Age Discrimination Outlawed in UK
On 1 October the new age discrimination law, the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006, will come into force in the UK. Under new legislation, it will be illegal to discriminate against workers based on age and all ageist recruitment and age discriminatory employee training policies will be outlawed. Terminating workers because of age will be illegal before the age of 65 and employers will have to give their staff six months notice of when they expect them to retire as they approach the age of 65. Workers will have the right to request that they work beyond the age of 65. The new laws are designed to protect workers of any age from age discrimination.In the USA, legislation against age discrimination has been in place for years. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) protects individuals who are 40 years of age or older and broadly bans age discrimination, specifically prohibiting:-
“Statements or specifications in job notices or advertisements of age preference and limitations. An age limit may only be specified in the rare circumstance where age has been proven to be a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) discrimination on the basis of age by apprenticeship programs, including joint labor-management apprenticeship programs; and denial of benefits to older employees. An employer may reduce benefits based on age only if the cost of providing the reduced benefits to older workers is the same as the cost of providing benefits to younger workers”.
While, according to the BBC, some companies in the UK have apparently had a knee-jerk response firing older workers in the lead up to the enforcement of the new legislation, new statistics coming out of the Bureau of Labor Statistics in the US suggests that older workers are more loyal to their employers and more conducive to promoting a low turnover work environment versus their younger counterparts. Taken from Inc.com, “the study, released Friday by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, shows that workers ages 55 to 64 have been with their current employers a median of 9.3 years, while workers ages 25 to 34 have a median tenure of only 2.9 years.”
A new Center for Retirement Research at Boston College report in the US shows that employers overall view older workers — white-collar more so than blue collar — as equally if not more productive than younger workers and “more attractive” or “equally attractive” than younger workers. According to surveyed employers, older workers have an edge in terms of knowledge of procedures and other job aspects as well as ability to interact with customers. They have “accumulated substantial knowledge and devised efficient ways to do their work.” These attitudes unfortunately do not appear to be affecting recruitment decisions which may be more influenced by the longer expected tenures of younger workers and their perceived lower costs.
See full report here.
An article in the Middle East’s Gulf Today on the 25th September, ‘Changing the patterns of rewards’ analyzes one of the key differentials between older and younger workers and suggests that the “Generation gap should be taken into account when giving perks”. The article emphasizes the value of life balance to younger workers in their 20s and 30s versus their older counterparts who were steeped in a pay-your-dues work ethic. To generation X (ages 27 to 41) the article asserts, a reward in the form of immediate paid time off may be infinitely more valuable than a bonus at the end of the year. Time is the currency of the younger generation and they are less interested in long-term compensation solutions than in short-term rewards that contribute to their work/life balance.
The article in Gulf Today titled ‘Being proud of older workers’ on 18 September may be spot on when it asserts that ‘Organisations that retain older workers have a healthy look’. The article hints that phased retirement programmes, flexible work arrangements and innovative ways to accommodate workers over retirement age may well become the new work currency as employers find themselves hard-pressed to replace retiring baby-boomers.
February 18th, 2007 at 1:59 pm
Our experience shows that there is no substitute for experience. Experienced workers, staff, and officers are a great asset to an organization. It is the primary responsibility of the employer to facilitate learning of new tools and techniques by the employee whether it is through on-the-job orientation, classroom instruction or workshop on refresher courses within the company or at outside training institutes.
An employee who is enthusiastic and willing to learn is never too old to grasp new technologies, concepts and challenges. Every employee has the limitations of intelligence, aptitude, and approach but, at the same time, every employee has the inherent potential to learn and perform better given the opportunities to do so.
Age can be a disadvantage only if an employee has become physically weak, disabled or got a terminal disease. So long as he or she is mentally and physically fit to perform his or her duties, his or her age should not be a bottleneck. Normally, the professionally-managed companies retire employees after a certain age to let younger subordinates advance in their careers. Even then, the physically and mentally fit retirees are sometimes re-hired on contract for a year or two if their subordinates are not yet ready to step into their shoes. At higher levels, the retirees are sometimes re-hired or given extension of service to perform in the same position or work as advisor or consultant to the new incumbent.
Retention of old employees in any manner gives a boost to the morale of the workforce and manifests the commitment of the organization to their employees, their experience and their value.