Author Archives: Christopher Brooks

Five years on: what impact have the Age Regulations really had?

With the end of the Default Retirement Age gaining much attention over the weekend, 1 October 2011 also marked another, perhaps less newsworthy, milestone – it was the fifth anniversary of the implementation of the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations.

The regulations made age discrimination in employment illegal, and gave workers aged 65+ rights regarding unfair dismissal and redundancy.

It was an attempt to make a clear statement against age discrimination, but one which failed because of a huge anomaly contained within it.

As well as the regulations’ good points, they also included a new policy – the Default Retirement Age – which allowed employers to forcibly retire people aged 65 and above for no reason other than their age.

What impact have the Regulations had?

To mark this anniversary, Age UK has looked at the practical impact of the regulations on employer policies and practice towards older workers. Continue reading

Flexible working – the future of work?

The ability to work flexibly is becoming an increasingly important part of modern working life, especially for older workers.

Altering working patterns to meet personal commitments is, for many, essential to remaining in employment. This is especially true for those with family and caring responsibilities but still need to earn the wages from a full time job, or those who wish to wind down their careers.

And there are countless other examples of circumstances where individuals aged 50+ can benefit from altered working patterns.

So what actually is flexible working? Continue reading

The end of forced retirement – today!

The 6th of April 2011 marks a milestone in the employment rights of older workers. Employers will no longer be able to issue forced retirement notices to their 65+ workers, meaning that for the first time employees in this age group will have the same legal protection as their younger colleagues.

Such a step has been needed for years, and can surely only be a positive move for the 900,000 people – and rising – who already work beyond age 65.  Chart 1 shows the upwards trend in people working at age 65 and above, and how this has increased by over 50 per cent going back to May 2005. While not everyone wants to continue to work after 65, for those who do the end of forced retirement will restore personal choice and economic independence, allowing people continue to build pension provision and benefit from the social networks that many workplaces bring.

Chart 1: numbers in employment aged 65+

So we congratulate the Government for sticking to their guns and ending this deeply unfair practice.

There have, however, been a couple of minor changes to the transitional arrangements. The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills had originally proposed having a blanket end to forced retirement on 30 September 2011 i.e. within six months of the last notice-issuing day (yesterday). However, last minute changes to the transitional arrangements have meant that employers will still be able to give up to a years notice to their employees – providing they are 65 before October 2011– meaning workers could be forced out until April 2012. In addition, it will still be possible to agree an extension of up to a furher six months, meaning the final forced retirements could take place as far away as October 2012. This is disappointing for many, but for some it will be considered preferable to being forced out of work immediately.

So what’s likely to happen in the post-DRA world? Continue reading

A lump of fallacy, or two plus two does not equal five

This is a joint post from Christopher Brooks, Employment and Skills Policy Adviser, and Jose Iparraguirre, Chief Economist.

A worrying trend has recently emerged among the policy commentariat, which is taking aim at older workers and laying the blame for the high rates of youth unemployment at their door. Yes, the debate around ‘job blocking’ has emerged once again, in spite of academic and mainstream policy thinking having discredited this theory many, many years ago.

Every now and again the ‘job blocking’ argument manifests itself in policy. Most notably for our purposes, in 1970s Britain there was a predominant view that older workers directly ‘blocked’ younger workers from entering the workforce. The Government of the day introduced the Job Release Scheme in response, which incentivised early retirement on the basis that the unemployed youth would then move into the vacancies. The scheme ran for around a decade before ending as a total and spectacular failure – not only had the scheme failed to improve youth unemployment, but it had proven that if anything there was a direct correlation between high employment rates among older workers  and high employment rates among younger workers.

Since then, thankfully, thinking among governments and policy makers has moved on, and the real relationship and causes – that the labour market is highly flexible, and that there is precious little competition for jobs between young and older seekers – have been recognised.

But every now and again the original theory rears its ugly head. Indeed, it is so well-known that economists have even coined a term for it: the ‘lump-of-labour’ fallacy. For some background, this theory has been around since the 19th century, and it seems to die hard (according to Nobel-prize winning economist Paul Krugman, it tends to bounce back whenever the economy contracts).

Firstly, what it is all about? During this current contraction of economic activity employment levels among older people have been going up whereas the number of younger people in employment has been falling. This is true both for men and women (especially above state pension age).

Continue reading