Has anyone ever made it to 65 and employed?

Finance, Taxes, Banking, Insurance and Retirement
21
Somehow I feel like a hypocrite, on the one hand I love a good bitching about how the world treats 50+ like shite and how difficult it can be for us ancient ones to find meaningful employment. Then on the other hand in the case of a year I went to a job in Düsseldorf where after five months the focus changed and it did not include me, then I go a job as a lowly IT weenie in Munich only to see them at the end of their outsourcing contract which was not renewed due to another company being a few cents cheaper, this is where being with a Zeitarbeit sucks, and now I am going to start a new job in my old stamping grounds on the first of March.

So it ́s not like the jobs are not around and I grudgingly admit I may have been wrong but the suspense about if the job will be around long enough to make a dent in my pension payouts is killing me.

I would like to be able to be secure over the next seven years.

22
Personally, I would rather go to at least 70. I've worked with several guys here who did just that.

My father 'retired' at 62, but kept 'working' until 75, 'working' in his case meant being available should there be a problem (5 minutes from his house), and getting 50% of his last salary just to answer the phone (IBM mainframe expert) and show up on the rare occasion. Clearly, a dream retirement job.

Tom

23
Amen to that, my father planned all sorts of things to occupy hisself, some of his schemes may have worked. But at the end of the day I personally think he lost his sense of purpose and died two years after his first pension payout.

24
There's a data center down the road from him, and training new people on old hardware makes no sense, so keep the oldies on call with a great salary, win-win.

Tom

25
Did you ever watch Startrek new generations and the episode "Relics?"

26
This I see literally every week, though in most cases it's simply a failure to train other associates on time who could actually take over the job. The result is - at least in our case - ridiculously overpaid retired employees at usually full pension, who in most cases had also just gotten a really quite sizable severance, meaning continuing to employ them costs the company significantly more money than if they had just kept them on in the first place.

But there is the broader problem that people are just a number, simple as that. That's not unique to Switzerland, though due to the way the pension system is set up here, more prevalent in some industries.

Eventually you're right: low headcount = happy shareholders. Ugh. As long as THAT doesn't change, why would anything else?

That doesn't even make sense. So because of a "moral fear" to have to lay off someone at 55+, they're not hiring anyone above 50, thereby depriving them of an additional 5+ years of work? Very "logical".

Aside from that, I call BS. By and large is because they want the experience, but are not willing to pay for it, and because they have to pay more into the pillar 2 pension than for a younger employee.

Also, most people don't seem to realize how young the average 50-year old actually is these days, both physically and mentally. It may have been "old-ish" 50 or 100 years ago, but certainly not today.

27
I'd happy to work to 100 if 'working' means doing whatever I want and answering an occasional phone call!

28
See also TNG episode 'half a life'.

29
My former comp rehired a "forced into early retirement at full pension and after 150k severance" employee when he was I think 60. Regulations were to rehire them at previous salary incl target incentive, so that came out at some 60 or 65 CHF/hour, and while officially employed at 20%, he was in fact in the office around 25-30 hours a week, and mainly distributed the mail. He did that for another 5 years. True story.

Another one made MORE after we rehired him, due to the same stupid regulations. A former annual salary plus incentive at default hours, i.e. "you work for however long is necessary with no overtime" became an hourly salary plus vacation compensation, meaning he continued to work the 60+ hours he had always worked, but was obviously paid for each one of them. Cost overall was significantly higher than what it had been before. On top of the full pension. Did that for 3 years.

Some companies are really clever *duh*

30
Hey, don’t shoot the messenger :-)

As I said, this was from a survey, done in Switzerland. Don’t see why anyone would lie about it in a survey. This may not be the sole reason but as it is something you can actually do something about, I found it interesting.

Also, being a hiring manager myself, I can honestly say that it is a thought I can relate to.

So I honestly don’t think it is total BS.

31
I was early retired in UK at 52.

Came to Switzerland as a contractor, then was offered full time job by the contracting firm and was early retired at 55.

Them another full time job and was early retired at 64.

Then went contracting again until I was 71.

My best advice is to seek jobs in start ups; they are under pressure to fill their slots and less interested in finding peripheral reasons to not employ - like age, sex, colour &&&

32
I'm not yet, I hope, in the over-aged group but it's already hard for me to get a good job as a technical expert. On the other hand frequently companies see me in lead/management position. Unfortunately when I discuss it I always have the impression that they are going to create a 'scapegoat' position, never agree to proposed changes in the scope of responsibilities or the organization.

I still have opportunities, however I do see that it's hard to be experienced. People estimate your tasks based on experience with newbies delivering so-so quality which require 3 x more time later to fix it. It's tiring for me to always clarify like this for example: "yes, I can do this for next week as a proof-of-concept but it won't be useful much for the final version so I'll have to re-do it once again, on the other hand I can spend a week and a half to do it well, what's your choice?"...

33
The latest one was: well, you only have to work another 8 years so we won ́t hire you as we want that function to replace the next one higher up some time in future.....

So yes, sticking to my current job and hoping to be able to work for a couple of years more and then hopefully have enough in the retirement pot

34
Typical, first they ask you where do you see yourself in the next ten years, then dismiss you in reorg after two or three years

35
Not sure if it is fact or fiction..

Is it true that as of a certain age, 60 I believe, you can no longer be made redundant?

36
Fiction.

37
Fiction, definitely fiction.

You just get more RAV days if you are over 55 (I think)

38
Definitely not true.

However there are some companies which have an unofficial policy of not firing people aged 58 or more. However these companies are rare and even there the policy might change.

There are also companies where you'll be fired automatically if you are 50+.

In the current company I work for, most people plan to retire around 60 or even less if they can afford it.

39
520, rather than 400.

Tom

40
For what is worth, age discrimination is much worse in the US. We know so many left redundant at 55 - particularly in banking. My husband would probably not have a job if working for a US bank in fact. I think some Swiss banks at least value experience unlike US banks - as unless you are in the high echelons of management, you are too expensive for them to employ. Sad but true....