GovernmentExecutive.com

As a boomer who retired in order to take a better paying job that left me out in the cold a year later, I was interested in hearing about the National Older Worker Career Center. However their website listed jobs that topped out at $12.50 an hour. How is that better than a security guard or greeter at Wal-Mart? My college student son makes more at his entry-level part-time job. A mind is a terrible thing to waste--and so is experience.

Ted Bean  | Friday, January 25, 2008 |  12:10 PM

---

Thank you, Jeff, for pointing out that EPA's program is not what it seems. The media needs to stop taking agency reports at face value.

We already have public policy that requires us to consider qualified veterans and people with severe disabilities. As a manager, I strongly support and agree with both of those polices. I also feel that they should come first; we don't need to add a requirement that we hire baby boomers who have retired from the private sector. They don't need a "leg up" the way the veterans and people with severe disabilities do.

Let's keep our priorities straight!

Charleen  | Friday, January 25, 2008 |  09:09 AM

---

While this is a superficially appealing idea it's rife with very practical problems and risks, as both you and my fellow commenters have noted. I'd especially echo 'Lane's' point about the culture shock private sector types would experience upon entering the Federal environment.

I know the Partnership and like-minded folks envision multitudes of altruistic Boomers gravitating to public service in their later working years, intent on 'giving something back' after decades of the corporate grind. But people genuinely motivated by that impulse are more likely to find what they're looking for in non-profits, advocacy organizations, or even in local government. I'm afraid those drawn to Federal service may be more interested in the relatively high salaries (esp. outside DC) and particularly the chance to obtain health insurance they can carry into retirement, an increasingly rare entitlement in the private sector.

So while this is a noble (if naive) idea, and may even prove helpful on the margins, it's no substitute for genuine strategic thinking about the government's human resources management challenges. Let's trade in the rose-colored glasses for some strong bifocals, and come up with more creative, realistic ideas.

Skepticus  | Thursday, January 24, 2008 |  10:10 AM

---

I am a boomer, but a long way from retirement. I am very concerned about both caveats. I have always wondered why someone could work private sector all their life, then the last 5 yrs as a Fed and get full FEHB and a retirement. On the other hand, I have 25 yrs as a Fed (I'm FERS, some of that time was military), am under 50, and if I go to the private sector, I lose the retirement and the FEHB. I've got golden handcuffs and I will fight the older worker program as a threat to my future.

Bill W.  | Thursday, January 24, 2008 |  09:45 AM

---

Another problem with bringing "experienced workers from the private sector" into government at middle or high level is that in many cases, they have no experience with the constraints and multiple of layers of oversight imposed upon government.

I also have to agree with Sam - mid career folks are just starting to get their chance to come into leadership positions. Lets not drive them (us) away.

Lane Narrows  | Thursday, January 24, 2008 |  08:08 AM

---

Your caveats don't really apply to the Senior Environmental Program at EPA. The program is handled as a grant program and the grantee hires the seniors. The seniors get no health insurance or other benefits from EPA. They also get paid far less for doing the same work that other EPA employees are performing. Rather than praise for the Senior Environmental Program I think it should be criticized because it underpays seniors and does not provide them with equal benefits to EPA employees. In my opinion, the program has been abused and used primarily to save money. The Federal government should be a model employer. Instead, the Senior Environmental Program sends the message that the Agency values the contributions of seniors as long as they comes at a low cost.

Jeff  | Thursday, January 24, 2008 |  07:38 AM

---

What's all this fuss about replacement bloomers? Whenever I find that my bloomers have a hole in them or the elastic in the cuffs lost its fit, I'd just run down to the ladies' department and get some new ones. Now, mind you, the new ones weren't always as comfortable as the old. Sometimes I forgot to check for pins and found them them when I sat down. Of course, after a few washings, they lost that stiffness and were soft as...What? Boomers? Baby Boomers? Oh, that's very different... never mind.

Emily Litella  | Thursday, January 24, 2008 |  07:35 AM

---

Regarding your second caveat, you struck a cord with me: a career civil servant probably 19 years away from retirement. Are the boomers going to suck the air out of everything they get into? As if they haven't self-indulged their way enough through life, now they're going to leap-frog from the private sector into government jobs for a few years to get the benefits and take top management slots away from Gen Xer's like me. Bad idea. That generation just needs to step aside and go away.

Sam  | Wednesday, January 23, 2008 |  01:34 PM

---

The health care propsed by Mr Bush seems fair (okay, I said it). The taxpayers share of health benefits for retirees with only a few years should be prorated to reflect the amount of time spent in service. But, a good recipricol concession might be providing more granualr healthcare choices for current employees. Its not fair that a husband & wife alone, pay as much for their premiuims as a full family of 4 or over.

US  | Wednesday, January 23, 2008 |  10:30 AM

---