Christmas 2009: Young and Old

A recent BMJ article quoted some research into how articles published between January 1997 and April 2008 the Economist dealt with ageing. Most featured pensions, demography, and politics. Of these 64% portrayed population ageing as a burden and 12% as a benefit; 24% had a balanced view. Most articles therefore showed a predominantly ageist view of older people as a burden on society, often portraying them as frail non-contributors. Recurrent themes included pension and demographic "time bombs" and future unsustainable costs of health care for older people. The researchers concluded that this negative view of older people might be influential in shaping the attitudes of readers, who include opinion formers in political and economic circles. Gerontologists (including geriatricians) need to engage with influential media, as well as helping to promote a professional development of journalists that is informed and knowledgeable about the negative impact of ageism on the wellbeing of older people. Amen to that!

ACAS can help in disputes about ageing

I had a very interesting discussion with the regional director of ACAS in Yorkshire and Humberside recently and was amazed at the range of activities they get involved in - including helping individuals to examine whether or not they have a case against their employers. They handle around 1 million calls a year from people calling for advice and this of course would include issues around age discrimination. Have a look at their online brochure for details of what they do.

EU backs forced retirement at 65

Appalling news this morning as the European Court of Justice ruled that the UK set-up, where people can be forced to retire at 65, is not a breach of EU legislation – as long as it had ‘a legitimate aim related to employment and social policy’. Age Concern, the charity that brought the case, arguing that it was illegal to dismiss people purely on age grounds, now has to rely on the UK High Court ruling against it. At a time when people actually want to keep working beyond 65 for financial reasons, and rising life expectancy is increasing the cost of supporting pensioners, surely something has to give?
Many of us are working to overthrow this absurd and unjust law including the two main opposition parties. Let us see if this Government will bend to pressure on this vital issue.

Rolls Royce loses landmark age discrimination case

The Times reports today that Unite, Britain’s biggest union, today won what it hailed as a landmark ruling in one of the first cases on age discrimination to be considered by the courts.

A judge in the High Court in London ruled in favour of Unite in a legal dispute with Rolls-Royce over whether long service should be taken into account when selecting workers for redundancy.

The union hailed the ruling as setting a precedent for protecting older workers from redundancy.

What I found particularly sad about this were some of the comments that appeared online following publication. I reproduce 2 to illustrate what we are up against:

'Last in, first out' policies are fairer than discriminating against older workers in my opinion. I am 18, you can't call me biased! It's just they are somewhat less attractive to new employers as the older you get, the harder it is to learn new information, so they viewed as harder to train!"

'So the old timers have the best pensions and the most employment protection. The young, well they just have to pay the taxes to support the old people whilst not being able to afford to buy a house or save for a pension and now fired before the old! Not a long run solution is it?'

These illustrate what could be growing resentment from younger generations to what they see as onerous commitments and also the stereotyping that still exists, viz we are harder to train as we don't learn so easily. When our book is published next month look at the studies that we quote that categorically refute this.