What you can’t see won’t hurt you

Apparently BBC Radio 4 has boosted its audience by more than three quarters of a million in the past year and now has well over 10 million listeners each week. The Today programme, Woman’s Hour and You and Yours are especially popular choices. The average audience age is around 55, and, unlike on TV, one would assume that the average age of Radio 4 presenters must be somewhere around there too. As it likewise is on Radio 2, which also continues to attract significant numbers of new listeners (or perhaps returners?)

Strange isn’t it that BBC bosses can’t make the connection between people being turned off by ‘yoof’ TV and turning to the stimulus of sensible, interesting, grown-up radio programmes and the need to ensure that those who deliver services generally should mirror the age range of their customers (as many other service providers are discovering). Odd too that it’s alright for presenters to be old and even sound old on Radio – but God forbid that we turn on the TV and see them looking old.

I am not a number

A major piece of news in Scotland, published yesterday (see The Herald Scotland ), is that Glasgow City Council, for financial reasons, is looking to reduce its workforce by 4000 workers and will be seeking  to achieve much of this, initially at least, by a voluntary redundancy scheme aimed at the 3500 employees aged 50 plus.  

As a result of this, I was asked to appear on this morning’s edition of BBC Radio Scotland’s “Good Morning Scotland” to discuss some of the implications of this plan and the situation regarding older workers in general. Although the appearance was brief, any opportunity to re-iterate our concerns over such “initiatives” we see as very worthwhile.

It appears that the Council is concerned over whether this move is legal in age discrimination terms, and it is happy that it is, at least in its current form. While this may be so, it is certainly ageist, that is it reflects prejudicial attitudes towards older workers, stereotyping and the making of unwarranted age-based assumptions. It also emphasises employers’ pre-occupation, not with doing the best for their older employees but with not falling foul of the legislation.

As a response to its operational problems, in today’s environment the Council’s actions are crude, socially irresponsible and extremely unimaginative. It sees itself as able, with a little bit of sweetening, to wash its hands of the future well-being of large numbers of individuals and their families without considering the long term implications for these individuals in terms of future employment, financial well-being, health and feelings of self-worth, over a period which could easily stretch to 30 years, as living into one’s late eighties or nineties becomes a reasonable aspiration for the majority.

Some employees who “have their ducks in a row” will jump at the chance of pursuing other avenues, things they’ve planned for and saved for over many years. But many will be cast adrift without a paddle or a compass or an understanding of what they might be letting themselves in for. They don’t deserve this.

As today’s programme coincided with news of increased unemployment amongst the young the question was put that shouldn’t older workers give way to help younger ones? Firstly, those in their 50s, with all kinds of financial and family responsibilities, need employment as much as anyone else. Secondly, solving one injustice by creating another injustice does not seem a particularly intelligent way of moving things forward. Thirdly, research presented by the Equality and Human Rights Commission suggests that this is not a question of “young versus old” but of “skilled versus unskilled” and the removal of skilled and experienced older workers from the scene will not provide opportunities for the unskilled who form the main thrust of the problem at the younger end.

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.

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.

Old Masters?

The Elderly Accommodation Counsel (EAC) seems a useful and worthwhile organization focusing on matters relating to the living arrangements of the older generation.  However I was disturbed to hear about their Over 60s Art Awards which (to quote their website) “have been encouraging and celebrating the remarkable wealth of talent, creative energy and enthusiasm among amateur artists aged between 60 and 100+, since 1995”.

Why on earth do they feel it necessary to have a special art award for people aged over 60? If the rationale is that those in this age group are so much better than younger people (by virtue of their long years of practise) thereby making this some sort of Artistic Masters Championship then maybe there might be a point. If however, as it seems, it is simply to underline that yes, poor old dears can still hold a pencil, brush, charcoal or camera and turn out something that passes for art, then it’s downright insulting.

Surely art is an arena where age simply continues to add to expertise?  This being the case shouldn’t the good folk at the EAC simply be encouraging older artists to go and knock the socks off the judges in mainstream competitions?

How can we ever hope to overcome ageist stereotyping if it is still being reinforced in ways such as this by those who should know better?

For more information see www.eacartawards.org.uk