Older workers still face job hunting challenges despite age neutral unemployment figures

Commenting on the latest employment statistics, Chris Ball, Chief Executive of TAEN - The Age and Employment Network, says:

"The continuing rise in unemployment shows how much employers and employees are suffering. The ‘good news,’ if one can use that expression in such dismal circumstances, is that the trajectory of job losses in the 50 plus age bracket is not carrying the same dramatically skewed dip as it has done in previous recessions. Employers may have learned the lessons of the past when they encouraged older workers to retire only to find their organisations starved of skill and know-how.

It seems likely too that age discrimination law is deterring the victimisation of older workers for redundancy. This shows that, flawed though the legislation is in other respects, it is proving beneficial. At this point the recession is more age neutral than in the past.

The very bad news for older workers is that once out of work they are finding it nearly twice as hard to regain employment as workers in the prime age cohort, 25-34. Finding new jobs always needs a fair wind from employers who don’t discriminate. Unfortunately, age discrimination at the point of job selection is endemic, as our surveys have shown.

So, even if 50 plus workers are not being dropped overboard soonest as companies run onto the economic sandbanks, the fact that they are swimming in stronger currents will mean more drown with the wrecks of the recession, unless we can be more proactive in getting them back into work." TAEN are doing a splendid job of attacking this outrageous remaining bastion of age discrimination.

Mandatory retirement for MP's!

I don't think so do you. however, to make a point 3 MP's have tabled an Early Day Motion in Parliament calling on no MP to stand for re-election once they reach the age of 65.

The move follows last week’s decision by the European Court of Justice in the Heyday/Age Concern challenge. The Court found that the introduction of the default or mandatory retirement age as part of the Equal Employment (age) Regulations 2006 did not contravene the original EU ‘Equal Treatment’ Directive. However, it ruled that it will ultimately for High Court in London to decide whether the default retirement age of 65 breaches EU law.

The Motion was signed by 3 MPs - Stephen Pound (pictured), Neil Gerrard and Andrew George - and could be seen as ensuring that members of Parliament are subject to similar limitations on their post 65 employment prospects as the rest of the older working age population. The wording of their EDM states:

“That this House notes with regret the opposition of the Government to the case brought by Age Concern to the European Court of Justice; and regrets that a mandatory retirement age of 65 years will now continue to apply in the UK; and, in the interests of consistency, believes that no hon. or right hon. Member should in future stand for re-election if their age exceeds 65 years.”

EDMs are formal motions submitted for debate in the House of Commons. However, very few EDMs are actually debated but they are used for reasons such as publicising the views of individual MPs, drawing attention to specific events or campaigns, and demonstrating the extent of parliamentary support for a particular cause or point of vie. So let us hope that it just might get our MP's thinking a bit more of the discriminated against fellow citizens.

Nobody likes to be forcibly retired

The Irish Times has just reported a story about a fireman with an “impeccable record” who has brought a High Court action aimed at preventing Drogheda Borough Council retiring him.

Patrick Reilly (58) has been employed as a retained firefighter with the council since 1980 and wants a declaration from the court that an agreement between him and the council means his retirement age is 65. He is also seeking an injunction preventing the council from retiring him until he reaches 65, plus damages.

The council is opposing the action and denies Mr Reilly’s retirement age is 65.

Over in the Uk we are still awaiting the full outcome of the Heyday case in the Hague on this issue and the current goverment are prevaricating until 2010 when presumably they hope that the decision will have been made for them. Watch for many more of these stories.

Civil Service Abandons Mandatory Retirement

As supporters of the move to abandon mandatory retirement we were delighted to discover that the Civil Service announced plans to remove it across all the Civil Service by 2010.

A number of Government departments have already introduced a no mandatory retirement age policy. In July of this year, Permanent Secretaries agreed to work together to introduce across the remaining Civil Service a no mandatory retirement age policy for staff below the Senior Civil Service by March 2010. Separate work is being undertaken by the Cabinet Office to review the potential for extending this change to the Senior Civil Service (SCS).

Since 2006 a number of departments, employing approximately 50 per cent of Civil Servants, have already introduced a no mandatory retirement age policy – these include Department for Work and Pensions, Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. In July, Permanent Secretaries agreed to work together to introduce a no mandatory retirement age policy for staff below the SCS in the remaining departments.

A spokesperson from the MOD's Director General Civilian Personnel Pensions team explained what today's announcement means to staff who may be planning to retire:

"I am proud that the Civil Service values all colleagues, regardless of age, and recognises that we must build on the skills and experience of an increasingly diverse workforce so that we can continue to improve the delivery of public services for everyone in society."

They make it very clear that introducing this will not affect the age at which people can take their full pension benefits but it will give them greater choice as to when they choose to retire.

The news was deliberately announced to coincide with Older Peoples Day on October 1.

Cabinet Secretary Sir Gus O'Donnell added:

"Older People's Day recognises the important contribution that older workers make in the work place. Like any successful organisation, we need people who have knowledge and experience in key areas, as well as those with fresh ideas to challenge traditional methods. I am proud that the Civil Service values all colleagues, regardless of age, and recognises that we must build on the skills and experience of an increasingly diverse workforce so that we can continue to improve the delivery of public services for everyone in society.

"The new commitment by all departments to a no mandatory retirement age policy across the Civil Service by 2010, for those below the Senior Civil Service, is an important change to our workforce policy. It is a practical demonstration of our commitment to providing greater flexibility for our people."

Catharine Pusey, Director of The Employers Forum on Age comments, “We welcome the civil service’s decision to remove the unfair and discriminatory practice of being able to insist their employees retire at 65 and hope that it helps focus the Government’s mind ahead of the result of the Heyday challenge". This refers to the case brought by Age Concern to the Hague to abandon mandatory retirement totally in the UK.