EDITORIAL |
Moving beyond the ‘cliff edge’? Age regulations and a sustainable future for employment in later life
The Equal Employment (Age) Regulations 2006 (hereafter Age regulations) are due to come into force on 1 October 2006. They are deemed to be secondary legislation, so there was no opportunity for amendments and only a short debate in both Houses of Parliament, before they entered the statute book. The regulations only cover age discrimination in employment and training but will apply across the whole age range. Yet, it is clear that where age-based discrimination (or ageism) is most keenly felt and where the Age regulations may have greatest impact is among those considered older workers, now usually considered by policy makers as people >50 years. They should therefore be viewed as providing a legal framework to support the access, retention and progression of such older employees.The Age regulations introduce a number of important new measures, the most controversial of which is a default retirement age of 65 years. Although employees may request to continue in work beyond this age, employers have no obligation to give reasons if they refuse such a request. Indeed, this section of the Age regulations has been considered as the most controversial. As highlighted in the recent Pensions Commission [1] document, it is likely that with increased life expectancy, particularly post 60, individuals may want or more likely need to work beyond 65. At the same time, they will be faced with the shifts away from defined benefit- to defined contribution-based occupational pensions at a time when the general public has a high level of mistrust of private sector pensions. This debate has started to break down the very idea of the concept of retirement built up throughout the 20th century [2] and enshrined within the Beveridge ‘retirement condition’.
When considering training, the Age regulations give scope for employers to use the phrase ‘in the interests of business’ as a reason to exclude those >50 from employment-based training. Furthermore, unlike sex, ‘race’ and disability discrimination legislation, age-based rules for adult training will continue and the use of genuine occupational requirements to limit a particular job to a particular age or age band will be allowed. The Age and Employment Network, formerly the Third Age Employment Network, has suggested that such exclusions run a ‘coach and horses’ through the underlying objectives of legislation. It is likely that actual day-to-day application of the legislation will largely be determined as the body of case law builds up, as was the case in the United States (and other countries) where a legal route to limiting discrimination has been the favoured policy option.
Despite all this, fundamental to any change to daily practice and the limitation of ageism, particularly in employment and training, is a change of attitudes and conventions, just as a change of attitudes and cultural acknowledgement of the stereotypical myths within sex-, race- and disability-based discriminatory practices required similar changes since the 1970s. The lead for such change must come from government and the Age regulations must only be considered a small step forward.
The recent upturn in labour market activity among older people provides an indication of New Labour's commitment to promote active ageing as a central feature of its policy and practice [3–5]. Even so, 1.3 million people >50 are claiming incapacity benefits while vacancies remain unfilled mainly in fields of technical and craft skills, people skills (including communication and customer care), management and supervisory skills [6]. The reform of incapacity benefit and the extension of the ‘Pathways to Work’ pilots [3,7] may be one means to reduce this figure, yet the suggested success of the less recent New Deal 50+ scheme as the mechanism for the sustainability of employment is not convincingly supported [8,9].
The UK Government's stated aspiration of an 80% employment rate [3] can, I suggest, only be successfully achieved when ‘older workers’ are valued as individuals, when better ways of working are widely supported (possibly via the Finnish concept of ‘workability’ [10]) and stability to work groups is provided [11]. Based upon evidence from recent research, the nature of the employment experience needs to be radically altered by the adoption of a workability approach. As indicated earlier, the 20th century was the century for the creation of ‘retirement’, this century will be one of changing working patterns, incorporating lifelong learning, increased leisure and an ‘absence’ of retirement as we currently understand it. This in effect means the full expression of the ‘active ageing’ principle [12] applying it to working time as well as non-working time across the life course. People may still work but ‘downscale’ their employment activity consistent with the current conceptualization of a ‘partial’ retirement.
These less practical concerns aside, encouraging and facilitating the skills, experience and potential of older people, results in the filling of unfilled job positions. Thus, in many cases older peoples' ‘failed’ transition into employment is shifted from the state towards the individual. In policy terms, such generalizations are not aligned with the stated policy of ‘support (to) those who cannot work’ and speaks to a blaming the victim culture.
Certainly, the policy agenda is slowly moving in this direction with recognition from the Pension Commission [1] and others [13]. The strategy document for the health and well-being of working age people jointly published by the Department of Work and Pensions and the Department of Health [14] and the appointment of a Director of Occupational Health is another positive step forward—but only another small incremental one I would suggest. The Pensions Commission [1] in particular points to the limited focus upon and provision of training opportunities for those >50. This is set against the widespread support for training for 16- to 19-year olds, a current trend supported by Age regulations. Frankly, this does not reflect the widely reported demographic shifts currently taking place. Yet, what is currently suggested is limited and piecemeal. A more radical approach, and I suggest a solution, would be for further research on the applicability of a workability approach within the UK context, prior to its full implementation.
The Age regulations therefore sit aside the government's current policy proposals contained within Opportunity Age and the more recent A New Deal for Welfare: Empowering People to Work. However, it suggests that the government should do more within the occupational health field and be proactive rather than reactive.
Senior Lecturer in Social Policy, IASS, University of Birmingham, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK
e-mail: T.Maltby{at}bham.ac.uk
References
- Pensions Commission. A New Pension Settlement for the Twenty-First Century. The Second Report of the Pension Commission. London: The Stationery Office, 2005.
- Phillipson C. Capitalism and the Construction of Old Age. London: Macmillan, 1982.
- HM Government. Opportunity Age. Meeting the Challenges of Ageing in the 21st Century, vol. 1. Cm 6466i, London: The Stationery Office, 2005.
- Department for Work and Pensions. Older Workers. Statistical Information Booklet. London: The Stationery Office, 2004.
- Phillipson C. Older workers and retirement: critical perspectives on the research literature and policy implications. Soc Policy Soc 2004;3:189–195.[CrossRef]
- Learning and Skills Council. National Employer Skills Survey: Key Findings. Coventry: LSC, 2004.
- Department for Work and Pensions. A New Deal for Welfare: Empowering People to Work. Cm6730. London: DWP, 2006.
- Karagiannaki E. Jobcentre Plus or Minus? Exploring the Performance of Jobcentre Plus for Non-Jobseekers. CASE Paper 97. London: Centre for the Analysis of Social Exclusion, 2005.
- Admasachew L, Ogilvie M, Maltby T. The Employability of Workers Over 50: Issues of Access, Retention and Progression. Final Report of the Equal "Older Worker" Research. Birmingham: University of Birmingham/Forward DP, 2005.
- Ilmarinen J, Tuomi K. Past present and future of workability. People and Work Research Reports 2004;65:1–25.
- Brooke L, Taylor P. Older workers and employment: managing age relations. Ageing Soc 2005;25:415–429.[CrossRef]
- Walker A. A strategy for active ageing. Int Soc Secur Rev 2002;55:121–139.[CrossRef]
- Hirsch D. Sustaining Working Lives. A Framework for Policy and Practice. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation, 2005.
- DWP/DH. Health, Work and Well-Being—Caring for our Future: A Strategy for the Health and Well-Being of Working Age People. London: Department for Work and Pensions, Department for Health, Health and Safety Executive, 2005.
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||