In praise of older women

Writing in today’s Daily Mail, Vogue Editor Alexandra Shulman argues that mothers’ rights are making younger women unemployable.  She maintains that maternity leave (often multiple times) followed by requests for flexible working are creating huge problems amongst her workforce which she summarises as 90% female – of which 98% are women of childbearing age.

I will ignore the question of why 98% of her female workforce is under what must be around 50 or so (I don’t think I would want to hear whatever justification she chose to come up with). But therein lies the source of her problem – and the solution.  Not just replacing younger women with older women who no longer have childcare responsibilities, but ensuring there is a balance of ages.

Employers – Alexandra included – and society as a whole need to understand that today careers are made up of many different stages throughout which employees have different wants and needs and different levels to which they are able to commit to the organisation. Employers ignoring this do so at their peril and, yes, they will suffer the consequences.  Short-sightedness will lead to the demonisation of young women as it has already of older workers. All that will be left will be younger working men.  Back full circle to where we were a very long time ago.

All this on the same day as the Mail publishes another piece by Linda Kelsey on how being over 50 today is no longer old… Is it me or do we need some joined up thinking?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1226157/Vogue-editor-Alexandra-Shulman-asks-boss-hire-woman.html

Wood and trees

The recent and ongoing row between the government and scientists over the danger levels of various narcotic substances serves as a sharp reminder that in respect of most social issues our leaders just don’t seem able to see the bigger picture and grasp what’s really at stake. There’s a tendency to become embroiled in table-thumping and tantrums about completely the wrong thing. In this case it surely doesn’t matter whether ecstasy or cannabis is more or less dangerous than something or other else, what matters is that we live in a society where drug-taking and alcohol abuse is endemic, so what needs addressing are issues of cultural change. This inability to see the wood for the trees doesn’t seem to be a political thing, policy makers of all denominations and from all sorts of organisations seem to have difficulty identifying and addressing what the real problems are and devoting resources to the areas where they might actually make a difference.

Certainly this is the case with issues surrounding older workers. In the next year or so there’s going to be a massive amount of disagreement, argument and petulance over whether or not the default retirement age should be abolished. Although I believe it should, I also believe that actually it misses the point. What matters is fundamental attitudinal change on the part of employers, workers themselves and society as a whole that older people have continuing right to work for as long as they want or need to and shouldn’t be discriminated against on the basis of ‘age’. What a shame all that energy and publicity won’t be seen as furthering that cause.

Prejudice and discrimination

An interesting programme on Channel 4 just recently examined the issue of racism in the UK today, using as a framework an experiment which has been conducted in the USA for some decades. The experiment divides individuals into brown-eyed and blue-eyed groups with those with blue eyes being subject to discriminatory and generally abusive behaviour from those with brown-eyes – the object being to demonstrate how easy it is for people to discriminate against others on the basis of arbitrary and unchangeable features. The programme and its subject matter were interesting and thought-provoking in themselves, but even more so because of the underlying tenet that it’s easy to deny the existence of discrimination, stereotypes and prejudice if you’re not on the receiving end of them. The programme seemed to suggest that in the UK today, racial prejudice is subtle but still generally prevalent, albeit largely unrecognised by those who aren’t on the receiving end. Certainly it caused me to think about how this applies in relation to age. In the workplace there are numerous examples of situations where, although employers and younger workers abide by the rules in terms of age discrimination legislation, older workers (and certainly older job applicants) know that they are at a disadvantage because of their age. And we are all familiar with the ‘light-hearted’ joking and banter in the workplace associated with ageing and older people.

One of the messages of the Channel 4 programme seemed to be that discrimination happens to a degree because those who are subject to it allow it to take place. Whilst not wanting to get into the deep and thorny issues surrounding this view, it does seem to add weight to the argument that, as we have always maintained, if you act old, talk old, and let other people treat you as old then you will be more subject to ageism than those who refuse to collude with ageist attitudes.

Fatally flawed proposal

We’ve been hearing for a while about the terrible and unprecedented number of suicides occurring at France Telecom (25 since 2008 apparently). According to a recent story in the Times, the organisation is now to make part-time jobs available on a voluntary basis to employees aged over 57 who feel that full time work is endangering their health. My money’s on the fact that those making this decision are nowhere near 57 themselves. The (potentially fatal) flaw in the argument is that these poor beleaguered older workers who are already feeling highly stressed and threatened would be doing the equivalent of throwing themselves to the wolves, the very act of admitting that they could no longer take the pace being tantamount to lying on their backs with their legs in the air waiting to be ripped asunder. As anyone who’s spoken to older workers knows, a common driver of those who still want to see themselves as contributing value in a competitive situation is not wanting to admit they’re ‘not up to it’ or ‘not as good’ as younger competitors. BT proved this when they found that few of their older workers actually wanted to take advantage of reduced hours working for just this reason.

 Okay, some older workers do want to wind down and reduce their hours, but those at France Telecom are unlikely to fit the bill as they’re not being offered the choice to do it for positive reasons (either their own or their employer’s) in a supportive environment. As a comment on the Times site said, they should at least offer the option to all workers, to single out older workers in this instance is both inappropriate and insulting – and unfortunately not likely to solve the problem. Let’s hope they call in the occupational psychologists without delay.

Read the Times story at http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/telecoms/article6895790.ece

Ability not age

When will the BBC start taking some responsibility in its role as a public broadcaster and stop the shocking example it sets with its ageist policies? Apparently it has now added to its list of questionable decisions by banning dancers over 35 from auditioning for new Saturday night show, So You Think You Can Dance, to be aired on BBC One next year. The BBC argues that dancers over 35 lack the physical condition to perform the challenging routines required by the show, supporting its decision with all sorts of noises about health and safety. Whilst 35 seems a completely arbitrary age (why not 33 or 37?) and laughably young compared to most ageist decisions, it clearly underlines that the BBC seems unable to grasp the basic fact that chronological age is a meaningless concept.

Decisions about fitness for purpose in any arena need to be on the basis of individual ability and in this instance, as we all know, many dancers remain incredibly able until well into their sixties and older. Yes, it does mean having to put them through some sort of fitness and ability assessment but shouldn’t they be doing this for all potential competitors anyway? The BBC’s stance is compounding that taken by many employers with respect to the retirement age, i.e. that it’s easier to hide behind a policy and a number rather than putting in the effort to properly and adequately (and fairly) performance manage your employees on an individual basis.

According to a report in the Times, The English Amateur Dancesport Association (EADA) has warned the BBC that it could face a challenge in the courts. I do hope so.

Retirement Reform?

It was interesting to attend the Institute of Directors’ Roadmap for Retirement Reform presentation last Monday (October 19th) which they used to announce the launch of their new Centre for Retirement Reform.  On the face of it the presentation looked as if it would be largely about pensions but fortunately – and refreshingly – all the speakers seemed to recognise that pensions reform per se is not going to be enough.  Of course it was useful to be reminded yet again that our current pensions system was introduced when the average male life expectancy was 63 – what clearer evidence is needed of why it is no longer fit for purpose? But beyond this, the clear message from all seemed to be that meaningful impact in terms of reforming “retirement” will only come when employers create the culture, opportunities and support to help those people who want to, or need to, stay in work for longer. 

We look forward to finding out more about the work of the Centre as it develops. At this stage, perhaps we have two caveats.  Apparently one of the Centre’s first areas of interest is to be what are commonly labelled “olderpreneurs” – older individuals who start their own businesses. In respect of this we take the view that the focus needs to shift from helping older people to start a business (generally comparatively easy) to helping them build and sustain their business (difficult). Otherwise all that is happening is encouraging a new generation of business lemmings, racing towards a cliff-edge of failure and disappointment.  Additionally, and on a different note, we yet again call for the development of a new terminology. “Retirement” will only truly be reformed when we have an adequate vocabulary to describe all the various states (non-working, part-time working, portfolio working, self-employment, volunteering, etc) that are currently covered by this outmoded term.

 

 

“Building a society for all ages”

The deadline has now passed, at least for the moment, to make your voice heard to the government over their proposals outlined in “Building a society for all ages” a document which focuses predominantly on the issues surrounding our ageing population. The issues are very wide-ranging and extremely important.

We here, at in my prime, made our own representations in the fields in which we operate and if you are interested in seeing what we had to say please click here 

To read the original government document click here

Increasing State Pension Age: black and white…..or grey…?

Conservatives’ plans to raise the state pension age to 66 will make youth unemployment worse leading to a 200,000 rise in unemployment in the first year – many of whom could be young jobseekers. This is the view of Ray Barrell, Director of Macroeconomic Research at the National Institute of Economic and Social Research who made his prediction at this week’s Just Ageing Seminar, hosted by the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC). He supported his case by commenting, “If we extend working lives effectively the people we will have to help in the labour market are not those who are in a job and can stay in it for another year, but those at the other end of the labour market who are looking for a job, and the job that would have come up for them is no longer available.”

Stirring stuff when accompanied by alarmist headlines such as Tory plan to raise pension age will add to youth unemployment (Personnel Today)

But surely it’s not that simple. Not only do young, incoming job seekers not automatically replace outgoing retirees due to lack of similar skills and experience, but not all older workers are going to want to keep working or, if they do, to keep working in the same job. Research has shown that later life career changes are becoming more desirable for older individuals with those who want to work increasingly seeking to do so under their own terms. And for many those terms mean working less and working flexibly. The sooner employers start to address these issues, the sooner we should stop hearing these types of argument which effectively are comparing apples with pears – and ultimately just don’t add up.

Indeed, the Personnel Today article does not reflect a balanced view of proceedings at the Just Ageing Seminar. In particular, Sheila Wild, Head of Earnings and Age Inequalities at EHRC, arguing why the Default Retirement Age should be removed, said “ It is not a contest between older and younger workers, but about ensuring everyone who wants to work has the appropriate skills, whatever their age. The UK Commission for Employment and Skills has predicted 2 million new jobs between now and 2020 – and most of them will demand higher level skills. In securing jobs coming out of recession, skills levels are likely to be the key factor, not age”.