New rules usher in an age of reason for mature workforce

Published on Saturday 30 September 2006 00:59

WHEN MIKE Russell retired at the age of 60, it wasn't his decision, but that of his employers.

With his firm Scottish Enterprise's standard retirement age pegged at that milestone, it was normal procedure for those hitting the big 6-0 to take the gold watch, say their goodbyes, and swap office hours for life on the golf course. Russell, however, did not relish the prospect.

"I was disappointed," he says. "I still enjoyed my job, yet I couldn't continue." A former engineer, company manager and entrepreneur who was used to being kept on his toes, Russell quickly got bored with life as a retiree.

"I was fed up," he says. "Even the dog was fed up, it was being walked so often."

So, after three years spent twiddling his thumbs, Russell applied for a job at IKEA. "Age was never mentioned during the interview process," he says. "I was prepared to try and overcome any prejudice I might encounter over my age, because I was aware that it happened: I've even worked with people in the past, giving advice on how to make it less obvious on your CV that you're not young. But it didn't happen. I was welcomed."

Now 66 and working as a kitchen planner at the Swedish company's Edinburgh store, Russell is part of a minority in a country where maturity, particularly within the workplace, is often seen as more of a hindrance than a help. And up until now, the law has agreed.

Passed over for promotion, first to go in the redundancy rounds, forced to retire before they are ready and even the butt of ageist jokes - all are common factors among the 50-plus workforce. Yet despite the evidence, those who have experienced age discrimination in employment have never had any legal grounds for redress.

From tomorrow, however, all that will change. The Age Discrimination Act will introduce a raft of new employment policies which will, for the first time, give employees of all ages the right to make a claim on the grounds of age discrimination.

It is, many argue, long overdue. Age Concern estimates that around 1.8 million people over the age of 55 across the UK have suffered ageism in employment, and it's not something confined to labour-heavy professions, or even middle management.

Lord Browne, group chief executive of BP, is being forced to retire at 60 as a result of his company's own retirement policy, and recently hit out at mandatory retirement ages, saying "the waste is shocking, and the prejudice is intolerable".

So what, then, according to the Act, constitutes age discrimination?

"The people over the age of 50 who come to us most often about employment issues are those who have left a job and cannot find a new one, because companies are reluctant to hire someone of their age," says Helena Scott, head of policy and research at Age Concern Scotland.

"This is particularly true if they are nearing retirement age. Within an organisation, they may find themselves being passed over for promotion because companies feel they won't get a full return on their investment, so to speak.

"It may also be something like training, where staff feel they're not being given the same training as younger colleagues because of their age."

The new laws will address these issues, giving staff the right to take action against their employer if they feel they are being discriminated against, often via an employment tribunal. They will also tighten the legality on indirect or "stealth" discrimination, meaning, for example, that a firm introducing a fitness test which all employees would be required to pass will now have to fully justify its necessity.

"If someone is let go from a company, or they're passed over for a job, no-one ever says it's because they're too old," points out Lindsay Scott of Help the Aged Scotland. "But it is often the real reason."

Harassment is also addressed. If, for example, someone with a significantly younger spouse or partner finds themselves the subject of repeated comments or jokes about it in the workplace, this may be deemed unlawful behaviour.

Retirement laws, as Lord Browne will no doubt be delighted to hear, are also being shaken up. Until now, the UK has had no mandatory retirement age, with many cut-off points being fixed by individual companies. The average retirement age is currently 63. The new legislation will mean that the mandatory retirement age will be fixed at 65, while those over that age will have the right to request that they carry on working.

If an employer tries to force a member of staff to retire under the age of 65, the employee can claim unfair dismissal.

Anne Berczuk, now 65 and working at John Lewis in Edinburgh, took early retirement in her late 50s when she moved to Oxford, but soon found a new job with the Post Office. When she moved back to Scotland three years later she wanted to keep working for the organisation, but arriving in Edinburgh the day before her 60th birthday, the Post Office's cut-off age, was unable to.

"If these laws had been in place then I think I would have stayed with them," she says. "It was interesting work, and hard, but I enjoyed it."

Two years later and keen to get back to work, she was advised by a friend to apply for a job at John Lewis, - a partnership known for its positive attitude towards older workers - where she now does two days a week, and has been given approval to stay on for as long as she wants.

As pensions dwindle, women choose to have children later in life and life expectancy increases, the laws are part of a wider, more profound change in the world of employment. Fifteen years from now, a third of the UK's workforce will be made up of over-50s.

"We've got the babyboomers creeping up now, who have a completely different attitude to life from previous generations," says Miss Scott. "They're just not going to tolerate discrimination, in employment or in other areas."

Both Age Concern and Help the Aged feel that the legislation is a good start, but not much more than that.

"Ageism covers a far wider area than just employment, and we want to see wider protective legislation," says Miss Scott.

"We want to see it cover goods and services: insurance, for example, and travel. Age has to become compatible with gender, disability and race."

"There needs to be a complete change in mindset," adds Mr Scott. "This outdated image that once you're past 50 you start losing your marbles is offensive, and older people are sick of it.

"Younger people are going to have to reconcile themselves to the fact that employers are going to start treating all older people seriously, as well as remembering that, one day, they will be that age too."

So, is an over-50s office the future? Laura Strong, communications manager at IKEA Edinburgh, says their customers love dealing with older staff. "They're more likely to spend a bit of time with each customer, and as quite a few of our customers are in that age bracket too, they identify with them. We positively encourage older staff."

Russell works in a department where the staff age range spans 50 years, but he says they all get on well. He, for one, has no plans to go anywhere in the near future.

"As long as I'm fit and capable," he says, "I'll be working here."

Firms confused by anti-ageism laws

EMPLOYERS say they are "confused" about new age-discrimination measures which become law tomorrow, according to a report.

Research among 150 organisations employing almost half a million workers revealed that many are retaining practices which would fall foul of the regulations.

And two out of five questioned by law firm Eversheds expressed fears that they risked breaching the law.

It bans workers from being discriminated against on age grounds - whether they are young or old - as long as they are under 65.

Employers will also have to treat all workers equally in terms of promotion and training, irrespective of age.

Eversheds conducted the research during the past few weeks among human-resources directors and senior managers and said the feedback was "worrying".

Fewer than two out of three have trained managers involved in recruitment on the implications of the new laws, which are aimed at tackling age discrimination in the workplace such as including ages in job adverts.

Audrey Williams, of Eversheds, said: "The recruitment process could become a breeding ground for potential claims.

"Continuing to ask for a minimum period of experience is a risky approach and open to challenge from younger employees. Similarly, continuing to ask for a date of birth on application forms isn't in line with the spirit of the legislation and opens employers up to be challenged."

Alistair Darling, the Trade and Industry Secretary, yesterday defended the new measures, despite claims that employers found them "oppressive".

Mr Darling said: "Inevitably, when you've got new legislation, there's always going to be some degree of uncertainty.

"We've tried to put in place something that is common sense, and something that also will help change people's general culture and attitude towards age."

Jim Price, a Glasgow-based employment-law specialist with Ross Harper, said that few people understood the full implications of the new law.

He added: "This will be one of the most far-reaching pieces of legislation to impact on the UK workforce ever.

"Unlike legislation on sex and race discrimination, the Age Discrimination Act will affect everyone - it will affect a 16-year-old going for their first job to a 60-year-old father.

"And if employers are not aware of the potential litigation against them, then they will very quickly become aware."

RAYMOND HAINEY

All you need to know

Q: How will the law change?

A: From Sunday, it will be against the law to discriminate against workers under the age of 65 on age grounds. That means making someone redundant because they are too old, or too young, will be illegal.

Q: Will the law make it easier for older people to find a job?

A: It should do. Firms will not be able to refuse employment on the grounds of age. It will also be illegal to specify an age or use phrases like "young and energetic" or "mature" in job adverts.

Q: Can people still call colleagues "wrinklies" and "dinosaurs" or "young whippersnappers"?

A: If someone can prove that this kind of office banter amounts to harassment, they can make a claim to an industrial tribunal.

Q: The minimum wage regulations specify a higher rate for over-21s. Will this become illegal?

A: No. The new law specifically allows the lower minimum rates to be paid to those aged 61-17 and 18-21 to continue.

Q: Does it mean I can no longer retire early?

A: No. People are still free to retire whenever they like.

Q: Are any businesses or industries exempt?

A: Yes. Industries where retirement before 65 can be "objectively justified" - usually on fitness grounds; firefighting and the military, for example.

Q: Can employers still refuse to employ someone aged over 65?

A: Yes. From six months before the 65th birthday, it will not be illegal to refuse employment on age grounds.

Q: I'm nearing retirement age. What difference will it make to me?

A: Workers will now have to be given six months' notice that their employer wants them to retire. The employee will be allowed to request in writing that they continue. Employers will be able to refuse the request without a written explanation.

Q: Will the new law mean Saga Holidays for older people and Club 18-30 trips for the young will be forced to close?

A: No. The regulations cover the workplace, not provision of goods and services.

Q: Will the new legislation lead to a flood of claims for age-related discrimination?

A: Probably. Recruitment experts have already warned employers to brace themselves for a surge in the number of age-related unfair dismissal cases.