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.

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.

If it’s on the telly it must be true…

Ultimately, as has been proven so often, it is not meaningful, substantial, well-founded developments emerging from the work of academics, social scientists or policy makers that change public thinking and action. They – and their creators – regardless of how profound, rational, and urgent they may be, tend to get lost in the wilderness, ignored and unrecognised apart from a passing mention in a worthy publication or two.

No, things rarely ever change dramatically until they are – often inappropriately and without warning – dragged into the mass media spotlight.

There are signs that this is happening now with age and working. Exposés relating to the media’s own treatment of older women (Selina Scott, Arlene Philips, Moira Stuart, etc) are becoming more frequent. And now, glory of glories it has hit the soaps with both Eastenders and Coronation Street currently running storylines relating to problems facing older workers. Dot Cotton and Deirdre Barlow may not be role models for us all but if they can help generate greater public awareness of some of the issues, it’s all good stuff.

McDonalds – we’re lovin’ it

New research from Lancaster University Business School has shown that employees aged over 60 have delivered a significant boost to business at McDonalds. Levels of customer service are reportedly 20% higher in restaurants with staff aged 60 or over with 69% of McDonalds’ managers saying older workers empathise and connect well with managers, 47% saying older workers go the extra mile to deliver the best possible service and 44% rating highly the role of mature workers in bringing mentoring skills to help develop younger staff.

McDonalds employs 1,000 people aged 60 or over. Of course, older workers aren’t perfect but this shows that those organisations who are prepared to recruit, develop and retain them can reap real bottom-line benefits. Like B&Q, Sainsburys, BT and other such organisations before them, they’re to be commended for recognising the strengths of an age-diverse workforce. We’ll really be lovin’ it when other mainstream employers do the same for white collar and managerial employees – and the notion of a truly multi-generational workforce is so commonplace as to no longer be newsworthy.

Let them eat cake

I’ve had the privilege of previewing a new Institute of Directors publication, “Extending Working Lives” which is soon to be published. It is comprehensive, well-written, interesting – in fact an all-round good read. BUT… for its handy tips box on “10 ways to work after retirement”.  The first five of these are: Become a non-exec / Start your own business / Take up consultancy / Act as a mentor or coach / Offer training.  Of course! Piece of cake or what?

As the remaining five suggestions are all to do with volunteering, one can only assume that the title should probably have been “10 ways to work for free after retirement”.  The panacea of self-employment for older people is often dragged out as a solution for what to do about those pesky older workers, disregarding the fact that if making a realistic income from working for yourself was  that easy most people would have done it years ago. Those making such suggestions (and the IOD should know better) have only to look at the statistics for small business startup failure rates and the level of income generally achieved by those who do manage to keep going to know it’s only a realistic option for a minority.

The double whammy of damages

Just catching up on some reading … and was interested in the details of the recent Leeds Employment Tribunal ruling in the case of a 56 year old radiographer whose application for promotion was bypassed due, apparently, to her informing her bosses that she was a few years from retirement.

As she was highly experienced and had an exemplary employment record, the NHS Trust which employed her was unable to explain their decision. If it was due to some notion that “it wouldn’t be worth it” as her retirement was only some years away, it seems a strange attitude bearing in mind the tendency of younger women to take maternity leave and workers – male and female – of all ages to change jobs fairly regularly.

The tribunal judge ruled that the damage to the claimant’s feelings was “about as serious as it gets” and consequently awarded her maximum damages of £33,500 for injury to feelings (the highest so far awarded) on top of other damages of £5,700. This means that nearly £40,000 of taxpayers’ money (plus expensive legal costs and time) that should have contributed to healthcare was diverted elsewhere. I don’t have a problem with the applicant receiving this award (and hope that it is the first of many) but I certainly hope that heads have rolled somewhere as a result.

Seems to me that the publicly funded, politically correct public sector ought to be squeaky clean in these matters. It’s depressing to find that it so obviously isn’t.

Speak for yourself on YouTube

An interesting news item in this month’s Recruiter magazine. Apparently a recruitment agency which specializes in the property sector is using YouTube videos to help present job applicants to client companies. The video comprises a three minute “interview”, with the candidate answering questions in much the same way as in a live interview situation.

One of the successes of the scheme was a 19 year old girl who was extremely impressive but failed to get interviews due to her age. The YouTube link resulted in three interviews and three job offers, with companies admitting they would never have been interested in her were it not for the video.

The videos are only uploaded with applicants’ authorization and the YouTube link is sent to prospective employers along with a normal CV. Let’s hope the idea catches on. If it worked for older individuals in the same way as for the younger candidate it could represent an amazing breakthrough in helping the over 50s re-enter the employment market or change jobs.

The only downside is that it does provide more fuel for the argument – if any were needed – that it really is essential to make sure you look and sound your best in the highly competitive employment environment.