Forced retirement ends today!

At long last you cannot be sacked just because you are 65.

Such a step has been needed for years, and can surely only be a positive move for the 900,000 people – and rising – who already work beyond age 65.

Public sector urged to tap experience of older workers

Excellent article in the Guardian by Jo Adetunji pointing out amongst other things that around £31bn could be saved annually if the proportion of 50- to 69-year-olds in work increased by 0.25%. She also discusses how to make the most of the experience of older workers and how they will not necessarily be taking up posts that could be filled by younger people. Most of the over 60's that I know want flexible working and less paid work which enables them to follow other passions or provide caring when required.

Goodbye default retirement age

At long last this final piece of discriminatory legislation is being trashed. The CBI are still rabbiting on about the huge problems this will create for employers. Maybe they should talk to the many large and also smaller employers who have never used this to see just how they manage. I think it might be something to do with training their managers properly to conduct performance reviews. Sad also to see that the IOD appear to have changed their minds and also are objecting. Wonder how all those US companies manage having had to deal with this situation now for the past 20 years!

'Let us keep working after retirement' say over 50’s

Sixty per cent of over 50's feel that there is not enough help given to them to remain in the workplace after the default retirement age, despite one in three people wanting to do so, according to new research out today.

SAGA and the National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts (NESTA) say that two thirds of over 50's (67 per cent) believe a default retirement age is unnecessary. 90 per cent say that retirement should not be about age, but about ability and desire to work and 85 per cent say that the default retirement age is used as an excuse by employers to get rid of staff.

The survey of 13,040 over 50's reveals that rather than being a drain on society in retirement, a third want to continue working after retirement age with a further 12 per cent wanting to contribute to society in some way - either through volunteering or caring.

Emma Soames, editor at large, Saga Magazine, says: 'Our research very clearly shows that a default retirement age is arbitrary for many people approaching retirement and many feel unsupported, particularly if they want to continue working. Moving from full time work to retirement should be a process of winding down - more akin to strolling down to the beach rather than being pushed off the cliff edge.'

The most common reason for working after retirement was to earn money (61 per cent) followed by wanting to keep an active mind (59 per cent) and enjoyment of working (50 per cent). 46 per cent agreed that it should be for the individual to decide when to retire, not the state. 46 per cent also stated that they could not afford to stop working at the default retirement age.

Jonathan Kestenbaum, Chief Executive of NESTA, says: 'Against a backdrop of an ageing society and strained public services older people can contribute immeasurably to the economy and society. Our survey shows that they want choice and flexibility in how they live their lives. We need a radical rethink of how we engage with older people.'

Further research shows:

* A third (35 per cent) of over 50's want to continue working after the state retirement age, whether full time, part time work or by setting up a business

* A third (31 per cent) want to stop working before the state retirement age and 14 per cent want to stop working at the state retirement age

NESTA's 'Age Unlimited' programme works with people in their 50s, employers and third sector organisations to experiment with new work patterns and lifestyle choices that enable them to continue to contribute to the economy and society.

For more information please visit www.nesta.org.uk/age_unlimited

Most people want a speedy end to the DRA

Two-thirds of people support government plans to abolish the default retirement age (DRA) of 65, according to a survey of 1,011 people by charity Age UK.

The majority of respondents (70 per cent) said it was wrong to enable employers to force staff to retire when they reach a certain age.

Plans to phase out the DRA have already been announced by the coalition government but Age UK has called for an abolition deadline to be made clear when the Budget is unveiled tomorrow.

The charity has claimed that £3.5billion was wasted last year because tens of thousands of workers were forced to stop working when they reached 65. It said that people who work beyond 65 generate extra tax revenue and can reduce employers’ pension liabilities. Further government plans to raise the state pension age would save taxpayers billions of pounds, it said.

Michelle Mitchell, director of Age UK, said: "The default retirement age is a hugely unpopular law which is well past its sell-by date.

"Forcing people in later life out of the labour market when they want to work, save for their pensions and pay taxes is nonsense. It makes a mockery of the government's plans to help people work longer.

"A clear commitment to scrapping forced retirement next April is needed to end speculation and confusion among employers and employees alike. It would show how the Government was making freedom and fairness a reality for many people in later life who are denied that opportunity."

Last week Steve Webb, Pensions Minister, hinted that the DRA could be repealed much sooner than the coalition government initially suggested. He said the government’s phasing out approach would be applied “vigorously” and called the DRA an “anomaly”.

Managing an older workforce

An excellent article in the Economist gives many examples of companies that are leading the way in maximising the potential of older workers.

A forthcoming article in the Harvard Business Review by Christoph Loch of INSEAD and two colleagues looks at what happened when BMW decided to staff one of its production lines with workers of an age likely to be typical at the firm in 2017. At first “the pensioners’ line” was less productive. But the firm brought it up to the level of the rest of the factory by introducing 70 relatively small changes, such as new chairs, comfier shoes, magnifying lenses and adjustable tables.A much fuller description of this is the article in the Sunday Times by Christoph Loch.

Some companies, particularly in energy and engineering, are also realising that they could face a debilitating loss of skills when the baby-boomers retire en masse. Bosch asks all retirees to sit down for a formal interview in an attempt to “capture” their wisdom for younger workers. Construction companies such as Sweden’s Elmhults Konstruktions and the Netherlands’ Hazenberg Bouw have introduced mentoring systems that encourage prospective retirees to train their replacements.

Companies will have to do more than this if they are to survive the silver tsunami. They will have to rethink the traditional model of the career. This will mean breaking the time-honoured link between age and pay—a link which ensures that workers get ever more expensive even as their faculties decline. It will also mean treating retirement as a phased process rather than a sudden event marked by a sentimental speech and a carriage clock.

There are signs that this is beginning to happen. A few firms have introduced formal programmes of “phased retirement”, though they usually single out white-collar workers for the privilege. Some, notably consultancies and energy companies, have developed pools of retired or semi-retired workers who can be called upon to work on individual projects. Asda allows employees to work only during busy periods or take several months off in winter (a perk dubbed “Benidorm leave”). Abbott Laboratories, a large American health-care company, allows veteran staff to work for four days a week or take up to 25 extra days of holiday a year.

But there is one big problem with such seemingly neat arrangements: the plethora of age-discrimination laws that have been passed over the past few years make it harder for companies to experiment and easier for a handful of malcontents to sue.

The CBI view on Default Retirement Age

Never let it be said that I do not listen to opposing views so go to Personnel Today again to read what Katya Hall from CBI has to say about this vital issue. Of course I still think she is wrong and portrays British management as a very poor set of performance managers. She also has little idea of just what can be achieved by involving older workers in restructuring jobs. Anyway - judge for yourself!

Employers Forum on Age argues against Default Retirement Age

Rachel Krys, campaign director for the Employers Forum on Age, has written a most insightful article for Personnel Today in which as well as arguing against the DRA on age discrimination grounds points out the strange and very old fashioned thinking that emanates from the CBI on this issue. This is so good that I am passing on an extract from the article.


"No doubt the CBI will submit its research, which states that 81% of requests to remain working are being accepted. This is supported by the EFA's own research. But we have also submitted the research we carried out with 200 HR professionals last summer. It found that almost two-thirds (64%) of employers who operate a mandatory retirement age agree that it can lead to a loss of valuable knowledge and talent.
Among those organisations that have removed the mandatory retirement age, more than three-quarters considered it a positive step for their organisation and said it helped maintain valuable skills and their organisation's customer-facing image and reputation.
But what is happening to the people whose requests to stay on weren't granted? And how many are not even getting to that stage because there is a strong culture that encourages people to retire? If they are being forced to retire against their will, there is nothing they can do about it.
In addition to the research, the EFA also carried out focus groups with employers, exploring the barriers to removing the DRA. The central concern continues to be lack of confidence in their own performance management systems. This is exacerbated by the ongoing belief that performance declines rapidly with age and people will want to work for ever, given the chance. Although there is little evidence to support these stereotypes, the image that there will be old people who can't do the job, clogging up the corridors, is persistent.
Few employers have much confidence in their appraisal schemes. But the organisations that have removed a retirement age, including B&Q, Nationwide, JD Wetherspoon, Marks and Spencer and BT, have identified an improvement in the rigour and effectiveness of their performance management schemes as one of the biggest benefits. When you take away retirement, managers can no longer allow poor performers to coast.
The argument that retirement allows people to leave work with dignity is still used, and some employers seem to be clinging onto this paternalistic approach. However, none of the employers who operate without a retirement age have any evidence that there is a loss of dignity or that older workers are being forced to stay on when they are no longer capable. In reality, the majority of employees are very alert to their capabilities and most want to continue working for a relatively short time to fit in with other commitments they have."

Baby boomers are not just hedonists

This is the title of an entertaining article by Brian Groom in the FT this week. He takes a bit of a swipe at David Willetts new book the subject of which is clear from its title: The Pinch: How the Baby Boomers Stole Their Children’s Future and How They Can Give It Back.  Apparently we have been having a 50 year party leaving the mess for our kids to pick up. I think we may just have contributed to some extraordinary social developments whilst 'partying' and of course we are now subsidising those children and their children in the many ways that we have posted about on this site over the past year or so. So I agree totally with Brian that we are not just hedonists. I hope, however, that David's book does not herald a change of attitude towards default retirement age. I interviewed him a year ago and he was clearly against it at that point but more recently Theresa May appears to be fence sitting. Maybe another Conservative policy that might benefit from clarity?

Equality and Human Rights Commission

An excellent article in the Times by Baroness Prosser today states that:
"A quiet revolution is taking place in attitudes towards ageing and work. The stereotype used to say that older workers were winding down as they watched the clock. Research from the Equality and Human Rights Commission shows that the opposite is true. More than half of people aged 50 and over hope to keep on working past the state pension age.

Most are still keen to learn and develop and more than twice as many aspire to get promoted than to downshift. In other words, many do not want to disengage from the world of work: they want to become more involved.

That change in expectations has gone alongside a change in lifestyles. Getting older no longer automatically means feeling less healthy. More than three fifths of older workers say that they feel “as fit as ever”. Nor should we automatically assume that older people have finished with their family responsibilities. Nearly one in ten 70-75 year olds still support their children financially.

The case for enabling people to work for longer as a matter of personal choice is strong, but allied to the economic argument, it becomes irresistible. Research from the National Institute of Economic and Social Research shows that extending working lives by 18 months would inject £15 billion into British economy. In the current economic climate that could hardly be more welcome".

Older workers are finding it harder than any other age group to get a job after being made redundant.

Barriers, ranging from legislation to old-fashioned prejudice, keep them out of work. Ageism already costs the economy up to an estimated £30 billion each year. If this is a problem today, very soon it will be a major headache. In as little as 20 years’ time, half of us will be aged 50 or over. Overlooking that wealth of talent and experience is a sure way to make the economy suffer.

That’s why it’s high time to match the revolution in older people’s lifestyles and attitudes with a revolution in workplace practices. The Equality and Human Rights Commission is recommending a series of urgent steps to enable British business to adapt and thrive in the 21st century.

First, do away with the default retirement age. There is no more obvious form of unfair discrimination against older people. But this needs to be accompanied by a range of thoughtful changes in employer practices.

Most important is flexibility. Sixty eight per cent of over-50s who are unemployed but below pension age, and 85 per cent of people who are economically inactive and over pension age, said that greater availability of flexible and part-time work would help them to find jobs. We believe that it makes sense to extend the right to request flexible working to everyone.

It’s also time to look again at recruitment, training and workplace health programmes, where small but significant changes could help employers to attract and retain the talented people they need.

And yet we still have commentators moaning on about older workers taking jobs away from younger ones, managers having to spent too much time managing performance and maybe having to tell someone that they are not really capable of doing a job anymore. Note that last statement - not that someone is too old to be doing this job but not capable of doing it. Is not that a managerial function for any age?

We are still awaiting an official G'ment response to all of this and indeed to Harriet Harmon's views that are very much in line with this new report. The Lib Dems are totally against the Default Retirement Age although the Tories now seem to be wavering on the sidelines. I was told categorically by David Willetts 6 months ago that they were against this but maybe some of their business supporters from the CBI have been nobbling them. The same group that have nobbled Lord Mandelson. Come on you commentators - just look at what a non issue this is in the US where it was abandoned over a decade ago.

Harriet Harmon finally 'comes out'

The minister responsible for equality has finally spoken, hopefully on behalf of the G'ment, stating that a major shake-up in the law is vital to smash the idea that people are 'past it' once they hit 65.

In an interview with the Daily Mail, Miss Harman, said it should be scrapped. Older people would also be given the right to request flexible hours from their employer. People would not be forced to work beyond 65, but would have the option to choose to - meaning they could stay on into their 70s or even their 80s. Like parents with young children, they should also get a legal right to ask to work part-time or from home, or make a range of other variations to their hours, Miss Harman said.

The change in the law would cover staff who have already signed contracts that say they will retire at the normal age.

Having reported this good news the Mail then goes on to comment how unpopular this will be with employers. Clearly the reporter has not done his research. The majority of employers have not signed up for default retirement. The CBI still stands out as the one organisation that has little confidence in managers being able to conduct proper performance reviews. They also seem to be blissfully unaware that all the research we have on older workers states that they do not want more of the same. They want to 'downsize' their jobs. Most are prepared to accept less money for less stress and for fewer days at work. And the upside is that with the demographic timebomb shortly to explode they will be grateful not to lose the expertise and wisdom of this older worker group.

Such a shame that it has taken the Hague case and years of wasted time and distress caused to those approaching 65 for the G'ment to join the other political parties and most other relevant organisations in putting a stop to what Ms Harmon actually calls the 'last legally permitted discrimination' which is against the elderly.

Lib Dems attack the high court ruling

Greg Mulholland, as it happens my local MP in Leeds North West, is the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for older people and he has just sent me his official statement on the high court ruling on the DRA.
"

“I am very disappointed that the High Court did not seize this opportunity to abolish the mandatory retirement age.

“It seems extraordinary that just because somebody reaches the age of 65 their employer is able to say that they are no longer fit for purpose.

“The Judge recognised that there is now a compelling case for changes to retirement law and I am hopeful that there will be a more progressive review in the future."

And the g'ments response is .............

Age Concern reveals background behind high court decision on DRA

Age Concern plans to take the battle to Parliament as High Court upholds Default Retirement Age.

Ruling on the future of forced retirement ages‚ a high court judge actually revealed that the Government had only avoided defeat because ministers had already caved in to pressure for a review in 2010. Mr Justice Blake said: ‘I cannot presently see how 65 could remain as a DRA after the review’.

The fate of millions of people who want or need to work beyond the age of 65 now lies directly in the hands of MPs and peers‚ says Age Concern and Help the Aged.

Andrew Lockley‚ Head of Irwin Mitchell’s Public Law team‚ which represented Age Concern and Help the Aged‚ said:

“The judge’s criticism of the Government’s approach to the default retirement age will be seen as justifying the strenuous efforts made by Age Concern and Help the Aged in this litigation. Had the Government not pre-empted this and announced a review while this case was ongoing‚ then the ruling would have gone against it.

“The judge has effectively given the Government breathing space to go away and change the rules. But his comments that he cannot see how the DRA can stay at 65 will give renewed hope to thousands of workers approaching that age. Essentially‚ the Government has been told to think again.”

UK retirement age challenge fails

Unbelievable but sadly only too believable. The High Court has ruled that it is legal for UK employers to force workers to retire at the age of 65.

In the UK, a worker can see their employment end at the age of 65 without any redundancy payment - even if they do not want to retire.

The case had been brought by Age Concern and Help the Aged which argued that the compulsory retirement age goes against EU regulations.

But their challenge, heard in July, has now been thrown out by the court. As usual we have judges making crucial social decisions with no account given to social implications. Maybe we should throw them out at 65 instead of being able to continue until at least 70 and then most of them can continue to do a range of legal work up until 75. More and more institutions are lining up to ditch this policy. Even this G'ment has brought forward a review of this to 2010 - when of course they may not be in power. In the meantime thousands of people will have their livelihood stopped at exactly the same time as the G'ment are trying to encourage older people to say in employment longer. Does joined up thinking mean anything to these people! Of course MP's also are not thrown out at 65.....