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”.

What’s so special about 50+?

Oscar, the concessions site for the over 50s has launched a new award to coincide with UK Older Person’s Day and Grandparents’ Day which both take place this month. They’ve called them the Golden Owls and their purpose is to “find the cream of the over-50s”.  All well and good -  we strongly support the idea of promoting the position of older people and would always encourage the recognition of much needed role models for what being “over 50” is like these days.

But sadly, a closer look at the categories reveals that this is hardly likely to be the outcome. If you want to vote you can choose from:
•  THE EUREKA – most inspirational person of our time
•  THE ENDURANCE – longest-lasting celebrity
•  THE GIVER – Most worthy charity
•  THE INNOVATOR – Most recognised achievement in industry
•  THE OLYMPIAN – Outstanding contribution to sport
•  THE OWL – Lifetime Achievement Award

All of these are likely to produce the same old names representing the same old activities. What’s happened to the really meaningful stuff like:

The Feminist – the woman who has overcome ageist stereotypes

The Supporter – the individual from whatever sphere who has most helped the cause of older people

The Communicator – the writer, artist or commentator who has most clearly contributed to greater understanding about ageing in the twenty-first century

The Worker – the employee who sets the best example of what later life working can be

We’re sure there are plenty more categories that would be really worthwhile including those in areas such as caring, wisdom, and original thought. Why not let us know what you’d like to see?

In the meantime, as nominations close on October 15^th, you ‘ll have to be quick with the Golden Owls if you want to cast your vote.

Click here  to see more

A ton of things to sort out.

Research published in The Lancet and reported widely in the press this week (for more see www.inmyprime.info) predicts that about half of the children now being born in wealthier countries can expect to live to be 100 or more. Furthermore, with better and earlier medical intervention many of these later years can be free of serious disability. This Danish/German research adds more weight to the ever-growing need to address the issues surrounding population ageing and to acknowledge that the concept and definition of old age needs to be re-examined, mindsets changed and prejudices challenged.

The researchers have even suggested that the lifespans of people should now be considered in four stages: child, adult, young old age and old old age. This is something which those of us who specialise in the field have been banging on about for some time – it is just not possible to lump people who have reached a certain age all together and assume that they are elderly and that their active and useful lives have come to an end, along with their judgement, taste, ability to think for themselves and so on. We are talking about a 50-year time interval here – potentially half of one’s life. And if in “old old age” we can be independent and moderately healthy then what does it say for “young old age” or in my prime as we might describe it?

But living this long is not a “given”. It is dependent on many things – financial security, physical and mental well-being, a good reason to want to live that long, and adequate safety nets for when we might become old or infirm.

The serious debate is only just beginning.