What a difference one special election makes. In the wake of Scott Brown's upset victory in January's special election to fill the Senate seat vacated by the late Ted Kennedy, all the stories about health care reform over the last few weeks involve needles - and not the hypodermic kind.
More like how congressional Democrats will have to "thread the needle," or "find a needle in a haystack" to pass reform now. And how it will be easier for the proverbial camel to get through the eye of a needle than it will be to pass reform legislation in the Senate, without a Democrat in the second Mass. seat.
So, has the last year or so of our lives spent wringing our hands over health care reform been for nothing? I wonder.
Although I doubt Brown's election is the true hard stop on reform that some might hope for, I do believe we have some time to take a breather while Congress regroups and decides where we all go from here.
So, since we seem to have some time on our hands, why don't we talk about something else? Namely, the feared "brain drain" of knowledge lost when baby boomers retire - or rather, employers' lack of response to it.
In a recent report for BenefitNews.com, Associate Editor Kathleen Koster wrote up the findings of a MetLife study that addressed employer attitudes about the brain drain that's likely to result when older workers retire.
Although the study finds that employers say they're quite concerned about the kink in the knowledge-transfer pipeline, they seem pretty blasé upon further examination.
For example, 97% of those employers concerned about the knowledge drain have not yet calculated the cost to transfer knowledge from older to younger employees. Perhaps they think they have some more time to mull it over: employers surveyed believe that in the next three-to-five years employees will delay retirement by three years on average - from ages 64 to 67. Not the best approach to take in an economically shaky environment, if you ask me.
What I found more bothersome was that, when ranking factors that would keep older workers around long enough to see knowledge transfers through to completion, employers seemed to place little value on benefits and creating an inviting, positive workplace culture.
Most employers concerned about brain drain say older employees are working longer to rebuild their retirement nest eggs post-recession, Koster reports. Okay, that's a given. They also cite: wanting to work long enough to qualify for Social Security benefits (67%), needing income to meet their day-to-day expenses or pay bills (63%), and wanting to maintain medical coverage until they qualify for Medicare (41%). I'd agree that all of those factors play a part.
However, MetLife finds that just 24% of employers think that their employees enjoy the mental stimulation of work, a slim 12% believe they want to maintain social contact and 5% say their workers appreciate feeling needed for an assignment.
Sheesh.
I would caution employers concerned about brain drain against pooh-poohing such "feel good" aspects of work, for two reasons.
One, making your workplace a happy, stimulating, satisfying place to spend the majority of one's waking hours is neither difficult nor costly. Two, if you're an older worker who could choose between a satisfying job where they feel needed versus feeling unhappy, what would you pick? Especially if more time to travel, attend to hobbies and spend with family and friends were the alternatives?
I say, since we have time to focus on something other than health care at the moment, why not make it preparing for the brain drain - by whatever means you see fit. Enhanced training, mentoring programs, crafting succession plans or exploring phased retirement all are fine options. But, at the same time, I'd also encourage you to place a high premium on just making your workplace a happy place to be.
Send letters, queries and story ideas to Editor in Chief Kelley M. Butler at kelley.butler@sourcemedia.com.
