help last year. If state organs with their imprimatur and connections can manage only modest results, the efforts of most do-it-yourself job seekers surely would sink without trace. Does this suggest discrimination is deep-seated despite what bosses have been saying about supporting the government effort? If it is, the planning efforts of NTUC and the Workforce Development Agency will need revising.
Set aside for a moment the hoary stories about fussy older workers. They used to be part of the problem but many, not just the aunties and uncles, have since come around. They will accept any work on offer, just to qualify for the Workfare income supplement. What should also draw the attention of state agencies engaged in workplace developments is a little-known factor: the interplay of commercial forces and how these conspire against old-age hirings. One company cited in our report, a security firm which actively employs older people, was losing contracts to competitors which had younger guards. This was what clients wanted. The company with oldies also had its insurance premiums raised sharply because of the age factor. Marketplace dynamics are forbidding even if they observe a logic, but it is not beyond the ability of trade organisations and the Employers Federation to intervene.
|
