If someone is good at their job then why shouldn’t they keep it?

In an earlier post I made a plea for some employer and media support for older workers.

Fortunately I didn’t have to wait long. Charlie Mullins, founder and CEO of Pimlico Plumbers writing in Real Business magazine, outlines the case for taking age out of the employment arena and concentrating on an individual’s skills and ability – whatever their years. He states:

“The simple fact is that in the 21st century, just like a thousand years ago, we need to use all the resources available to us. If we are serious about returning to economic growth, to do anything else would be stupid.” 

Quite.

The article is well-worth a read.  Click here

Employers want default retirement age reinstated

Depressingly – but not unsurprisingly – a recent survey conducted by law firm, Eversheds, reveals that nearly half of employers would like the default retirement age (DRA) reinstated.

The survey revealed that a third of employers felt the abolition of the DRA has had a negative or very negative impact on their organisation: two-thirds cited difficulties in succession planning whilst just under half reported that opportunities were being blocked for younger workers.

Other implications included increased costs of redundancies and/or providing benefits (37%), more management time having to be spent on performance management (29%), whilst just over a fifth reported an increase in ill-health absence.

Unfortunately, older workers aren’t going to go away so employers will just have to accept that these are now facts of working life.

One wonders if it was the way the survey was worded and the way the results are being reported, but didn’t the other half (who don’t want DRA reinstated) have anything positive to say about older workers?

Some good news media support would go some way to supporting the cause of older workers and overcoming negative perceptions amongst the unconverted

See: http://www.workplacelaw.net/content/46850

Unready for ageing

Although there is nothing new in the House of Lord’s “Ready for Ageing” report published yesterday, it is a useful summary of the issues which our society now faces in relation to changing demographics. And, as the report highlights, it is not just society’s problem, or the government’s, but one about which we must all take greater personal responsibility.

The report recommends, amongst much else, that the 2015 government establishes two Commissions – one to consider the financial aspects of our ageing population and the other to focus on health and social care. However, having pointed out elsewhere in the report that employer and societal attitudes – and lack of flexibility – continue to impact older people’s ability to work longer, I believe there should also be a third Commission to focus urgently on this aspect.

We need a change in attitudes overall to ensure that older people aren’t seen as dependent, needy and a liability but are recognised for what the majority are – active, contributing citizens. Let’s hope that this report leads to action – and isn’t just yesterday’s news.

The report can be downloaded here: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201213/ldselect/ldpublic/140/140.pdf 

It can also be browsed here: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201213/ldselect/ldpublic/140/14002.htm

Older worker stereotypes overturned

A new academic study confirms that almost all negative generalizations about employees over the age of 40 are untrue.

A recently published article, Evaluating Six Common Stereotypes about Older Workers with Meta-Analytical Data by Thomas W.H. Ng (University of Hong Kong) and Daniel C. Feldman (University of Georgia) presents the findings of an analysis of around 400 studies of older workers’ performance.

The paper finds that nearly all negative stereotypes about this group are unfounded and suggests, as the number of older workers continues to increase, that managers should reconsider widely-held misconceptions that often lead to age discrimination.

The study examines six of the most common and damaging stereotypes: i.e. that, compared with younger workers, older employees are (1) less motivated, (2) less willing to engage in training and career development programs, (3) more resistant to change, (4) not as trusting, (5) more likely to experience health problems that affect their work, and (6) more vulnerable to work–family conflicts.

The authors found empirical support for only one of those stereotypes. Older workers, on average, are indeed less likely to engage in career development—an attitude that relates, at least in part, to training programs designed for younger employees. The five other stereotypes were unfounded.

For further information, see http://www.strategy-business.com/article/re00225?gko=70968

Media personalities vs. ordinary people

An interesting comment has appeared in HR Magazine in response to the news that racing commentator John McCririck is seeking damages of £3m from Channel 4 following their decision last year to drop him. McCririck, 72, is alleging ageism.

In the article, Caroline Gumble, HR director of manufacturing organisation EEF, highlights the need for employers to be “hotter” on performance management if they are to avoid leaving themselves open to potential ageism cases such as this.

Ms Gumble is undoubtedly right in as much as this case will probably encourage employees to bring cases against their employers where they feel they have experienced ageism. Employers who have not exercised good performance management prior to terminating the contracts of older employees may well find themselves with scant defence to offer.

However, like the Miriam O’Reilly case a couple of years ago where the BBC was sued for dropping a presenter for reasons of both ageism and sexism, there are issues in this case that are undoubtedly unique to the nature of the media. For example, how can a media channel replace a presenter when they feel a need for some new blood and a fresh approach if they are constrained by potential claims of ageism? And at what age does ageism kick in – presumably it must be linked entirely to the nature of the programme?

It will be interesting to see the outcome of this case, but even more interesting will be finding out the extent to which improved performance management would make any difference at all in relation to this type of media role.

For HR Magazine article click here

Hiring people like us

A recent report from Reuters focuses on continuing ageism in America’s Silicon Valley.

The piece starts with the story of a sixty year old who in order to nail a CEO job for which he was extremely well qualified felt he had to shave his head. Later, he “traded in his button-down shirts for T-shirts, made sure he owned the latest gadgets, and got an eyelid lift.”

Later on in the piece, an advisor recommends that to gain employment and credibility in this job market older applicants should “carry a backpack, not a briefcase …Avoid Blackberries and Dell laptops in favor of Android phones and Apple products. And above all, steer clear of wristwatches, which most younger people have replaced with the clocks on their phones.”

A 40 year old female recommends dressing young. For her first interview at Facebook, this market researcher “headed to a boutique popular with women 20 years her junior for advice on “something to look hip” and blend in.

She ditched her tailored pants and blouses for a dress, tights, and biker boots. She then got second and third interviews “and had to come up with more hipster outfits.”

Ignoring the fact that 40 is hardly old, this piece raises the issue of the extent to which ageism is a reaction to chronological age or simply reflective of the fact that people want to employ people who are like them.

In Silicon Valley, if this article is to be believed, this is taken to a farcical level and surely must be unsustainable from the older applicant’s perspective; but nevertheless the argument has some weight in other workplaces.

But – how much should older people be expected to adapt to younger models; and, more importantly, where should it stop?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/us-valley-ageism-idUSBRE8AQ0JK20121127

Status quo or retirement – what sort of choice is that?

A recent article in the Daily Telegraph exhorts us to “Bring back the retirement age”, maintaining that older people are blocking the promotion prospects of their younger colleagues.

It says: “More people staying on at work for longer is causing a bottleneck at the lower end of the career ladder, with young people missing out on promotion opportunities because their older colleagues are not moving on.”

This reiteration of the “lump of labour” theory that asserts that there are only so many jobs to go round and therefore by continuing to work older people are displacing younger people is wearisome and wrong.  As Tony Watts points out in his comment on the article, plenty of research has been done to show that this is simply not the case.

However what this new ‘survey’ does underline is that employers need to become more imaginative about restructuring the nature of work, introducing a range of flexible options which people can take at various points throughout their career.

As plenty of studies have shown – including my own – many older people would welcome the opportunity to work differently as they age. All that is stopping them is a lack of employer-provided opportunities which would enable them to step out of full-time, full-on, highly pressurised jobs which are perhaps those to which their younger colleagues aspire.

Unfortunately, in respect of recruitment, age discrimination is still rife which means that, to return to the quote above, there are few openings for older people to ‘move on’ to. This being the case older people currently face a stark choice in respect of work: either continue in the job you have or retire and lose all expectation of ever working again.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/jobs/9722365/Business-Bring-back-the-retirement-age.html#disqus_thread

Good enough for voluntary work, but not for payment or respect?

The value of older people’s contribution to society, via unpaid care, charitable and voluntary work has increased by almost £2 billion in the UK over the last 12 months, to a total of £26.8 billion, according to the new 2012 Retirement Nation report by financial services company MGM Advantage.

The report found that each year those approaching and in retirement give society on average 75 hours of charitable work at a value of £5.7 billion and 73 hours of voluntary community work at a value of £5.5 billion. Most significantly, they provide a massive 326 hours in free care for grandchildren, parents and other family members, saving the family economy £15.5 billion in the last year.

Yet despite this contribution, the majority of older people feel undervalued by society. Two-thirds (65%) feel they are treated badly by politicians, while four in ten (42%) feel that society treats them badly. A further third (34%) feel they are poorly portrayed by the media.

Commenting on these findings Aston Goodey, director of MGM Advantage, said: “It seems £27 billion’s worth of unpaid care, voluntary and charity appears to go unnoticed by society, politicians and the media, with millions of retirees experiencing a significant lack of respect.”

The implications of the withdrawal of this input would be huge for society as a whole, and fortunately is unlikely to happen. But taking such a massive contribution for granted is insulting. Is this just another case of what doesn’t cost isn’t valued? How should older people react?

For futher information see The Retirement Nation 2012 report www.retirementnation.co.uk

Older vs younger workers: to what degree is it irrelevant?

I was interviewed on BBC Radio Sussex last week talking about why employers should hire older workers. The piece had originally intended to focus on why they should hire older workers rather than younger workers but fortunately, in the event, they steered clear of that aspect and took a more general approach.

Much as I’m happy to comment on issues relating to the over 50s and older workers, I loathe the polarisation of young vs old that the media seem determined to pursue. Intergenerational warfare is definitely something we can do without and, I believe, isn’t an approach that reflects the views of the majority of people – old or young.

In preparation for the interview I had a quick look round for any new evidence underpinning the case for employing older workers and, fortuitously, came across an article published the previous day in the US focusing on a new survey which had been carried out by the recruitment agency Adecco.

Apparently in their study of 500 hiring managers, 91 per cent associated mature workers with reliability and 88 per cent associated them with professionalism. Older workers were also seen as having better communication skills (especially written) than those born between 1981 and 2000.

On the other hand, 74 per cent of hiring managers said that younger workers are more creative, better networkers and have more technological know-how.

So – the same old perceptions persist, demonstrating strengths and weaknesses for both groups. The danger lies however, as I pointed out in the interview, in applying group stereotypes to a situation where the skills and strengths of individuals are being assessed.

But, in reality, is it a better policy to stress to employers that they should try and achieve a balance of attributes in their workforce (e.g. professionalism and creativity) by hiring both young and old while acknowledging that neither generation has exclusive ownership, or to ignore the existence of these generational stereotypes entirely? Any views?

To see the article go to: http://www.dailycomet.com/article/20121004/WIRE/121009827?Title=Lesson-from-surveys-help-all-looking-for-jobs

You can teach an old dog new tricks

 

 

Guest Blog by Stephen Mutch, Employment Associate, Pannone LLP

Older Employees can take a joke but more fool you if you think you can’t teach an old dog new tricks

When the age discrimination legislation was first introduced back in 2006, a large number of claims were expected based on ageist comments being made in the workplace. This was based in part upon a concern that age related comments simply did not have the same taboo as those based around gender or race and, as such, were more likely to occur. Jokes based on age were (and still are) regularly seen on TV and in greetings cards etc and were heard around the workplace – Bob’s first car was a T-model Ford is one that sticks in my mind.

However, a deluge of age-based claims simply didn’t happen and hardly any reported decisions based around hurtful ageist comments were seen, with most claims under the age discrimination legislation dealing with the application of benefits based on length of service. Perhaps people are less ageist than we gave them credit for, or perhaps the comments are out there but the recipients accept them as within the course of normal office banter.

Not so for Mr James, claimant in the recent case heard before the Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT) James v Gina Shoes who, rightly, challenged the position he found himself in.

During the course of being disciplined for poor performance Mr James was told by his manager that if he was younger he could be trained up (he was in his early sixties) but you ‘can’t teach an old dog new tricks’.

Unsurprisingly, the EAT held  that such comments created an indication of an inclination to discriminate on grounds of age, and consequently found that age discrimination had taken place that led to Mr James’ subsequent resignation,  and that the employer was required to prove it had not discriminated against him.              

The case is a timely reminder that ‘off the cuff’ comments touching upon the age of colleagues can land an employer in hot water and that any equal opportunities training can usefully include a refresher on age-related comments. For older employees and jobseekers it also shows that a job that involves regular training is not one they are excluded from or one that they won’t thrive at doing.  As inmyprime wrote in a previous post, with people expected to work for longer, training for older employees is increasingly reported, a fact highlighted by the BBC two programme ‘The town that never retired’.

An absolute must-see for all employers

Viewing BBC1’s two-part programme ‘The town that never retired’ should be made compulsory for all employers and HR professionals. Shown last week as part of the BBC’s current series on ageing, When I’m 65, it brought into the spotlight many of the issues and stereotypes surrounding older and younger people in today’s workforce.

Episode one was an experiment in sending fifteen people in their seventies back into full time work in Preston. In episode two – and week two of the exercise – the pensioners who remained in the workforce (chosen by their employer based on their first week’s performance) faced competition from genuine young job seekers.

The core focus of the two programmes, facilitated by Margaret Mountford (age 60) and Nick Hewer  (age 68) of Apprentice fame, was the fact that in the future millions of people will have to work well into their seventies – although amongst these guinea pigs was a proportion who actively wanted to keep working also.

What emerged from this curate’s egg of part documentary/part reality show was a plethora of insight into many of the key issues including the role played by stereotyping, the importance of motivation in working longer, individual differences in physical ability and desire to keep working full-time, and the role of older people in younger work teams. The role of grandparents as carers also raised the question of who will take over their vital childminding role if they themselves are still at work?

Two messages were particularly clear: first, the importance of skills maintenance and updating for older workers as several of the older people performed less well than they might have done due to having been out of the workforce for a number of years and therefore not up to speed with either technology and/or current skills and standards. Second was our failure to instil sufficient work ethic and work-readiness into some of our younger people, therefore hampering their chances in the workplace.

Overall there were some interesting findings – some surprising, some not – and plenty to debate. We need to be addressing these issues and findings and having these debates in our society right now. Let’s hope these programmes, despite their rather lightweight nature, have helped inspire a few more people to take action.

If you missed these programmes you can still catch them on BBCiplayer

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00tt325/episodes/player

 

Beecroft advocates a return to mandatory retirement to solve crisis of youth unemployment

 

So wrong and so misguided on so many levels.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financevideo/9365716/Adrian-Beecroft-force-older-workers-to-retire-to-cure-youth-jobs-crisis.html#disqus_thread