Dear Seniors,
I would require your advice on the subject mentioned. We want to keep our employees after 58 years of age as well, but after the age of 58, there are a few benefits that they will not receive. So, we would like to know the do's and don'ts of the same.
Regards,
Amit Acharya
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
I would require your advice on the subject mentioned. We want to keep our employees after 58 years of age as well, but after the age of 58, there are a few benefits that they will not receive. So, we would like to know the do's and don'ts of the same.
Regards,
Amit Acharya
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Amit,
Of course, there is a legal minimum age limit for employment, but no maximum limit. There is no legal compulsion for fixing the age of superannuation at 58. In fact, it is a matter left to the discretion of the employer and the employed, depending on the nature of the job, policy of the establishment, prevailing industry-cum-social practice, etc.
There are countries like the U.S.A and corporate companies like Sony where no age of retirement is fixed for employees other than the C.E.Os, subject to their physical fitness beyond a certain age and performance. After 58 years, you cannot continue the employees in the EPF Scheme. But it does not mean that you cannot continue them in employment. Alternatively, you can extend their services beyond the age fixed for retirement and increase their salary proportionately.
In the case of higher jobs, such people can be taken back as consultants on a retainer basis.
Please let me know if you need any further clarification.
Thank you.
From India, Salem
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
6185Of course, there is a legal minimum age limit for employment, but no maximum limit. There is no legal compulsion for fixing the age of superannuation at 58. In fact, it is a matter left to the discretion of the employer and the employed, depending on the nature of the job, policy of the establishment, prevailing industry-cum-social practice, etc.
There are countries like the U.S.A and corporate companies like Sony where no age of retirement is fixed for employees other than the C.E.Os, subject to their physical fitness beyond a certain age and performance. After 58 years, you cannot continue the employees in the EPF Scheme. But it does not mean that you cannot continue them in employment. Alternatively, you can extend their services beyond the age fixed for retirement and increase their salary proportionately.
In the case of higher jobs, such people can be taken back as consultants on a retainer basis.
Please let me know if you need any further clarification.
Thank you.
From India, Salem
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Amit,
This is in addition to what Mr. Umakanthan has said.
Employment after 58 years depends on the senior employee's physical fitness. More than physical fitness, it is because of the expertise that they have acquired in a particular field over a period of time. Finding a similar person of his/her stature is not so easy. Hence the continuation of their employment. The outcome is a win-win for both the employer and employee. Therefore, foregoing a few statutory benefits should not be that big a cause of worry.
Now coming to the opposite side of the above viewpoint. Why do things come to such a pass where you need to employ a person even after 58 years? Is this not a failure of the organization to groom his successor? Attainment of 58 years of age was a certainty. Management science teaches us to handle unpredictability or uncertainty. Here in your case, why could your organization not handle even certainty?
Let us not forget that when a person no less than Mr. NR Narayan Murthy rejoined Infosys in 2013, there was all-round criticism for Infosys's failure to groom a successor. The media criticized Infosys for not generating a single leader from within, though Infosys has a world-class Leadership Development Institute in Mysore.
In many organizations, there are "Formal Mentoring Programs" wherein seniors become mentors of the juniors and groom them for higher positions. There is a concept of succession planning as well. However, generally, succession planning is used at the topmost level of the management, i.e., grooming of the board members. For employees, it is a mentoring program.
Lastly, I need to give feedback to you on the heading of your post. Employees are "employed" and not "kept." Therefore, the heading of your post should have read "Advice on Employment of Senior Employees after 58 years".
Disclaimer: The heading of your post asks for advice. Advice does not come standalone all the time. Occasionally, it is bundled with criticism. This has been happening since time immemorial. Therefore, no complaints will be accepted for critical evaluation of the incident.
Thanks,
Dinesh Divekar
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
This is in addition to what Mr. Umakanthan has said.
Employment after 58 years depends on the senior employee's physical fitness. More than physical fitness, it is because of the expertise that they have acquired in a particular field over a period of time. Finding a similar person of his/her stature is not so easy. Hence the continuation of their employment. The outcome is a win-win for both the employer and employee. Therefore, foregoing a few statutory benefits should not be that big a cause of worry.
Now coming to the opposite side of the above viewpoint. Why do things come to such a pass where you need to employ a person even after 58 years? Is this not a failure of the organization to groom his successor? Attainment of 58 years of age was a certainty. Management science teaches us to handle unpredictability or uncertainty. Here in your case, why could your organization not handle even certainty?
Let us not forget that when a person no less than Mr. NR Narayan Murthy rejoined Infosys in 2013, there was all-round criticism for Infosys's failure to groom a successor. The media criticized Infosys for not generating a single leader from within, though Infosys has a world-class Leadership Development Institute in Mysore.
In many organizations, there are "Formal Mentoring Programs" wherein seniors become mentors of the juniors and groom them for higher positions. There is a concept of succession planning as well. However, generally, succession planning is used at the topmost level of the management, i.e., grooming of the board members. For employees, it is a mentoring program.
Lastly, I need to give feedback to you on the heading of your post. Employees are "employed" and not "kept." Therefore, the heading of your post should have read "Advice on Employment of Senior Employees after 58 years".
Disclaimer: The heading of your post asks for advice. Advice does not come standalone all the time. Occasionally, it is bundled with criticism. This has been happening since time immemorial. Therefore, no complaints will be accepted for critical evaluation of the incident.
Thanks,
Dinesh Divekar
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hi,
With no disrespect to any comments posted here, I personally don't think age should be a limiting factor to employment. As long as the person is capable of doing their work and the organization is willing to employ them, the organization should continue to do so. Some of these employees will have a wealth of knowledge that will be valuable to the organization. Furthermore, when the employee has dedicated until their 58th year to the organization, I feel it is a bit harsh to not continue their employment only because they have reached a certain age. In countries outside India, this is a human rights violation under 'Age discrimination'. Time flies. All of us will also reach 58 at some point. If we want to continue working and the organization shows us the door only because we are 58, how would we like it - especially if we are more capable of doing our role than some of the others in the organization?
Thanks,
Radha
From United Kingdom, London
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
With no disrespect to any comments posted here, I personally don't think age should be a limiting factor to employment. As long as the person is capable of doing their work and the organization is willing to employ them, the organization should continue to do so. Some of these employees will have a wealth of knowledge that will be valuable to the organization. Furthermore, when the employee has dedicated until their 58th year to the organization, I feel it is a bit harsh to not continue their employment only because they have reached a certain age. In countries outside India, this is a human rights violation under 'Age discrimination'. Time flies. All of us will also reach 58 at some point. If we want to continue working and the organization shows us the door only because we are 58, how would we like it - especially if we are more capable of doing our role than some of the others in the organization?
Thanks,
Radha
From United Kingdom, London
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Radha,
Your comments appear to be out of context. The querist has raised a query on the cessation of statutory benefits after 58 years. I have written in my previous reply that if a person is allowed to work after 58 years, then he will lose Provident Fund (PF) benefits. This is as per the EPF Act, 1952; hence, employers do not have control over it.
More than discrimination, the case is about dependence on persons. When a person works in a particular function like HR, Finance, Purchase, etc., he/she is bound to possess a wealth of knowledge. Nevertheless, this wealth remains with that person. Why was the organization not proactive in transferring this wealth to another person? Monetary wealth, if concentrated in a few hands, stagnates; that is why the principles of economics teach us. Likewise, it can be concluded that knowledge rots if concentrated in a few heads.
Knowledge Management: The very theory of knowledge management has taken birth to reduce the dependence on a few people. This dependence arises when an organization fails to convert tacit knowledge to explicit knowledge. It is well proven how organizations pay a hefty price for depending on individuals, whether they are young or old!
Organization's Culture: Occasionally, there is a downside to employing persons who continue to work well past their retirement age. They fail to connect with the younger generation. Let us not forget that about 35% of India's population is below 30 years of age. Their failure to sync with a generation below creates a problem in the culture of the organization. Additionally, their dogmatic views, lack of technical savviness in day-to-day life, etc., pose challenges. Sometimes these individuals profess, and that too with pride, how they are not technically savvy. Suppose this is also not a problem, but then the last problem arises when these older individuals start brandishing their length of service to silence the voice of the juniors. I know a Managing Director (MD) of a public limited company who is surrounded by individuals who have been with him for the last 25-30 years. Their prolonged association with the MD is hampering the organization's growth because many times these individuals use their long association with the MD as a weapon to scare newcomers!
If we allow older individuals to continue working, then when will the younger generation get a chance to work? Retirement age of 58 or 60 years is a threshold used worldwide, and there is nothing new about it. However, that does not mean that we should consider someone's 58th birthday as an expiry date. Their services can very well be utilized as a consultant.
My Personal Experience: If 1947 is a major cut-off point in the history of India, then the second cut-off point could be 1991. In this year, the then Prime Minister PV Narasimha Rao launched economic reforms. The real effects of the reforms were observed after 15 years. However, I had the chance to work under one Vice President (VP) who, even after 15 years of the economic reforms, behaved as if the erstwhile socialist era still continued. Economic reforms had redefined the job market. He did not have even an inch of knowledge of these changes, and neither did he bother to acquire it. Despite his few good qualities, he became the cause of employee attrition. It took a couple of years for management to understand the cause of employee attrition.
Final Comments: Excessive dependence on a few individuals will always have negative repercussions. Our magnates are known to keep themselves surrounded by individuals of their caste or relatives. Little do they realize that this inhibits their growth. In contrast, our current Prime Minister has taken a tough stand and did not include anyone in his council of ministers who is above 80. For this, he has invited wrath from the elders in his party, and occasionally they rant against him. Nevertheless, this is a major shift in the political era. Look at the other political parties. We had Chief Ministerial aspirants who were about to become 80 or 90! Few of them were fragile, feeble, and wheelchair-bound, but the lure of power was so strong that hardly did they bother about their physical infirmities. Retirement is a new era in everyone's life. It has to begin sometime. One cannot scream for discrimination when told to retire after 58 or 60 years.
Thanks,
Dinesh Divekar
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Your comments appear to be out of context. The querist has raised a query on the cessation of statutory benefits after 58 years. I have written in my previous reply that if a person is allowed to work after 58 years, then he will lose Provident Fund (PF) benefits. This is as per the EPF Act, 1952; hence, employers do not have control over it.
More than discrimination, the case is about dependence on persons. When a person works in a particular function like HR, Finance, Purchase, etc., he/she is bound to possess a wealth of knowledge. Nevertheless, this wealth remains with that person. Why was the organization not proactive in transferring this wealth to another person? Monetary wealth, if concentrated in a few hands, stagnates; that is why the principles of economics teach us. Likewise, it can be concluded that knowledge rots if concentrated in a few heads.
Knowledge Management: The very theory of knowledge management has taken birth to reduce the dependence on a few people. This dependence arises when an organization fails to convert tacit knowledge to explicit knowledge. It is well proven how organizations pay a hefty price for depending on individuals, whether they are young or old!
Organization's Culture: Occasionally, there is a downside to employing persons who continue to work well past their retirement age. They fail to connect with the younger generation. Let us not forget that about 35% of India's population is below 30 years of age. Their failure to sync with a generation below creates a problem in the culture of the organization. Additionally, their dogmatic views, lack of technical savviness in day-to-day life, etc., pose challenges. Sometimes these individuals profess, and that too with pride, how they are not technically savvy. Suppose this is also not a problem, but then the last problem arises when these older individuals start brandishing their length of service to silence the voice of the juniors. I know a Managing Director (MD) of a public limited company who is surrounded by individuals who have been with him for the last 25-30 years. Their prolonged association with the MD is hampering the organization's growth because many times these individuals use their long association with the MD as a weapon to scare newcomers!
If we allow older individuals to continue working, then when will the younger generation get a chance to work? Retirement age of 58 or 60 years is a threshold used worldwide, and there is nothing new about it. However, that does not mean that we should consider someone's 58th birthday as an expiry date. Their services can very well be utilized as a consultant.
My Personal Experience: If 1947 is a major cut-off point in the history of India, then the second cut-off point could be 1991. In this year, the then Prime Minister PV Narasimha Rao launched economic reforms. The real effects of the reforms were observed after 15 years. However, I had the chance to work under one Vice President (VP) who, even after 15 years of the economic reforms, behaved as if the erstwhile socialist era still continued. Economic reforms had redefined the job market. He did not have even an inch of knowledge of these changes, and neither did he bother to acquire it. Despite his few good qualities, he became the cause of employee attrition. It took a couple of years for management to understand the cause of employee attrition.
Final Comments: Excessive dependence on a few individuals will always have negative repercussions. Our magnates are known to keep themselves surrounded by individuals of their caste or relatives. Little do they realize that this inhibits their growth. In contrast, our current Prime Minister has taken a tough stand and did not include anyone in his council of ministers who is above 80. For this, he has invited wrath from the elders in his party, and occasionally they rant against him. Nevertheless, this is a major shift in the political era. Look at the other political parties. We had Chief Ministerial aspirants who were about to become 80 or 90! Few of them were fragile, feeble, and wheelchair-bound, but the lure of power was so strong that hardly did they bother about their physical infirmities. Retirement is a new era in everyone's life. It has to begin sometime. One cannot scream for discrimination when told to retire after 58 or 60 years.
Thanks,
Dinesh Divekar
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I not only endorse but also appreciate the views of Shri Dinesh Divekar. However, in place of the terms "keep" or "employment," the term should be re-employment of a person after superannuation.
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Radha,
There is nothing wrong in the re-employment of any retired person by virtue of their talent. However, in most cases, only touts, sycophants, or back-biters—not good workers—are tried to be retained even after their superannuation for the purpose of supporting upper management against other employees. The employees of real worth never seek to be retained further, as they know they can be successful wherever they go after leaving the organization. In my case, an honest chief engineer offered me a continuous extension of 2 years upon my superannuation. However, I principly thought it wrong and unethical to become a hurdle in the promotion of someone else deserving the post. Therefore, I politely rejected his offer, stating that I would prefer to become a free-flying bird, not a captive employee.
If the management deems the services of a retired employee important for the organization, they can retain his services through re-employment as a consultant for a specific period. This role would involve training other employees rather than performing regular work, ensuring that the management does not face a talent shortage in the future.
Moreover, the re-employment of superannuated employees tends to exacerbate unemployment and deny opportunities to the youth, who can also be valuable assets to the company based on a variety of merits from individual to individual.
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
There is nothing wrong in the re-employment of any retired person by virtue of their talent. However, in most cases, only touts, sycophants, or back-biters—not good workers—are tried to be retained even after their superannuation for the purpose of supporting upper management against other employees. The employees of real worth never seek to be retained further, as they know they can be successful wherever they go after leaving the organization. In my case, an honest chief engineer offered me a continuous extension of 2 years upon my superannuation. However, I principly thought it wrong and unethical to become a hurdle in the promotion of someone else deserving the post. Therefore, I politely rejected his offer, stating that I would prefer to become a free-flying bird, not a captive employee.
If the management deems the services of a retired employee important for the organization, they can retain his services through re-employment as a consultant for a specific period. This role would involve training other employees rather than performing regular work, ensuring that the management does not face a talent shortage in the future.
Moreover, the re-employment of superannuated employees tends to exacerbate unemployment and deny opportunities to the youth, who can also be valuable assets to the company based on a variety of merits from individual to individual.
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Dinesh,
Yours is a very good detailed email. I have noted the point on EPF Act, which is informative.
When it comes to dependence, it really depends on the role the person is playing. As you rightly say, if it is in HR, Finance, Purchase, etc., we can transfer that knowledge. However, in some other highly skilled areas, it may not be that easy to transfer, especially when dealing with a crisis. We should, however, actively recruit freshers and train them to support and eventually replace other roles, where possible.
Regarding synchronizing between generations, I think it works best when they all work harmoniously together rather than being separated. Separating age groups may not really solve the problems. I am, however, unsure of the lack of technical savviness point you are making. It seems to be more about the individuals concerned rather than all the people over 50 years. All five fingers on our hand are different.
Except for some countries, there is no statutory retirement age for 'working'. The statutory age only applies to drawing out the benefits.
On the point of being surrounded by relatives, I think that is more of a 'conflict of interest', and several organizations have strict policies not to encourage the same.
While some may not agree, I still believe that a person should move on if he is not capable of performing the role rather than reaching a certain age.
Thanks,
Radha
From United Kingdom, London
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Yours is a very good detailed email. I have noted the point on EPF Act, which is informative.
When it comes to dependence, it really depends on the role the person is playing. As you rightly say, if it is in HR, Finance, Purchase, etc., we can transfer that knowledge. However, in some other highly skilled areas, it may not be that easy to transfer, especially when dealing with a crisis. We should, however, actively recruit freshers and train them to support and eventually replace other roles, where possible.
Regarding synchronizing between generations, I think it works best when they all work harmoniously together rather than being separated. Separating age groups may not really solve the problems. I am, however, unsure of the lack of technical savviness point you are making. It seems to be more about the individuals concerned rather than all the people over 50 years. All five fingers on our hand are different.
Except for some countries, there is no statutory retirement age for 'working'. The statutory age only applies to drawing out the benefits.
On the point of being surrounded by relatives, I think that is more of a 'conflict of interest', and several organizations have strict policies not to encourage the same.
While some may not agree, I still believe that a person should move on if he is not capable of performing the role rather than reaching a certain age.
Thanks,
Radha
From United Kingdom, London
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear PS Dhingra,
Nice to know that you agree on the re-employment of talented persons. I am not sure why someone would want to have unprofessional people in the organization; but I am sure you have come across this situation and hence you have posted here. It is really unfortunate if the management supports this culture.
Good employees do not need to cling on to the position - but if they want to and the organization also wants to keep them - then I don't believe it is unethical; as the same rule applies to newcomers as well. If they are good, they can also find any place to work. Well, you did a noble act by moving on giving room to other employees.
Thanks,
Radha
From United Kingdom, London
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Nice to know that you agree on the re-employment of talented persons. I am not sure why someone would want to have unprofessional people in the organization; but I am sure you have come across this situation and hence you have posted here. It is really unfortunate if the management supports this culture.
Good employees do not need to cling on to the position - but if they want to and the organization also wants to keep them - then I don't believe it is unethical; as the same rule applies to newcomers as well. If they are good, they can also find any place to work. Well, you did a noble act by moving on giving room to other employees.
Thanks,
Radha
From United Kingdom, London
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Amit,
In addition to what two learned members of our forum have said, I feel there is nothing wrong in retaining employees over 58 years of age if they are medically fit and willing. In fact, life expectancy has increased by several years since independence, but many organizations, including central/state PSUs, are still adhering to the 'British Raj' age of retirement of 58 years.
Secondly, in companies where such people are employed, it is normally done on a contractual basis, and the contract is renewed every one/two/three years depending on the organization's need and the employee's performance.
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
In addition to what two learned members of our forum have said, I feel there is nothing wrong in retaining employees over 58 years of age if they are medically fit and willing. In fact, life expectancy has increased by several years since independence, but many organizations, including central/state PSUs, are still adhering to the 'British Raj' age of retirement of 58 years.
Secondly, in companies where such people are employed, it is normally done on a contractual basis, and the contract is renewed every one/two/three years depending on the organization's need and the employee's performance.
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)Engage with peers to discuss and resolve work and business challenges collaboratively - share and document your knowledge. Our AI-powered platform, features real-time fact-checking, peer reviews, and an extensive historical knowledge base. - Join & Be Part Of Our Community.
HOUSE KEEPING CHECKLIST.pdf
Advice to Improve Your Emotional Intelligence.do c