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.

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

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”.

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.

Fairness, equality and the lifecourse

Last week we attended the third in a series of seminars presented by the Equality and Human Rights Commission and Age Concern / Help the Aged (for whom a new name is imminent). Entitled JustAgeing: fairness, equality and the lifecourse the programme focuses on inequality over the lifecourse with this particular seminar being held to examine the notion of inter-generational equity. In what was an interesting but fundamentally academic discussion, a number of contentious issues were raised not least the assumed ability of particular generations (in this case “baby boomers”) to manipulate resources to their own benefit and the detriment of others. What emerged yet again however is that we lack an adequate vocabulary to discuss meaningfully today’s ageing reality – as revealed by a clear demonstration that the generation we think of as “baby boomers” in the UK is in fact two different cohorts who have been subject to different social, economic and environmental influences relating to the different years they were born. 

But the real issue which quickly emerged from the heart of the session was the extent to which we, as a society or as providers of services, can or should expect to be able to achieve inter-generational equity and the extent to which this is either achievable or desirable.  After all, individuals always have been and will be different. As we have said so often before, why do we expect them then to suddenly become homogeneous simply because of a shared age?  It was an interesting theoretical discussion no doubt, but unfortunately there was not a great deal of practical use to take away.

Mass media communication

The more we deal with issues relating to the in my prime market, the more it becomes apparent that a great deal more education and information is required to help people plan and prepare for the latter decades of their lives. Traditionally this has been viewed as “pre-retirement planning” or has come from government or charitable organisations striving to “help” the elderly to manage better. Whilst these initiatives are all well and good, there is still a gaping hole in respect of what the “young old” need to know about the preparations we should all be making for the future.

A recent report from retirement housing developers Dunwood Court revealed that older people worry about their futures, but most do not actively plan for the time when they will become less able. In fact more than half of us are likely to die without even writing a Will. Whilst some might put this down to active complacency, we believe that it results from a lack of awareness of some of the issues and the possible actions that could be taken in order to ensure a smoother and more comfortable transition into true old age. Okay we might not know exactly what is going to happen to us, but there is a reasonable degree of certainty in respect of certain aspects of ageing.

Happily we are frequently asked to contribute to radio programmes concerning aspects of ageing (recent events include slots on Radio City 96.7 and Talk Radio Europe) but these tend to relate to discussions about a particular topic which is currently the focus of media attention. What we would like to see (and be involved in) are programmes which more seriously question and debate issues around what it means to grow older in today’s society and what innovative approaches might be taken to helping people take greater responsibility for their own futures. Any takers anyone?