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.

A grey day for Heyday? Not in the longer term.

And so the “Heyday” case has finally drawn to a conclusion with seemingly disappointing results. Even in its final battle Heyday was destined to be a loser and its (poorly chosen) name will thankfully fade away into history. Let’s hope the new merged charity sticks to its knitting and does not make the same mistakes again. However, that is another story – for another day.

On the surface the outcome of the Heyday case is unhelpful, certainly to those who have had age discrimination cases pending. Much has already been written in the press about the case and we don’t wish to go over this ground again. The judge took a particular standpoint based largely on a historical perspective and this has let the government off the hook, at least in the short term. However, moving forward, it will clear the air and allow fresh and proper thinking instead of continued attempts to justify the previously taken, and very weak, position.

The demographics are moving one way only. The financial concerns of our older citizens and of government are moving one way only. And the skills needs of industry, business and employers at large are moving one way only. The debate can, therefore, move in one direction only. Nevertheless, it has to remain top of the agenda and we applaud all of those organisations which are fighting and lobbying to bring about the necessary changes, sooner rather than later.

We, at in my prime, have a slightly different perspective. We are more concerned with the next phase. How are employers going to manage their older workforces? How are individuals of any age going to plan for the rest of their lives, find the right balance between work and non-work, and determine the necessary stepping stones? And how are employers, employees and government going to work together to find solutions which are in the best interests of all concerned?

The Heyday judgement is just a temporary setback – but nothing in this life worth having comes easy.

Too young to represent

The election last week of 27 year old Chloe Smith in the Norwich North by-election led to a flurry of media comment that she was “too young” for the job – a reminder once again of the injustice of ageism. Politics aside, the question of whether she is “too inexperienced”, “too ambitious” or even “too naive” might be valid. But what’s age per se got to do with it?  

Judgement of her performance as it becomes apparent also should be made in terms of benchmarks such as these rather than simply the number of years she has been on this planet. Anyway, she can’t make a much worse job of it than many of her older colleagues whose advanced years might imply they should be be wise, far-sighted and beyond reproach. 

As they have made all too apparent recently, they’re not.

The fun has just begun

This week has already seen two very major announcements relating to the older end of the age spectrum and it’s only Wednesday. Firstly, there has been the news that the government is bringing forward its review of the national default retirement age, currently 65, which heralds either its demise or a significant shift upwards. Secondly, there has been the publication of a Green Paper on the subject of care costs which is likely to impact on the whole population and probably require significant financial input from us all.

We are now, quite definitely, going to see a significant shift in the need for everyone – employers, employees and society at large – to think through the implications of these issues and to plan individually and collectively for all of our futures. We will now, each of us, have to make decisions about our attitude to retirement versus continued employment which will include our finances, our motivation and commitment, and our physical and mental ability to continue on.

These announcements come at a time when two new surveys suggest all is not as it should be and certainly there is a glaring inconsistency and incompatibility which will have to be addressed. A survey for insurer LV= suggests that the over 50s are struggling to save and that nearly 7 out of 10 are worried about their retirement prospects. In reinforcing this Scottish Widows also tell us that, from their survey, the average age that people wish to retire is 61 and that, on average, they would actually be angry if they had to work past 66. Something does not stack up here – even without thinking about the social benefits of continuing to be part of the employment mainstream.

Employer body reaction to the proposed review of the default retirement age is predictably one of hostility (feigned or real) but the reality of the situation will not change. What is required, sooner rather than later, is the need for all sides to start seriously to manage the implications which, when all is said and done, will be immensely positive for all concerned.

Even King Canute could not stop this one.

Where’s the action on overcoming age prejudice?

Emma Soames, editor-at-large of Saga Magazine, writing in last Sunday’s Guardian (click here for article) expressed perfectly our sentiments about current attitudes towards age in the UK when she wrote:

“Our thinking about old age needs a serious overhaul, just as previous attitudes to sex and race needed a damn good slap around the face. Legislation can only go so far in introducing a cultural sea change…As the authors of the greatest social and sexual revolutions of the last two centuries, we baby boomers are famous for kick-starting change and confounding prejudice. Well, we had better get on and add another revolution to the list. It won’t be long before it’s too late.”

We’re right there with you Emma. Change isn’t going to come from the rest of society quickly enough or extensively enough. It’s down to us as the relevant age group to show our power and ingenuity and make it happen.