already served the covenant: retirement at age 67, where necessary reform has made little contribution to the welfare state sustainable. One of the agreement resulting from the delay and higher cost of early retirement for companies. Controversial issue in which there is a conflict of interests between companies and the state: companies looking to replace labor "face and obsolete "by another" cheap and ready ", while the state wants to delay the effective exit age from the labor market by the consequences associated with leaving work.
pressures to eliminate early retirement, full of contradictions on the other hand, lead to some questions about whose thinking I wanted to draw attention today:
- Are companies prepared to manage the maturity?
- Do they value companies really mature?
way of example, a comment from a survey of work environment in a large corporation: "Here at 50 and I believe more and 55 have expiration date young people are very skilled but lack job, here is no longer valued the experience "
is not a simple question, which is also difficult to generalize, it depends on the sector, the physical activity and a long list .
Moreover, the attitudes of health workers is ambivalent to the issue. Some people are wanting to take early retirement (with financial guarantees, of course) and some people are dreading that day comes.
is not a simple question, I repeat, but we're getting closer to having to address this issue seriously. At this point is where I come the questions: Are you going to put companies in their agenda management maturity? Do they know to combine experience and drive? What about the collision of generational values? Be seen.
0 comments:
Post a Comment