This may not be what it seems. My experience is that most mature aged women don't want to work full time. They want, and are able to negotiate, a balanced, less unhurried life.
Women who work full time either need a lot of support to succeed, or a lot of support when they fail. It's a hard slog, since men really don't usually carry their fair load in the domestic sphere.

So perhaps we should be celebrating the life choices made by women who work part time. If they can afford it - and their financial arrangements are usually more settled than younger women, for obvious reasons - then good on them. Their choice has been one for their own well being.

I see what the problem is Nareen has forgotten her magic wand. You know the one that you can wave and make everything better. I mean lets ignore the fact that for manys years once a women had childern she tended not to rejion the workforce. While this situation has changed (for the better) it will take some time before you see the results in all sectors and age levels. But then again maybe they haven't tried the fairy dust.

There ar too many numbers missing from this to get a genuine idea of the reality.

- How much super (and other assets) do people have access to is probably more relevant than how much is in their name. I suspect that for most couples the name that super is in will make little difference in either parties lifestyle, the person who survives the longest will if there is any left over normally have access to most of the assets the couple had. Perhaps some numbers on how much the long term singles have might be a better indicator of impact based on gender than the global numbers.
- It would also be interesting to get some idea of the proportions of men not working full time who would like to (or feel they need to) work more in the age brackets mentioned. The author points some figures for women working part time who would like to work more.
- It would also be worthwhile to know who would like to work less but feels compelled by responsibility to do the work they do. Do men retire later than women because of a passion for work or because they face different perceptions of rsponsibility.

A more wholistic approach to mature age employment (or unemployment) and its impacts would be usefulrather than what appears to be cherry picking convenient stats.

R0bert

Nareen has some valid points. I have observed a higher degree of age related discrimination towards women than men.

It may be for same reasons some employers prefer to employ men. It's more likely for the woman in a marriage or long term partnership to assume the greater work load for assistance to elderly relatives including 'in-laws' plus helping care for grandchildren. Family responsibilities are still seen as a female domain and also a huge reason for absenteeism. Who stays home with a sick child? Mum of course. Some Employers favour job candidates on basis of perceived stability and continuity. Choosing between a male and female applicant with very similar credentials they will favour the man.

AMC has also made a very valid observation that many mature women - and I'd suggest again, predominately those in stable relationships and financially secure don't wish to work full-time. If working part-time or casually suits these ladies, no problem. If they choose to be full-time 'Domestic Goddesses' - power to them.

Real concern would be for women who want or need to work full-time but find it difficult or impossible to find meaningful employment. Given that most mature age women belong to an era quite different from the social and working environment that todays young women are experiencing I suspect this will be less of an issue in 20 years time. While a woman aged between 45 and 60 is likely to have broken her working life with protracted period/s to rear children, the 20 to 35 year old of today has more personal and external expectations that she will continue her career, taking only short leaves of absence while depending heavily on childcare services. For better or for worse ....

My thought? Evolution in progress. Right now, maybe there needs to be further education or incentive encouraging Industry to give greater consideration to employing mature age women - and blokes as well.

Come on Nareen, just how greedy are woman allowed to be?

Women want a year or 2 off when they have their kids, then a nice 9 to 3 job, while the kids are at school. Makes a lovely lifestyle while the old bloke is still doing lots of overtime. If the old boy can't handle the full work load, he'll be out on his ear, but they'll probably find a nice sit down job for her.

If the old boy can't hold his job, the lady expects to move into a senior full time job, that only she thinks she is capable of, or trained for. When are you girls going to realise that 20 years of a nice easy lifestyle job does not equip you for anything else.

You quote studies to back your cry. The problem with studies is the people who undertake them. They are usually academics. With academics, who's productivity usually runs at about 15% you are unlikely to get much realistic evaluation of output.

I've employed a few old dears in my time, I like them, but don't kid yourself about their productivity. 2 of them, working 10 to 3 are no match for a "propper" employee. It is only possible because they don't cost too much. When you find a good one, you rapidly get her into a full time job, if she'll take it. No one is much use at answering queries when they aren't at work.

I don't know many women, over 55 who did not want to work less hours, unless they suddenly lost support they were depending on from someone else, usually a bloke working full time

Everyone's beaten me to it this time, but let's just hammer home the point: any statistic that says "More of A than B do X" is utterly useless as a guide to social policy unless we know how many As and Bs WANT to do X.

I have no doubt that many more homeless drunks in Australia are men than women, but if I wrote an article deploring the lack of opportunities in Australia for women to become homeless drunks. I'm sure that I'd be pilloried by Nareen and her comrades -- and quite rightly so.

They aren't being 'left out'. Many are choosing to stay home because their husband or partner is one of the 76% of men who is still working and bringing in the majority of the income money. They don't necessarily need to work long hours.

It says a lot about our society, and sad commentary, that we undervalue mature age wisdom and experience, as much as we do.
Mature age and disabled workers overvalue their jobs, take far fewer sickies, and are generally more productive, even though they seem to burn up less sweat, getting it done.
Mature managers, are often more patient, understand from hard won experience, exactly what work effort and time is required to complete any task; take far fewer silly risks, and encounter bankruptcy less often.
A few rouge employers, will never ever be satisfied, and generally go through a lot of staff, before their rep spreads; and less and less turn up for job interviews, and then only stay, until something better turns up!
And there are some very physical occupations, although, they seem to be gradually dissappearing.
i.e.,most shearers are retired by the time they're 45, with crippling back injuries.
As a former businessman, I've been an employer/contractor, and my staff were always paid around 10% above the award, or a 15% commission, whichever was the greater, or their preferred choice.
Good staff are the very lifeblood of any business, and I was determined to keep mine.
Union reps were allowed onsite during employee lunch breaks. But were usually sent packing by employees, who knew which side of the bread had butter on.
Sure older workers can no longer run the three minute mile, but experience usually makes them superior workers, in comparison to young people, particularly those still learning the ropes.
[I never asked others to do what I couldn't. And if you and your senior employee agree on everything, then one of you is redundant!]
And yes, you can teach an old dog new tricks, but they do take longer to learn!
It's just a case of age and old brains not quite as plastic as those of young people?
Can't change biological facts, so get used to it.
At the end of the day, everyone gets old, and what goes around comes around!
Rhrosty.

There is an assumption by some of your respondents that mature age women have men to support them. For many of us this is not so and we have been supporting ourselves for many years. I would love to retire but I cannot see that happening anytime soon as I do not have enough superannuation.

That said, I think there is a great deal of discrimination against older people both male and female in the work place. Talking to my friends about this issue, I find that many feel left out or not wanted or disregarded by younger people at work. Some have said they have people telling them they are a block to progress and that they are too old to change etc etc. Not nice at all

Ageism is ageism. It is not just another opportunity to divert Gillard's very slim and token grant to employ more older workers into the already over-funded womens and diversity troughs.

The government is one of the very worst offenders in ageism as PM Julia Gillard might see if she cared enough to ask for an age breakdown of her own office, her department and the federal public service.

The federal bureaucracy has made older workers and especially older 'white' male workers pay with their jobs for its affirmative action and diversity imperatives.

A very manipulative article.

Instead of saying women are better educated than men but work less hours, for fewer years with more breaks, take more sick leave, and then retire earlier to live 6 YEARS LONGER than men (i.e. women have a bloody good life), she tries to portray women as victims.

I mean seriously. And this person is (I'm assuming) a government funded CEO?

Can we have our money back?

Come on Rhrosty, where do you get this stuff.

My most outstanding experience of disabled "workers" was at Logan hospital, during some rebuilding.

I often had to see the engineer regarding our water/energy saving equipment being installed. He was having many problems, so was often late for our appointments, which left me sitting in reception waiting for him.

At this time the government had a big push on employing "disadvantaged" people. For some time they had 2 in wheelchairs in reception. They seemed very happy perambulating about.

Of course they should have been, they never ever did anything useful. The only effect on the running of the office I could detect was when they asked an able bodied worker to stop what they were doing, & go get our disadvantaged a cup of tea.

This went on for about a year, then they suddenly disappeared. Someone in authority must have noticed the harm they were doing the disabled cause, by flaunting their uselessness in such a public place. Perhaps people complained.

I have no doubt these drones are still on the public service payroll, just in a less obvious area. At least that is one less obvious reason to be annoyed when walking into that hospital.

The above comments by Hasbeen depict his absolutely sexist, deplorable views. When you look at this idiot's comment history, it is a litany of racist, ageist, sexist, right-wing drivel and richly deserves the contempt it will receive on this forum. I strongly suspect that if you asked these poor women what it was like to work with Hasbeen, they wouldn't provide much positive feedback. How do you tell a good employer? Ask their employees. In fact I managed quite a large staff and some of the most industrious, hard-working and committed people I have ever had the privilege to work with have been middle aged women. Women 50+ have the incredible ability to multi-task, focus on a wide range of issues (simultaneously), mediate and negotiate. Women's networking abilities are well documented and severely under-rated. It is ironic, I must say, that some of the most vitriolic back-stabbing and "bitchiness" I have seen in the workplace, were practised by men (and often targeting up and coming women in their work environment). As Margaret Thatcher once said:
"FOR A WOMAN TO ACHIEVE A HIGHER STATUS IN THE WORKFORCE, SHE MUST WORK TWICE AS HARD AND BE THREE TIMES SMARTER THAN A MAN ... FORTUNATELY, THIS IS NOT DIFFICULT!" ... here! here!

Oh & I think you're a sweetie too Kate 08.

Fortunately I have not met too many as twisted with hate as you sweetie.

I know it is hard to argue with straight fact, when all you have is some twisted ideology, but do try to get onto a higher plane with the rest of us. You'll find the air much cleaner, if you can clamber up.

Good luck.

Katie08, I agree that the middle aged women are good to work with on the whole.

I love that quote from Margaret Thatcher. She certainly proved that middle aged women have what it takes to run Britain at least!

I wouldn't waste my typing finger trying to convince the good ol' boy Hasbeen of this fact though...

Yes, Suseonline, he is Hasbeen by name and Hasbeen by nature. However, I still find such views extremely repugnant in this supposedly enlightened times. It is really hard to believe that people like this still crawl among us. I was under the impression that the Neanderthals of this world became extinct eons ago? Having read some of the sexist, ageist comments on this forum, I am rethinking evolution!

Indeed, Katie08, by daring to type 'modern' thoughts on this forum you will soon be labeled as a man-hater for disagreeing with some of the Neanderthals!

Middle-aged women think middle-aged women are just fabulous... One of the less surprising things seen on OLO.

I'd guess from Hasbeen's comments and attitudes that he worked in the public service in the seventies and eighties when women were increasingly showing up the men and threatening their entrenched attitude of entitlement. I worked in several departments around that time. One had trouble keeping its women employees because they were snapped up by other departments as soon as they applied for promotions. Why? Because sexist dinosaurs like Hasbeen made working life and advancement so difficult for them that it was universally recognised that they were competent well beyond the level the misogynists had allowed them to rise to. In another Department a small cabal of men appropriated the room allocated for social activities for all staff so they could play cards every lunchtime. And yes, there were few disabled people who were woefully underemployed because people like Hasbeen resented them being 'foisted' on them and made no effort to provide them with the modified equipment they required to work effectively and no funds were made available to modify areas such as tea rooms so someone in a wheelchair could make their own cup of coffee. Its sad that Hasbeen is filled with all the hate we see in each contribution to OLO. Imagine waking up with that every morning.

Some comments here are making negative and unfair assumptions about the worth and motives of mature age women; also assumptions about their means of support as being largely reliant on full-time working men.

Even if this were so it is not an easy path or choice for a woman to depend on a man's income. Even where a woman is in a marriage relationship there is much to be said for full-time work as a way to achieve a measure of independence from an often dominant and controlling male.

The Productivity Commission paper reveals that women are not just one group.

It is telling that almost one quarter of mature age women working part time want to increase their hours, perhaps out of financial need.

Those that want to work less hours may already be resigned to living on the age pension due to inadequate super and have little to gain from hanging in full-time.

There are probably many reasons for the hours mature age women seek to work.

For all women, many of whom have made large sacrifices raising children and caring for ageing parents and husbands, the key path to the independence and freedom that financial independence and security brings is workforce participation.

That all mature age women do not choose full-time work is not a sign of dependence and laziness as Hasbeen says. Their choices, as some have noted here, are influenced by their circumstances and responsibilities in life.

Some women may be working less to care for their sick and dying husbands or because they themselves are sick or caring for grandchildren due to inadequate provision for childcare.

To hold their longevity against women (as Hasbeen does)is mean spirited and ignorant. The gender gap in longevity is narrowing as women pick up the lifestyles, stresses and risks of men and as some former "he-men" start heeding health messages.

There is perhaps also an increasing health burden on women in the sandwich generation, caught caring for children, husbands, ageing parents and grand children and with no-one to care for them at the end of the day.

I have worked in many industries and have found, from experience, that some of the hardest working and efficient employees have been mature aged women. I am rather shocked at Hasbeen's extremely narrow views on this issue ... it sounds like he has a bad history with women in general and/or the women he works with, in particular. In many instances, women do not have a man around and must juggle a full-time job whilst raising children and running a home. Fortunately, the large majority of women tend to multi-task extremely well. It is stupid to make such sweeping statements about a lifestyle you do not know anything about ... unless you are in the same situation as these women, do not make judgements and generalisations.

It is not necessary to fudge numbers and employ anecdotes and creative factoids to blame this on gender because mature workers are generally not wanted by employers. Why and what to about it is the question.

It is only the bureaucrats, self-proclaimed gender experts and other entrepreneurs who get a living out of diverting government money into their own careers and pockets who want to convert it into an issue of gender.