If someone is good at their job then why shouldn’t they keep it?

In an earlier post I made a plea for some employer and media support for older workers.

Fortunately I didn’t have to wait long. Charlie Mullins, founder and CEO of Pimlico Plumbers writing in Real Business magazine, outlines the case for taking age out of the employment arena and concentrating on an individual’s skills and ability – whatever their years. He states:

“The simple fact is that in the 21st century, just like a thousand years ago, we need to use all the resources available to us. If we are serious about returning to economic growth, to do anything else would be stupid.” 

Quite.

The article is well-worth a read.  Click here

Employers want default retirement age reinstated

Depressingly – but not unsurprisingly – a recent survey conducted by law firm, Eversheds, reveals that nearly half of employers would like the default retirement age (DRA) reinstated.

The survey revealed that a third of employers felt the abolition of the DRA has had a negative or very negative impact on their organisation: two-thirds cited difficulties in succession planning whilst just under half reported that opportunities were being blocked for younger workers.

Other implications included increased costs of redundancies and/or providing benefits (37%), more management time having to be spent on performance management (29%), whilst just over a fifth reported an increase in ill-health absence.

Unfortunately, older workers aren’t going to go away so employers will just have to accept that these are now facts of working life.

One wonders if it was the way the survey was worded and the way the results are being reported, but didn’t the other half (who don’t want DRA reinstated) have anything positive to say about older workers?

Some good news media support would go some way to supporting the cause of older workers and overcoming negative perceptions amongst the unconverted

See: http://www.workplacelaw.net/content/46850

Media personalities vs. ordinary people

An interesting comment has appeared in HR Magazine in response to the news that racing commentator John McCririck is seeking damages of £3m from Channel 4 following their decision last year to drop him. McCririck, 72, is alleging ageism.

In the article, Caroline Gumble, HR director of manufacturing organisation EEF, highlights the need for employers to be “hotter” on performance management if they are to avoid leaving themselves open to potential ageism cases such as this.

Ms Gumble is undoubtedly right in as much as this case will probably encourage employees to bring cases against their employers where they feel they have experienced ageism. Employers who have not exercised good performance management prior to terminating the contracts of older employees may well find themselves with scant defence to offer.

However, like the Miriam O’Reilly case a couple of years ago where the BBC was sued for dropping a presenter for reasons of both ageism and sexism, there are issues in this case that are undoubtedly unique to the nature of the media. For example, how can a media channel replace a presenter when they feel a need for some new blood and a fresh approach if they are constrained by potential claims of ageism? And at what age does ageism kick in – presumably it must be linked entirely to the nature of the programme?

It will be interesting to see the outcome of this case, but even more interesting will be finding out the extent to which improved performance management would make any difference at all in relation to this type of media role.

For HR Magazine article click here

Status quo or retirement – what sort of choice is that?

A recent article in the Daily Telegraph exhorts us to “Bring back the retirement age”, maintaining that older people are blocking the promotion prospects of their younger colleagues.

It says: “More people staying on at work for longer is causing a bottleneck at the lower end of the career ladder, with young people missing out on promotion opportunities because their older colleagues are not moving on.”

This reiteration of the “lump of labour” theory that asserts that there are only so many jobs to go round and therefore by continuing to work older people are displacing younger people is wearisome and wrong.  As Tony Watts points out in his comment on the article, plenty of research has been done to show that this is simply not the case.

However what this new ‘survey’ does underline is that employers need to become more imaginative about restructuring the nature of work, introducing a range of flexible options which people can take at various points throughout their career.

As plenty of studies have shown – including my own – many older people would welcome the opportunity to work differently as they age. All that is stopping them is a lack of employer-provided opportunities which would enable them to step out of full-time, full-on, highly pressurised jobs which are perhaps those to which their younger colleagues aspire.

Unfortunately, in respect of recruitment, age discrimination is still rife which means that, to return to the quote above, there are few openings for older people to ‘move on’ to. This being the case older people currently face a stark choice in respect of work: either continue in the job you have or retire and lose all expectation of ever working again.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/jobs/9722365/Business-Bring-back-the-retirement-age.html#disqus_thread

Ageing workforce starts to impact UK businesses

According to Aviva’s recent annual Health of the Workplace report* UK companies are now starting to see a change in their workforce demographics with 29% of employers in their survey reporting a rise in the average age of their employees. Alongside this, 37% expect to see their workforce get older in the future.

Although half of employers believe there are positive benefits for individuals working past the traditional retirement age, 38 per cent predict that health issues associated with an ageing workforce will impact their business.

As a result, 29 per cent  of employers said they would need to offer different health advice while over a third (36 per cent) realised they may need to introduce flexible working hours for older employees.

The report also reveals – based on interviews with older workers – that employees’ requirements change with age and, as a result, so do the benefits that they value. Over a third of employees over 55 said that having access to benefits such as private medical insurance could help them stay healthy, compared to a fifth of 25-34 year-old employees.

The report is interesting and valuable in respect of the confirmation it provides that working longer is now starting to be recognised as a practical and immediate concern in the workplace rather than the somewhat theoretical issue that it has been until now.

Our prediction has long been that workplace policies and practices – and attitudes – would only change and improve when employers and employees find themselves surrounded by increasing numbers of older faces. Let’s hope this is starting now.

*Aviva’s Health of the Workplace report is an annual research study of 1,000 UK employers and 1,000 employees. The research was conducted by independent research company One Poll in August 2012.

Beecroft advocates a return to mandatory retirement to solve crisis of youth unemployment

 

So wrong and so misguided on so many levels.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financevideo/9365716/Adrian-Beecroft-force-older-workers-to-retire-to-cure-youth-jobs-crisis.html#disqus_thread

 

New age discrimination rulings

A useful summary of two recent cases with implications for workplace age discrimination can be found at

http://www.businesszone.co.uk/topic/staff/age-discrimination-update-what-you-can-and-cant-do/40884 

Further analysis from TAEN (The Age and Employment Network) is at http://taen.org.uk/blog/view/98

There’s no point rehashing these summaries here. However, one wonders about the values inherent in an organization that would want to discriminate against older workers by making a degree mandatory. It’s one thing not to have thought it through but to pursue it through the courts is indefensible (excuse the pun).

There is plenty of further commentary coming through from legal experts about the precise implications of these cases and the debate is far from over.

In the meantime, perhaps, based on these cases, we should shift our focus from identifying the best employers for the over 50s to the worst employers for the over 50s. There are few of the former; many more of the latter I suspect.

 

 

6.1 million over 50s set to work past retirement age

According to retirement specialist LV=’s newly released Working Late Index, 28% of working over-50’s are planning on average to work past state retirement age for an extra six years, which based on today’s retirement age would see them retiring at age 71 for men and 66 for women. One in five over-50s (19%) said they expect to work for at least a decade past the current state retirement age.

Two thirds of those ‘working later’ apparently will do so because they can’t afford to retire.

The report goes on to state that one in five over-50s – equivalent to 4.3 million people – who had retired have since gone back into work. Of those who have gone back into work: 

• 11% returned in a part-time capacity, 6% into voluntary (unpaid) work and 3% back full-time
• 37% went back to work because they felt they were too young to retire
• 32% missed being part of the working environment
• For 30% it was financially-related: 20% said it was a necessity as their personal and/or state pension wasn’t enough to support them in their retirement, and one in ten (10%) needed to go back to work to help continue financially supporting their family

However, going back into employment after retirement has given some over-50s an opportunity to fulfil other ambitions. A fifth (19%) made a complete career change and 12% set up their own business. Many have chosen to go back to work in a role that requires fewer hours than before (27%), and 18% are doing a job that is less stressful than their previous job.

In terms of these findings this is an interesting study. However LV’s use of the phrase “state retirement age” isn’t helpful in a society in which we have now abolished mandatory retirement. Obviously they mean state pension age as they say “as the state retirement age increases to age 65 years for women in 2018, and to 66 for men and women in 2020”.

This wouldn’t matter except that it seems clear that the sooner we decouple the concept of retirement from that of drawing a pension the more helpful this will be for people in terms of understanding the options open to them in later life.

Past our sell-by date?

Last week’s news that the government is advocating removing sell-by dates from food packaging in order to cut waste and save shoppers money (apparently the UK throws away about £12bn of edible food each year) resonated strongly in terms of how we treat older people.

“Past your sell-by date” is now a common term for older people who are no longer considered to be at the top of their game.

Obviously, like food, outer packaging plays a great part in decisions about them/us too. No longer looking young can be detrimental in terms of how older people’s performance and skills are perceived regardless of their inherent abilities.

In effect, the government removed the sell-by date for workers by removing the default retirement age. However, what we all need to tackle now at an individual and societal level are perceptions around declining usefulness and lack of value simply based on ageing packaging.

At the moment far too many older people are being thrown on the scrap heap when what’s inside them is still as good as it ever was.

A quote from BBC Radio 4′s Today programme on the topic of date stamping on food said: “I can understand when people – particularly young people starting out with shopping – look at these dates and say ‘I’m not sure about this; better throw it away’.”

Seems as though that reflects what is often thought by younger managers about older employees

 

Older workers and performance appraisals – it takes two to tango

According to recent research from the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development* older workers are being neglected in terms of training and performance management.

 Having surveyed 2,000 employees they found that less than half (46%) of respondents aged 65 and above had had a formal performance appraisal either annually or more frequently compared to 65% of the overall workforce.

Unfortunately the CIPD report tells us nothing new; research shows that for decades older workers have been disregarded for training and development often with the excuse that “they aren’t interested” or “they’re resistant to change”.

The advantage of the recent anti-discrimination and equality legislation is that it gives older workers the right to be treated equally i.e. to insist on the same treatment as their younger colleagues in terms of performance appraisals and training and development activities. But, they need the motivation to take such a stance

While employers need to be reminded of the advantages of performance management for all (65% falling well short of an adequate percentage) equally older workers need to be encouraged to be proactive in requesting performance appraisals and related development activities.

For many this may involve working out with their manager or employer how best to pass on their skills and experience to younger, less experienced colleagues, to the benefit of the company, their colleagues and themselves. 

As my own recent research has confirmed, most older people are highly motivated by concepts of contribution, giving back and developing others. Reverse mentoring may also be beneficial as a means of helping older people keep up to date with new practices and developments, while having the additional effect of improving intergenerational communication and teamworking.

Employers are missing a trick by failing to utilise the natural conduit that is the performance appraisal as a means of instigating these and other activities.

*’Employee Outlook: Focus on an Ageing Workforce’ available from the CIPD

Doom, gloom and retirement age change

Apparently, as reported in Small Business, a survey of 1,000 small and medium-sized enterprises conducted by an organization called Employment Law Advisory Services (ELAS) reveals that more than half of the UK’s small firms are unprepared for the impending abolition of the default retirement age.

According to Peter Mooney head of employment law at ELAS and therefore a person with a particular point to make, the majority of small firms are aware of the rule changes and when they will take effect, but many still struggle with how to apply the new rules.

 ‘Expensive death-in-service benefits and healthcare benefits are just two examples of how employing older workers will affect businesses,’ he comments. ‘Risk assessments, access requirements and adjustments for disability may also need revision as workforces grow older.’

He continues, ‘It seems many businesses haven’t actually thought through how the new law will affect them in practice….most of the respondents are unprepared for the rising cost of private health insurance, as well as workplace adjustments for staff with disabilities’.

Well, there’s a one-sided view of how things are. In fact, small businesses have long been those who have disregarded the notion of “retirement age” and happily kept on particular older workers for their skills and experience for as long as was mutually beneficial. It is regrettable that, alongside the raft of other employee-related legislation that may be helpful to those employed by larger organizations, small businesses now have to amend their practices to fall in line with a model that was never really meant for them. But, that being the case, it would be helpful to paint a more positive picture (although that would hardly win ELAS any new clients).

For example there are many benefits related to older people working longer including, for small businesses, stability, the retention of skills and expertise and a ready source of on the job training and development for younger workers. How many businesses large or small have actually thought through these and other positive aspects of how the new law will affect them in practice?  Pointing out some of these benefits to employers would be more helpful in the current climate than scaremongering and painting an unrealistically negative picture of the changes.

For further details see:

http://www.smallbusiness.co.uk/channels/employing-staff/news/1645908/smes-not-ready-for-retirement-age-change.thtml

Have you seen? – Managing Age 2011

This revised guide from the CIPD and the TUC takes into account good practice developments since 2006 and the phasing out of the Default Retirement Age (DRA) from 6 April 2011.

To see guide click below:

http://www.inmyprime.info/Have%20you%20seen/ManagingAge2011CIPDTUC.html