Motivating those who wish they could be elsewhere

There’s good news and bad news associated with yesterday’s announcement by the CIPD of a huge increase in the number of older workers planning to work beyond state pension age. According to their survey of 2,000 working people, 71% of those aged 55 and over are now planning on staying longer compared to 40% two years ago – with the main driver being “financial factors”.

The good news is that this implies that older people are taking a realistic view of their financial prospects for the future and are taking appropriate steps to deal with impact of the recession and demographic changes. The slightly less clear implication of this is whether or not they will actually be able to realise their plans as, at present, the majority of employers still retain a default retirement age and a right of veto in respect of requests to work beyond this (with no need to justify a refusal).

The bad news – for both employers and older employees – is that needing to work longer by no means equates to wanting to work longer. As CIPD spokesman Charles Cotton said, “Employers will have to motivate those who wish they could be elsewhere”.  They will indeed – and it will not be an easy task. Those who have to work longer for financial reasons are not necessarily going to be doing so gladly, so the issue of resentment and disengagement may have to be added to the already heady mix of challenges surrounding later life working. 

Employers wanting to avoid a range of attitudinal and behavioural problems should start investigating imaginative solutions to making later life working desirable, aspirational and motivating – without further delay. They need to work with their older employees to find ways to redesign the later years of working life in a way that is meaningful and appropriate for older people, provides good business outcomes, and doesn’t alienate younger generations.  A big ask? Maybe, but not impossible.

A glance at the demographics shows that the scale of the problem is going to be immense and is unlikely to recede greatly once the recession is over. A head in the sand approach will not be the best way forward.

And what do you do?

“Within a few years the very phrase ‘going to work’ will be meaningless: work will be what we do, not a place we go to” – Anne Lise Kjaer

                                                                                                   

 “And what do you do? – 10 steps to creating a portfolio career”, a new book by Barrie Hopson and Katie Ledger, is full of such pithy insights. It should be made compulsory reading for everyone over 50 and strongly recommended to anyone at any age who’s struggling to achieve an interesting, challenging and rewarding working life.

For the uninitiated a portfolio career is one where you do two or more jobs for different employers. It’s a way of ensuring that you utilise your skills and passions in your working life, a means of working flexibly to accommodate your other commitments and interests, and a medium through which older people in particular can sustain a working life that brings happiness, health and fulfilment for as long as they want it to.

As with Barrie’s previous books this one is a great read – an inspiring blend of perceptive information and practical advice supplemented by thought-provoking exercises to help you discover whether a portfolio career might be for you. Best of all it doesn’t concentrate solely on the positive aspects of portfolio working making everything appear deceptively easy.  As anyone who has a portfolio career will confirm, it is a risky and insecure way to work and can be difficult to sustain in financial terms when, as now, times are hard. In the book, Chapter 2: Can I afford a portfolio career? deals with the downside particularly well and, by causing you to consider some of the challenges, actually leaves you more motivated.

For more information about the book and portfolio working go to: www.portfoliocareers.net

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.

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”.