An absolute must-see for all employers

Viewing BBC1’s two-part programme ‘The town that never retired’ should be made compulsory for all employers and HR professionals. Shown last week as part of the BBC’s current series on ageing, When I’m 65, it brought into the spotlight many of the issues and stereotypes surrounding older and younger people in today’s workforce.

Episode one was an experiment in sending fifteen people in their seventies back into full time work in Preston. In episode two – and week two of the exercise – the pensioners who remained in the workforce (chosen by their employer based on their first week’s performance) faced competition from genuine young job seekers.

The core focus of the two programmes, facilitated by Margaret Mountford (age 60) and Nick Hewer  (age 68) of Apprentice fame, was the fact that in the future millions of people will have to work well into their seventies – although amongst these guinea pigs was a proportion who actively wanted to keep working also.

What emerged from this curate’s egg of part documentary/part reality show was a plethora of insight into many of the key issues including the role played by stereotyping, the importance of motivation in working longer, individual differences in physical ability and desire to keep working full-time, and the role of older people in younger work teams. The role of grandparents as carers also raised the question of who will take over their vital childminding role if they themselves are still at work?

Two messages were particularly clear: first, the importance of skills maintenance and updating for older workers as several of the older people performed less well than they might have done due to having been out of the workforce for a number of years and therefore not up to speed with either technology and/or current skills and standards. Second was our failure to instil sufficient work ethic and work-readiness into some of our younger people, therefore hampering their chances in the workplace.

Overall there were some interesting findings – some surprising, some not – and plenty to debate. We need to be addressing these issues and findings and having these debates in our society right now. Let’s hope these programmes, despite their rather lightweight nature, have helped inspire a few more people to take action.

If you missed these programmes you can still catch them on BBCiplayer

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00tt325/episodes/player

 

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

 

The horrible truth about age, work and gender

According to a recent (June 2012) report from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) the numbers of those now working past state pension age has nearly doubled in past 20 years – from 753,000 in 1993 to 1.4 million in 2011. Of these, 39 per cent are men and 61 per cent are women.

They report, unsurprisingly, that over that time, the numbers were relatively stable until 2000 but rose quickly thereafter to a peak of 1.45 million in 2010.

So what are all these older workers doing?

Although a high proportion (32%) are self-employed (compared with just 13 per cent of those below that age) the remainder demonstrate shocking differences in terms of the types of work undertaken by men and women.

Around two-thirds of these men work in jobs classed as higher skilled such as property managers, marketing and sales directors, production managers and chief executives of organisations. That said, of all the jobs carried out by men, the two most common were farmers and taxi drivers.

On the other hand almost two-thirds of female older workers above state pension age (and remember there are a lot more of them) work in lower skilled jobs -  the most common job being cleaners, followed by administration assistants, care workers and retail assistants.

How does one interpret this? As reflecting the success of feminism or its abject failure?

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/mro/news-release/working-past-state-pension-age-nearly-doubles-in-past-20-years/owlm0612.html

Deciding when to retire

Today, when standard mandatory retirement ages are a thing of the past, it is more important than ever for employers to understand some of the factors underpinning the retirement decision. For example, the timing of retirement where one of the key myths is that a person’s retirement date will depend largely on when their partner decides to retire, particularly in the case of women.

However, as a recent article in the Wall Street Journal indicated, the days when a husband automatically retired at 65 with a corporate pension and his wife dutifully followed him, are over. Most women approaching retirement age are now working, and many have their own retirement savings and viewpoints about the nature and timing of retirement.

Many of today’s older women entered (or re-entered) the workforce later than their partners following a period of non-work or part-time working while they raised their children. Consequently they may be at their peak with prospects ahead of them when men slow down and want out.

Add to this the fact that retirement, particularly for women, who tend to live longer, can now last for up to thirty years or so and women may look with horror at the prospect of relinquishing an income, social relationships and recognition for many potentially unfulfilling years ahead.

Of course, it’s not all bad news; many people – female and male – have very positive retirement plans. But, as the article indicates and my own experience with coaching and advising older people bears out, many individuals simply don’t talk to each other in any meaningful way about retirement beyond a shared acknowledgement that it will be good to leave the rat race behind.

Employers can help in many ways, not least through providing meaningful, couple-centred later life planning programmes and coaching. That may sound overly altruistic and unrealistic in this economic climate but, if employers want to see their older workers making positive transitions into retirement and being clear and open about their future plans, something has to change.

See the WSJ article at:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204571404577255662010466038.html?KEYWORDS=retire

Stating the b******* obvious

A report in today’s Daily Mail says that people should only be counted as elderly once they reach the age of 75.

The article is based on a report by the charity the City Bridge Trust developed with the help of what the DM calls “Labour-leaning think-tank” the Institute for Public Policy Research.

“75 is the new 65”, it says. “Many in the traditional pensioner age group – those over 65 – continue to lead lives similar to those of younger middle-aged people.”

The report said that efforts to help the vulnerable elderly should be adjusted and “a simple but blunt way of targeting those most at risk could be to focus on the over 75 age group rather than the over 65 group as most programmes and benefits currently do.”

I hope in these straitened times that it didn’t cost too much to produce this report.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2047683/Why-youre-really-old-youve-hit-75-pensioners-continue-live-like-middle-age.html#ixzz1aSTLSqgh

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

Out for a stroll

Cheering news that a seventy-two-year-old woman, Frances Tennant, has recently completed the 1,200-mile trek from Land’s End in Cornwall to John O’Groats in Scotland, making her the oldest female ever to be officially recorded as having walked the length of Britain.

Once she had finished the walk, she even found enough energy to climb theUK’s highest mountain,Ben Nevis, on her way back home.

Mrs Tennant, who has completed the Great North Run 18 times, was accompanied by her friend Rupert Booth, who at 60 is himself a pretty impressive performer.  The pair achieved an average of 17 miles a day, taking about three months to complete the walk. Initially they had intended to do it purely for fun, but then decided to make it a charity trek raising money for the Sir Bobby Robson Foundation.

At the end of her journey Mrs Tennant was reported as saying “We had an absolutely fantastic time. It has been wonderful”.

On days when all we seem to hear about is the bad news side of ageing – pension problems, care costs, Alzheimer’s, and worse – it’s great to have such a good news story. Everyone over 50 should be encouraged to print it off and stick it on the fridge door as a constant reminder of what is possible in later life and the joy that can come from realizing one’s dreams and ambitions.

Retirement age considerations – the general and the specific

For someone who quite likes numbers it is always pleasing to see how the broader statistics are beginning to reflect outcomes that result from policy changes or from forecasts of what is likely to be inevitable anyway. It is also interesting to see how the macro figures as produced by the ONS stack up with the particular micro surveys that happen to be around at the time.

The recent labour force statistics continue to show an increasing number of over 65s in employment, although this month we have an increase in women but a slight decrease in men. Some of the tabloid press, and others who ought to know better, ascribe this increase to older people taking (stealing?) many of the new jobs coming along. I am not really sure where the evidence to back this up comes from. Intuitively I would suggest that it arises from people continuing in their current jobs and that it reflects financial necessity (particularly for women), a desire to stay connected, and that there are increasing numbers of older people around in general. This trend towards later employment is likely also to become more marked now that the DRA shackles are off.

In a more localised arena, two surveys produced this month, by AXA and by Prudential, look at the likely retirement ages of people. They are different in detail but are similar in what they are looking at and I expect to see more of them appearing as part of a wider education and enlightenment (and, of course, sales pitch). The precise numbers produced are different but are directionally the same. One age is the age at which people hope to retire. This averages at around the 60 mark. One age is the age at which people expect to be able to afford to retire – this falls into the mid-sixty area. And the final one is a computation of when people will actually be able to afford to retire. This one comes out at around 70.

The big task ahead, therefore, is to get the figures to converge – both an individual and a societal challenge. And at what age?

All kinds of interesting conundrums here. Watch this space.

This is what we must fight against

Yesterday an email came into my inbox. It was the newsletter for smallbusiness.co.uk and its subject line said simply “More old people in work”.

Blunt? It would be difficult to imagine how it could have been more direct – or more insulting.

The story, of course, related to the latest ONS statistics showing that the number of people aged 65 or over in full-time employment has more than doubled in the last decade to 870,000.

Why the journalist (or editor) responsible couldn’t have used a little more accuracy and written “More over 65s in work” is beyond me.

The current title is as offensive as saying “More fat people in work”.

Now that the red mist is starting to clear I’ll add it to my list of examples (for training and writing purposes) of how ageism is entrenched in our society. Any other examples always welcome…

Can you help with a research questionnaire?

Are you over 65 and still in work, either in employment or self-employed. If so, perhaps you could spare a few minutes to help with a survey as part of a project being conducted by Middlesex University, Keio University (Japan) and Boston College. This “Work and Retirement Survey” forms part of a major research project “Age Diversity at the Workplace”.

For more information check out the website at http://www.agediversity.org/en/index.asp

For the survey see http://mdx.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_8jkovxxzQr6eO7G&SVID=Prod

For an introduction to the survey see http://breeze.mdx.ac.uk/survey

Lions 1 – Over 65s 0

In Roman gladiator times it used to be “Lions or Christians”. Now it appears it is “Lions or Over 65s”, at Longleat at least. The safari park attraction – owned by the 78-year-old Marquess of Bath – has axed all its pensionable workers a year before the practice is outlawed by the Government.

Nearly 30 members of staff – including 18 over 70, seven over 75 and two who were still grafting in their 80s – have been made redundant in the last two weeks. They were cleaners, telephone operators, tour guides and ticket booth attendants, some of whom live on the 8,000-acre estate in Wiltshire.

Union leaders slammed the move as age discrimination and a cynical ploy to avoid new government legislation which comes into force next October. Trade Union Congress (TUC) regional secretary Nigel Costley said the move is an “own goal” for the estate.

Campaign charity Age UK said it was already aware of a similar incident at Battersea Dogs Home, where a number of workers over 65 had been made redundant.

So it’s “Dogs 1 – Over 65s 0” as well.

Michelle Mitchell, chief executive of the charity, admitted she feared tens of thousands of Britain’s 846,000 working pensioners could be at risk of being axed. She said, “We are concerned some employers might be tempted to rush out forced retirement notices before the proposed ban comes into force. The fact this is legally allowed doesn’t make it any less unfair to older employees who would see their working lives cut short for no reason other than their age.”

Perhaps it is time in my prime started a “Roll of Dishonour”?

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