UK 
United States
What can governments realistically do when people are living longer (putting a large strain on healthcare), but it’s causing pensions to cost ever-greater proportions of national GDP?
This is a question that’s been plaguing most administrations the world over for some years now, and the unpopular move most of them have already taken has been to increase the age at which people can start to receive their state pension.
And so it is that this month marks one year to go before the start of the next upward rise in the age the state pension age (to 67) – an age which, for most Britons, is also realistically is the first time they’re able to consider retiring.
The law:
Tina Chander, founder of End Workplace Bullying Day (and head of employment law at Wright Hassall) says:
“Age is a protected characteristic. If an employee raises concerns that they are being treated differently or less favourably due to their age, HR practitioners must take the complaint seriously. But age should never be a barrier. People are working for longer, but older employees should never be underestimated. They not only bring invaluable experience to the workplace but are also more likely to have a broader skill set that helps create a well-rounded workforce. As an employer, it’s vital that promotions and career development opportunities are based on merit, not age. This is achieved by creating a culture where all of your employees feel encouraged to progress, regardless of their age or any other protected characteristic. Inclusive workplaces benefit everyone.”
The change reflects the fact that according to the Pensions Policy Institute most people can still expect to live for 22.5-26 years after they retire. Rising lifespan is leading some – including the International Longevity Centre – to even propose raising the state pension age to 70 or 71.
But while adding an extra year before the state pension kicks in will see more older workers join the already swelling numbers of over 65s in employment (there were 1.4million in 2023), there is concern that at the very time workplaces will start to get even older, age bias and discrimination is not improving.
Data suggests that it is already the case that older workers are the least likely to receive workplace training (more than a third of over 55s do not, compared to 83% for those aged 18-34 according to research by City & Guilds), and that age discrimination is the one form of discrimination employees still feel the most.
For despite the fact that there is no default retirement age, and the fact that there are 11million workers aged 50 and over (4 million more than 20 years ago), research by HR and payroll software provider, Ciphr, finds ageism is the most common form of discrimination employees say they face. Some 15% of staff it polled said they felt their age played a part in not getting jobs they’ve applied for. Overall 8% said they experienced workplace discrimination based on their age. The conclusion of the Centre for Better Ageing – which launched its ‘Age-friendly Employer’ kite mark two years ago – is succinct: It describes ageism as “a prejudice hidden in plain sight.”
Says its Deputy Director for Work Dr Emily Andrews: “While we no longer have a retirement age, there is a direct correlation between the state pension age and numbers of older employees still in work. The last time the state pension age increased from 65 to 66, there was a 7% rise in the numbers of 65+ workers in employment.”
She adds: “But while the one-year-to-go countdown clock is ticking, ageism is still there. It happens in recruitment with recent Total Jobs data finding most recruiters think 57 is the age at which people become too old’. But there are also downright fallacies – including the notion that older people have higher sickness absence [they don’t] and they are less likely to stay.”
Employers aren’t surprised when a 25 year old leaves after two years, but when they won’t hire someone because they’re 63/64 because they think they’ll retire. That’s plain ageism
She continues: “If you want to look at data, it actually shows that older workers typically have lower turnover rates. Employers aren’t surprised when a 25 year old leaves after two years, but when they won’t hire someone because they’re 63/64 because they think they’ll retire. That’s plain ageism.”
What will happen, she admits, is that older people will typically begin to have more ongoing health issues, and possibly caring responsibilities, but she says the onus is on employers to provide all the things a good employers should – flexibility around working hours, care leave; making reasonable adjustments if people need it. She says: “It’s typically the least healthy, and those who haven’t got a private pension that need to stay working. But these people also face the most barriers. Employers must do more to support these people.”
So what are employers who ‘do’ want to encourage older people to join them, or want their exiting staff to stay working for longer, actually doing about it?
HR Grapevine spoke to two organisations looking to promote themselves to older workers:
Continue reading for FREE!
Sign up for a myGrapevine account to get:
- Unlimited access to News content
- The latest Features, Columns & Opinions
- A full range of specialist HR newsletters to choose from
