Encore: Work that matters in the second half of life.

The conventional wisdom about older workers is that they a) cost more; b) are absent more often; and c) have one foot out the door.

The truth is: not much, not at all and no way.

In ”Keep Pace with Older Workers” in the May 2008 issue of HR Magazine, Robert J. Grossman refutes some myths about older workers.

Richard Johnson, principal research associate at the Urban Institute in Washington, D.C., told Johnson, “There is no correlation between age and job performance.”

Among Grossman’s conclusions about older workers, based on labor studies and human resource experts:

• They cost more, but not much. Johnson found that workers ages 50 to 64 cost about 10 percent more in compensation and health insurance than younger workers.
• They are absent about the same amount of time. In 2007, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, full-time workers ages 25 to 54 were absent at a ratio of 3.2 per 100, while workers age 55 and over were absent 3.6 per 100.
• Their health costs are not much greater until age 65. There is a gradual increase in costs from age 40 on. The Urban Institute found that in 2004 health care claims filed by employees ages 55 to 64 averaged about $900 more per year than those filed by workers ages 25 to 34. Some companies, such as Vanguard Group and Bon Secours Richmond Health System, have found that older workers are more dependable and cost less.
• They take longer to train. The main problem, employers say, is the reluctance of older workers to try new technology, but once they catch on, they’re fine.
• They are not coasting and waiting for retirement. On the contrary, human resource managers say older workers are more committed to their careers than younger workers.