This week I came across an article urging the construction industry to retain older workers as the solution to labour shortages. On the surface it sounded sensible, but it made me stop in my tracks. From years of research and conversations with people in later life, I know the reality is far tougher. Here’s my response.
Every so often, I read something that makes me stop in my tracks — not because it’s surprising, but because it feels so divorced from the reality of people’s lives. The latest example comes from the Centre for Ageing Better, writing in Construction Industry News, about the importance of retaining older workers in the building trade to meet government housebuilding targets.
On the surface, it all sounds positive: we need more homes, there’s a skills shortage, older workers bring value, so why not encourage people in their 50s and 60s to stay on longer? The article highlights ageism, the need for inclusive workplace cultures, and the importance of health conversations. All worthy topics.
But here’s the problem: in the real world, this vision simply doesn’t stack up.
The physical toll of a lifetime in construction
The article itself points out that around 78,000 construction workers report ill health each year, many with musculoskeletal problems or lung diseases. Anyone who has spoken with builders, roofers, mechanics, or labourers knows how common it is to hear about ruined knees, bad backs, or breathing difficulties long before pension age.
Yes, in theory a roofer could retrain as an estimator, a site supervisor, or move into teaching apprentices. But let’s be honest: how many structured, funded pathways actually exist for this transition? How many employers are truly investing in midlife retraining so that decades of practical knowledge aren’t simply lost?
Too often, the reality is stark: people are forced out early, sometimes onto benefits, sometimes scraping by until the pension kicks in. The idea that the sector will plug its labour shortage by keeping people into their late 60s feels like fantasy.
The office vs the building site
It’s worth naming the elephant in the room. When policymakers or think tanks talk about “working longer,” they’re often imagining people in desk-based roles. For those jobs, the biggest challenges might be adapting to new tech or dealing with ageism in recruitment.
But the conversation looks very different if your daily work involves heavy lifting, climbing scaffolding, or working in all weathers. These are jobs where physical wear and tear is not incidental, it’s inevitable. Expecting people to keep going until 68, or beyond, is not just unrealistic, it’s unfair.
What would actually help
If we’re serious about valuing older workers in construction, we need to go beyond slogans about retention. That means:
- Improving conditions now: Stronger protections for joints, lungs, and overall health, so workers don’t break down before they’re 60.
- Mid-career retraining: Practical, accessible pathways into supervisory, training, or related roles that genuinely use people’s experience without demanding the same physical toll.
- Honest workforce planning: Acknowledging that large numbers of construction workers will not be able to carry on into their late 60s — and planning for recruitment and skills development accordingly.
Otherwise, we’re just pretending.
Respecting reality, not selling illusions
I believe passionately in the value of older workers. In office roles, in consultancy, in knowledge-based work, there’s huge untapped potential. But let’s not confuse that with the lived experience of manual trades. For many people in construction, the real miracle is lasting to state pension age at all.
By glossing over this reality, we risk doing workers a disservice. It places the burden back on them: “stay on longer, make up the shortfall”, rather than on employers and policymakers to make real, structural changes.
It’s not older construction workers who need to be retained. It’s their dignity, their health, and their right to a secure later life. That’s what should be non-negotiable.
