Age-Inclusive Manufacturing: Making Flexibility Fair on the Factory Floor
By Shyamini Szeko, reflecting on Master’s research into ageing and work in New Zealand manufacturing (AcademyEx, 2025) Why Flexibility Matters “My 32-hour week lets me maintain a healthy sleep schedule and personal life,” one long-serving factory worker told me during my research. That small adjustment meant he could keep working instead of being forced to leave early. But not everyone is offered this chance. In my survey, 86% of manufacturing staff said flexibility is “very important,” yet almost half reported seeing no age-inclusive action in their workplace. The message is clear: older workers want to stay engaged, but workplaces are not keeping pace. Unless manufacturers change course, they risk losing valuable skills and knowledge just when they need them most. The Flexibility Gap On the office side of manufacturing, flexibility is common. Staff can work from home, adjust hours, or take phased retirement. But on the factory floor, older workers face rigid shifts, heavy physical demands, and inconsistent support. As one HR professional told me: “Flexibility simply does not work on the factory floor.” Yet my research shows that is not true. Even modest changes to duties or scheduling can keep people in the workforce for longer. The issue is not whether flexibility can work, but that it is unevenly applied, often depending on the goodwill of a manager instead of fair, transparent policy. Health, Shifts, and Real Lives Rigid shift patterns can take a toll. Fatigue, musculoskeletal strain, and disrupted sleep become harder to manage with age. When schedules are adapted, the impact is immediate. The worker who moved to a 32-hour week is one example. Others told me that reduced rotations or less physically demanding duties made the difference between staying on the job or considering early retirement. Flexibility is not about lowering standards. It is about sustaining […]
