Age discrimination: the battle begins
From October 1, new legislation is set to sweep away age discrimination. But will it succeed? Serious problems may lie ahead for employers and older workersLaws against discrimation on grounds of sex or race have been with us for 30 years, yet the most widespread discrimination of all, that of age – particularly against older people – has carried on unchecked. Until now. From October 1, age discrimination will be outlawed and companies will no longer be able to sack people or turn away applicants purely because of their age. Countless older workers have personal experience of how tough it can be once you turn 50 to remain in employment or find a new job. So the new law is seen by many as a leap forward. But is it? Certainly it is well-intentioned but will it really prevent older people continuing to find themselves frustrated, demoralised and angry because they want to work but are denied the opportunity? Everyone involved agrees that the most optimistic aspect of the new law is that it is a positive move in the right direction, but it will be a long time before discrimination against older workers is eradicated. It is already clear that the law will have unintended consequences. Its aim is to help around 1,000,000 older people into work but companies won’t actually be able to advertise for older workers, even if they want them. That would be discriminating against younger applicants. Already confusion is rife – would advertising in a medium likely to be seen primarily by a particular age range be seen as discriminatory and therefore illegal, for instance? And to what degree: how likely is likely? Lucy Anderson, equality officer at the Trades Union Congress, says: “The problem with the regulations is that they are very complicated. They have left a lot of questions up to legal interpretation. Inevitably there will be challenges to them and that is likely to happen quite quickly.” The unions and business agree. And Rachel Krys, of the Employers Forum On Age – which promotes good practice among employers – also believes age discrimination will not be swept away at a stroke. She says: “Getting the message out is going to be a long haul. “The Age Discrimination Act will work in a variety of ways. Some businesses will only respond to legislation, while others react well to the social justice argument. Tribunals will end up deciding what the age discrimination regulations look like, and I think that’s unfortunate.”
Well before the legislation came into effect, some companies recognised the value of employing and retaining older workers. B&Q embraced the idea years ago. Asda, HBOS, Barclays, GlaxoSmithKline and Nationwide also adopted policies to attract and retain older workers. The Employers Forum on Age, which was launched a decade ago with 10 members, now represents 245 companies.
There is cheering news, too, from the Office of National Statistics, which says 40 per cent of the jobs created over the past 12 months have been filled by people over pensionable age. The Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), which is responsible for policing age discrimination, feels that a great deal has been learnt from the introduction of sex and race laws. They are approaching the new age discrimination situation from two directions – focusing on the legal framework, which allows over-sixties for the first time to take cases to industrial tribunals, while also running campaigns to put the case against discrimination. A spokeswoman for the DTI said: “More employers now realise that the working population is getting older and there is a skills gap which can’t just be plugged by younger workers coming into the jobs market.” That certainly isn’t the experience of all workers over 50. Martin Lloyd-Penny is a chartered accountant who had never had difficulty in finding work. But when at the age of 52 he lost his job, “I discovered it suddenly seemed to be a lot harder. I spent nine months trudging round agencies and when I did get an interview, it struck me that the people I was talking to were half my age.” Martin solved his problem by setting up a website called Mature Accountants and in no time he was contacted by dozens of older people who were having problems finding work. He now has a growing list of employers who are happy to hire the people on his books. So does he think the new law will make a huge difference? “I can’t really see it,” Martin says. “I don’t see it out there. A lot of companies still don’t embrace the fact that older people offer as much value as younger ones – more value in some cases.” He adds: “From my experience, lawyers haven’t got a clue as to how the new Act will work.” Rachel Krys accepts that some companies need the force of law to persuade them not to discriminate, but says that the work of her organisation in promoting best practice has been highly effective. Age discrimination doesn’t only harm individuals. It is damaging the economy, which is failing to use huge numbers of potential workers – people with a lifetime of experience, too. It is estimated that the cost to the economy in lost output caused by age discrimination could be as much as £31 billion a year. The business case for ending discrimination has been particularly recognised by the financial services industry. Nationwide has had a flexible retirement policy since 2001, and last year decided to extend the upper age limit for retirement to 75 as part of its policy on age discrimination. Darren Palmer, Nationwide’s senior personnel manager, said: “There is a strong correlation between employee satisfaction, customer satisfaction and the success of any business. We have found that older employees help increase the levels of satisfaction among our customers. “We’ve had lots of positive feedback on what we’ve done so far and we’re pleased with what we’ve achieved, but we know it’s not ending there. There’s a lot still for us to do over the coming years as the workforce and society change, and we’ve got to keep monitoring and reviewing what we’re doing.” B&Q has successfully operated without a retirement age for more than 15 years, allowing employees to continue working for as long as they want to. The company found that older workers are no less productive than younger ones, are extremely conscientious and have real enthusiasm for the job. Older employees stay on not just for the money but because they want to. They enjoy the social side and mixing with colleagues and customers. The firm also finds that older workers help younger ones. The advantages of employing older people are obvious to B&Q, yet many firms still do not. They continue to get rid of older workers, often simply because they think they will get more value out of younger ones. But companies which don’t learn to recognise why they should employ older workers are going to lose out, as well as break the law. The population statistics are stark. By 2010, almost 40 per cent of the labour force will be aged 45 and over – an increase of 5 per cent in 10 years. And the number of older workers will continue to rise while the number of younger employees will decrease. Companies which don’t recognise those facts will not only lose advantages, they will risk being dragged before tribunals by people who think they have been discriminated against. These are very early days for the age discrimination law, but it seems unlikely that it will prompt rapid major changes. It needs monitoring, and if the Government won’t do that, Saga Magazine will. Have you experienced ageist problems when seeking employment? If so, e-mail The Editor, or post a comment on our message board Written by David Seymour
This article was created: 18 August 2006.
This article was last edited: 6 November 2006.
 Email  Back to top
|
