Evaluation of activities and needs of older workers in the context of maintaining their employment
More details
Hide details
Central Institute for Labour Protection - National Research Institute / Centralny Instytut Ochrony Pracy - Państwowy Instytut Badawczy, Warszawa, Poland (Department of Ergonomics, Laboratory of Physiology and Hygiene of Work / Zakład Ergonomii, Pracownia Fizjologii i Higieny Pracy)
Corresponding author
Katarzyna Hildt-Ciupińska   

Department of Ergonomics, Laboratory of Physiology and Hygiene of Work, Central Institute for Labour Protection – National Research Institute, ul. Czerniakowska 16, 00-701 Warszawa
Med Pr Work Health Saf. 2013;64(3):297-306
Background: The article presents the results of evaluation of activities for older workers (50+). The aim of the study was the examination of older workers' opinions on activities undertaken in their companies related to maintaining older workers' employment. Material and Methods: Data is derived from the questionnaire survey conducted on 50+ employees (250 women and 250 men). Results: Almost one fifth of the employees admitted that they feel discriminated against in their company. Only a quarter of older workers declared that they had special offer of trainings, most of them concerned update trainings, expending knowledge (40% of responses). Only about one fifth of respondents admitted that they were encouraged to further their education. The smallest number of actions concerned health promotion. Conclusions: Older workers have different needs than younger ones, especially in the organization and working conditions. Activities related to the management of aging in Poland are still taken to a small extent. Disturbing is the fact that so few respondents admitted that in their companies, there were activities conducted concerning health promotion. From the point of view of working capacity and extending the retirement age, such initiatives should be carried out on a large scale among workers of all ages, with particular emphasis on the elderly. Med. Pr. 2013;64(3):297–306
Journals System - logo
Scroll to top