Managing An Aging Contingent -- Are Your Veterans Resources Or Corruptors?

I am a Baby Boomer.

My parents were from The Greatest Generation. We're already learning what incredible contributions the Greatest Generation made as we view the series Band of Brothers.

This year, a bulk of Boomers turn 60. My brother Don, for one. Some of my friends also. A member of this class is a few months away. This has set off a depth charge which few Bean Counters anticipated, and Number Crunchers the world over are just now beginning to shoot off emergency flares.

When Bismarck first introduced state pensions in the 1880s, they became effective at age 70 -- 20 years past the average life span at that time. Most retirements kick in now at age 65.

In California, the "state of the art" is now "3 @ 50," a standard for law enforcement.

In the FBI, mandatory retirement occurs at age 55.

Those Boomers who turn 60 this year comprise the largest number of persons to ever voluntarily give up work in such a short time. These Boomers are larger than the generation that follows -- or that preceded it -- and may leave what I call an "Institutional Memory" gap, though no one in my department, or those I've discussed this with (my SLI class included) seem to much care.

Japan, for example, expects its workforce to shrink by 16%, about 10 million workers, over the next 25 years. Europe will see the number of workers nearing retirement grow by a quarter. Some companies are already complaining of a shortage of skills.

In attempting to deal with a worker shortage, some US companies have responded by offshoring a number of jobs -- perhaps a natural occurrance anyway, in order to take advantage of an abundance of cheaper workers. But is it really?

But do we really need to go here? I submit that we may not necessarily have to; perhaps our finest labor pool exists under our very noses:

Those persons who have recently or are about to retire.

Law enforcement is different, in terms of labor, from the greater bulk of workers. The burnout rate is higher, it is a physically and mentally demanding job, and so-called "safety retirements" are much sought-after. Already there are a couple of different retirement tiers in my department. LASD has 7 + retirement tiers in its hierarchy.

In the corporate world, retirement packages are dwindling. GM is going broke right now over its so-called "legacy costs," among other things. These are pension packages promised to certain union groups under certain contractual years. Many persons realize they will not be able to retire in the style they have been led to expect. Just last week GM announced it must cap health-care spending by its retired workers.

There will be more cuts by GM and other corporations -- and this will, naturally, filter down into the civil service community.

This means me and you. No matter what you've been "promised."

Boomers are presenting their own set of unique problems insofar as they seem to be indicating they would stay at work if given the chance. They seem to be saying they would stay for reasons greater than just cash -- if for the "mental stimulation" only -- a factor non-existent in any given 20-year-old.

Allow me to refer to "elder corporate statesmen" such as GE's Jack Welch (80+), Time-Warner's Carl Icahn (69), or GM's Kirk Kerkorian (88).

The Economist recently wrote that "Governments, employers and workers all need to change to keep baby-boomers on the job." And that coming from a clearly left-leaning British publication.

Clearly, governments prosper when older workers continue to produce -- they pay more in taxes and cost less in terms of benefits. But instead of freeing up labor markets to help older people work, governments are focusing to ban age discrimination. Do what I call the "logical extension": if you make older people harder to fire, you discourage hiring them.

We all need to be more flexible, I submit.

Many jobs have worn themselves down to a part-time venue. This is surely fine with older workers who don't want to embrace the 40 hour work week.

And finally, older workers themselves need to adapt -- though that is not as large an issue here as it is in the EU. Customarily seniority = greater pay. In the new age, their worth will be = to what a worker is worth to the company. It is a matter of give and take.

What we have found, in my department, is this: our new Cold Case unit is comprised primarily of retired detectives. And they don't necessarily work strictly for cash. They work because they have a Drive. And they "donate" a massive amount of hours per case.

As an example, a large department in my area doesn't seem to understand the resource their retirees provide. If you wish to return to this department, you must jump through specific hoops A through Z. There are no options; one either works these assignments (some are on major holidays) or one does not work. My department does not mandate those strictures. As a result, many of this department's retirees have come over to my department to do "on-call" work. And all, to an individual, have said: "I did not realize the huge difference in departments. You appreciate us. This is a major change." A paradigm shift for these retirees?

Aging workers present a challenge to the supervisor and manager. If there is an individual in your unit who presents themselves as a "corruptor" then you must deal with them accordingly. Corruptors must not be allowed to stay, for any number of reasons -- particularly if you have a small unit.

But do not dismiss the "aging work force" as they may provide an experienced tool to utilize in order to enable your department's overarching mission of service to the public.

Remember this: with the birth rate diminishing in certain First World countries, there may in fact be more jobs than can be filled with accomplished workers.

We, as law enforcement professionals, will be increasingly finding ourselves competing with the natural business world. If we offer our workers strange hours, uncommon days off, mandatory overtime, "challenging" work conditions, stressful scenarios -- then what can we additionally offer to compensate? We cannot continue with the philosophy I've heard espoused many times by managers in my and other departments: "If they really want the job, they'll cope." Life was like that at one time but now, with younger employees having easy "fallback" positions (i.e., they'll just go home to Mom and Dad), we are discovering they will leave law enforcement at the drop of a hat. Things I have personally heard from young deputies as reasons for leaving my department:

- I don't like the gun you issue.
- I can't grow a beard.
- I don't like black uniforms.
- (Department X) pays more money, and will pay for me to move there.

We must adapt. Already we are experiencing our share of "hiring challenges." And older workers are a resource we ignore or fail to utilize only to our detriment.

___________________


An addendum regarding LAPD:

The Los Angeles Times reports on Friday, 03-24, that LAPD is facing a "brain drain" on its own Institutional Memory when it writes:

Even as it struggles to expand, the Los Angeles Police Department will face a dramatic departure of seasoned veterans when a special retirement program enacted four years ago to keep senior detectives and commanders in the ranks begins pushing them into mandatory retirement next year.

Once again, the East Coast vs. West Coast theory of police work:

The current city budget calls for the police force to reach 9,611 officers by July 1, still fewer than the department put on the streets at its peak eight years ago, when sworn ranks totaled 9,852. There now are 9,314 officers.

Let's compare Los Angeles vs. New York City.

City of Los Angeles: 466.8 square miles.
Population: 4 million +
Officers: 9,300.

City of New York: 368 square miles.
Population: 7 million
Officers: 39,110

What do you think Los Angeles might be able to do with 30,000 more officers?