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.

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.

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.

Help the aged

Human nature is fascinating.

If you think about it ageism in the workplace is far from just a result of ageist attitudes by younger people. It is also – and possibly more – a result of discrimination by those who are part of that age group themselves.

Those who hold maximum power still tend to be over 50 (and male). They may not have front line operational roles, for example in HR management, but they certainly have the potential to wield a lot of strategic and practical force when it comes to the way things are done. If more of them took a look at what was going on in their organization regarding the recruitment and retention of older employees then it is certain that more would get done to ease the predicament of the unemployed over 50s.

Margaret Thatcher was criticized failing to help other women climb the ladder. Many corporate leaders could be subject to the same criticism in terms of their inability to help those from their own age cohort. Of course, favoritism should never be encouraged, but fairness is a different matter.

Age Diversity in the Downturn

Last Friday (20^th March) TAEN (the Age and Employment Network) and EHRC (the Equality and Human Rights Commission) held a conference on Age Diversity in the Downturn – the business benefits of creative approaches to age management. The conference was held to launch the publication of a new booklet by EFA (the Employers Forum on Age) and TAEN, called “Age matters in a downturn”.

Acronyms aside it was an excellent and inspiring conference with numerous interesting and practical presentations from academics, policy makers and HR practitioners from around the world. Although age in the workplace, particularly in a downturn, is a hugely complex issue, a few simple messages continue to hold sway:

1   The demographic issues and their implications are here to stay and will only get worse regardless of the economic situation.

2.  Age management is a strategic management problem, not just a tactical HR issue. As such, it needs to form part of ongoing management training.

3.  Age equality is a deep seated issue that must be embedded at the level of company values. Ultimately it’s all about human dignity, freedom of choice, and treating people decently.

4.  Age management requires an investment of money, time and effort. But that investment, if businesses get it right, can be repaid many, many times over – in hard financial figures as well as by increased worker commitment, engagement, satisfaction etc.

5.  Organizations should look more closely at what their customers want in terms of age matching. It’s an area which can generate considerable competitive advantage.

The bad news of course is that in the recession age-related initiatives are generally likely to take a back seat to more pressing matters. However those who are clear-sighted and brave enough to continue to devote effort to recruiting, retaining and developing their older talent are likely to emerge as winners in the coming decades.

Play it again Sam – all older people are not the same

I’ve been catching up on news reports about the European Court of Justice’s recent ruling that the UK’s default retirement age is legitimate.

John Cridland, Deputy Director of the CBI lauded the decision as “a victory for commonsense”, commenting that “Some people can happily work in their existing job beyond the age of 65, but this is not possible for all occupations”.

He went on to state that “companies with small numbers of staff have particular problems adapting jobs to the needs of older workers”.

This is a hugely disappointing and massively short-sighted reaction from an organization that should provide a better example and think more responsibly. For a start we now work in a largely service-based economy rather than one based on manufacturing and heavy manual labour. Even in the manufacturing sector, mechanisation means that aspects of many jobs can be far less physically arduous than in the past. So the “some” people he talks about as being able to happily work in their existing jobs is probably the majority. Second, what “needs of older workers” is he referring to? Yes, the minority of manual workers described above may have a need for lighter or supervisory work but the needs of most of the rest of us can be dealt with on an individual basis e.g. stronger spectacles for fading eyesight. Other problems we may have e.g. back trouble, tiredness, can occur in other individuals also, they are not the sole prerogative of those who are older.

The overarching need of many (but again, not all) over 65s - in increasing numbers – is simply the need to be able to continue to work to secure their financial future. What this means is a need to be treated equally with younger employees and a need to be trained and developed in order to be able to respond to opportunities and keep pace with workplace developments.

Yet again, sweeping statements are applied to a group which is not homogenous. It sounds like a typical “I’m alright Jack” statement by someone who ought to know better.

One size doesn’t fit all

Yesterday the Employers’ Forum on Age held their 2009 Conference and Awards.  An impressive line up of speakers including Trevor Phillips, Evan Harris and various leading academics addressed issues of age stereotyping and discrimination, flexible working and overall workplace equality.  The general message to be taken away was what we ourselves have long known and believed: legislation can only ever go so far. Now it has had time to bed down, real change must come from overhauling workplace cultures and changing attitudes at an individual level.

The day’s last and most inspiring presenter was Joe Staton from the Future Foundation who provided convincing and highly motivating evidence for the idea that despite the current bleak outlook older people would continue to thrive as a result of our own energy, ingenuity and enthusiasm. As he rightly pointed out, we have reinvented ourselves and society before, and we can do so again – particularly through encore careers and later life entrepreneurship.

Employers including Centrica, McDonalds, British Gas, First ScotRail and lawyers Addleshaw Goddard received awards for their work on age in the workplace. They were eloquently and elegantly presented by Joan Bakewell who, even if she does nothing more, represents a breathtaking and cheering role model for later life working.