November 21, 2009



Advertisement



Photo Illustration by Hugh Kretschmer

Designer Retirement

By Karen Kroll, March-April 2003

The feds are looking into flexible work schedules—and that’s good news for you




Meet Dan Gruber: career man, retiree, man of the future. Several years ago, Gruber, a principal with a global consulting firm, cut his 80-hour-a-week schedule by more than half through his firm's phased retirement program. "It's been wonderful," says Gruber, 56, a resident of Phoenix. "I've been able to manage my life for the first time in 25 years, and my work has improved because I'm focusing on fewer clients."

More workers may get the same chance. In 2002, the U.S. Treasury Department fielded comments from the public on pension plans and phased-retirement programs. The government will now review those comments—which could lead to regulations that make it easier for businesses to offer phased retirement: allowing older employees to cut their hours and responsibilities gradually, while still drawing some benefits.

That's good news for workers—and a tough task for the feds. Moving toward phased retirement requires "a 180-degree shift in traditional-benefits thinking," according to a new report from the Urban Institute in Washington, D.C. That's because employers, the report notes, have typically focused on easing older workers out—not on keeping them in. Current pension, labor, and tax laws can create huge legal risks for employers that offer phased retirement. Workers fare no better, since many pension plans bar phased retirees from tapping their funds to supplement their part-time pay.

A new report from the Government Accounting Office examines how Japan, Sweden, and the United Kingdom are dealing with similar challenges. But with millions of baby boomers beginning to retire, and with an insufficient labor pool to replace them, the barriers to phased retirement could be a ticking time bomb. Says Jim Jaffe of the Employee Benefit Research Institute in Washington, D.C.: "Both employers and employees want options, versus saying, 'At age 65, we give you a watch, and show you the door.'"