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

Full steam ahead for the over 65s

Thank goodness the government hasn’t backed down in the face of industry whining of “too soon/too difficult” and decided to delay abolition of the default retirement age.

This week’s BBC age discrimination tribunal decision has underlined the fact that employers must now start putting some interest and enthusiasm into tackling the issues surrounding older workers if they too are not to find themselves facing claims.

How good it would be if in ten years’ time we have left age stereotyping and discrimination far, far behind us. Unfortunately, looking at how long it has taken women to make insufficient progress in the workplace, such a wish is probably ridiculously unrealistic.

The difference between the two scenarios however, is that unless you die first, everyone gets old. The attitudes younger people adopt today may someday either help or hinder their own aspirations and position.

Scrapping the default retirement age will save employers money!

At last – some positive news to counter the relentless media reports of employers and employer bodies who are “angered”, “incensed” and “furious” at the government’s decision to abolish the Default Retirement Age.

According to a new consultation paper just issued by the government, employers stand to save £45 million in the first year after it is scrapped with savings increasing to £71 million a year within a decade. In terms of benefits for the economy the estimates are that the Exchequer will gain an extra £79 million in tax revenues in the first year rising to £132 million extra each year after a decade.

Apparently savings will come from reducing the administrative burden of the “right to request” procedure, fewer employment tribunals and increased profits resulting from an increase in labour supply.

Offsetting this, of course, are the one-off costs of implementing the new rules which are estimated as  £38 million, (£18.1 million for time taken for familiarisation with the change in legislation – plus  £20.1 million for the cost of introducing performance and appraisal systems in firms that don’t currently have them). Somehow it seems a bit unfair to shovel all the costs of introducing performance management systems onto the older worker issue. Surely in this day and – litigious – age, all firms should have performance management systems for all staff – though the fact that they don’t is one of the big issues underlying the problem with abolishing DRA.

And, of course, there is likely to be an increase in employment tribunal cases from some older employees who have been dismissed rather than allowed to retire… so nothing is simple.

It’s good, however, to have some ammunition to offset the air of employer negativity surrounding the move. Surely it will be welcomed too by those employers who do take a more far-sighted view.

Click here to access the consultation paper: http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/biscore/employment-matters/docs/p/10-1047-default-retirement-age-consultation

A new beginning for older workers

So, at long last, the Default Retirement Age (DRA) is to be scrapped. The decision has been a long time coming but, for all that, it is very welcome and a great step forward. It must be especially pleasing for the various campaigning groups which have been tirelessly working for its abolition.

However, the real winners will be those employees who wish to work past 65 plus the economy in general and we will now see objective evaluation of the vast skill pool of older workers, hitherto consigned to the scrap heap because employers found it convenient and an easy form of “management”.

Nevertheless, as with all decisions, this marks not the end but the start of the real process of change. There is much for legislators to clarify and there is much for employers to tackle. For many it will mean a whole culture change and the application of proper, objective performance management systems instead of a shrug of the shoulders and a “you know it’s not down to me” attitude.

But the real overall winner is age neutrality in the workplace. The implied, associated rigorous and defensible measurements of performance are not confined to older workers – they should be taking place at all ages – and continued employment should be properly earned and justified by employer and employee alike.

It is also not just a question of dealing with those approaching 65. The tendencies to allow people to stagnate, to coast or to “bat out time” through the latter parts of their careers must be fundamentally re-examined for the benefit of all concerned. New ways of managing and engaging staff, flexible working possibilities – all very exciting.

Watch this space!