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.

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.

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.