Lifetime 9 to 5 forever

The Government has announced proposals to abolish mandatory retirement ages within companies and to introduce legislation to stop age discrimination. There is a code of practice against such discrimination, but it is voluntary rather than statutory. 

Plans to enshrine the rights of older workers in law could be seen as a cynical pre-election ploy to mollify the mature voter. However, there is more to it than that. A European directive dictates that all member states must bring in laws to ban age discrimination by 2006. The demographics of a maturing population and a low birthrate mean that there are not enough young people to replace those now retiring. The loss of experience on mandatory retirement is already being felt by employers, according to Sam Mercer, the campaigns director of the Employers Forum on Age, an organisation devoted to age-related employment issues to which 170 companies subscribe. 

“Sixty-eight per cent of UK companies have skills shortages,” she says. “Employers are waking up to the fact that there’s this huge untapped resource in front of them.” 

Workers themselves no longer necessarily want to retire — they simply do not fit the stereotype of the scatty OAP, content to spend their twilight years tending herbaceous borders and scaring their grandchildren. With an increasing number of people marrying later, marrying for the second time, or opting for singledom, many don’t have grandchildren. Their aspirations are different — they might want to continue employment to maintain their quality of life. 

“A 65-year-old today is different from a 65-year-old of two decades ago,” says Mercer. “People are healthier, live longer and may have 30 years in front of them. They might still have mortgages to pay, or be putting their children through university. Jobs aren’t as physical as they used to be. What we’re saying is that the old way of doing things just doesn’t work any more. Making people retire at the same age is a policy that belongs in a past century. 

Obviously many people won’t want to work flat out until they’re 70, but employers need to be more flexible so that older employees can perhaps reduce their hours or responsibility.” 

People who do wish to drop out at 65 should still be able to do so, she adds. 

Ramsey Hertzog is a good example of someone for whom personal circumstances and compulsory retirement were not compatible. The 59-year-old former police inspector had to retire from the force six years ago after 32 years of service. Normally it’s 30 years for lower-ranking officers; Hertzog managed to persuade his bosses to let him stay for an extra two years, during which time he specialised in race relations. “It was a fantastic job and I didn’t want to go,” says Hertzog, who now works as a security guard and receptionist at a call centre in Sheffield. 

“I can understand that if you are in your fifties you may not want to don riot gear any more, but I still wanted to earn a salary and keep my mind occupied.” 

Money was especially important — Hertzog was going through a divorce at the time he retired. He is about to marry for a second time; his fiancée has two daughters at university. 

He says: “I get £1,100 in my hand every month from my pension and we couldn’t possibly manage on that. I also like to go travelling.” He worked as a porter in a Cambridge college for four years before landing this job, which pays £4 an hour. 

Older workers tend to be more settled and loyal. While retraining is often thought of as more valuable for younger staff because they have more working years ahead, people in their twenties and thirties are more likely to take those new skills elsewhere. So training older people may be more cost-effective. 

B&Q, the DIY chain that actively recruits the over-50s, reports low rates of absenteeism. Customers, it seems, also value experience over youthfulness. The Nationwide Building Society says its customers prefer to buy mortgages from someone who already has one. 

But what about the disadvantages? Will more older people in the workplace prevent youngsters from getting their foot in the door or gaining promotion? “Absolute rubbish,” says Mercer. For one thing, mature employees do not necessarily want to climb the career ladder any more; for another, the shortfall of people entering the workforce means that there is plenty of work to go round. The trick is to balance the needs of a corporation with the needs of employees. 

The Confederation of British Industry (CBI) is sceptical about the Government’s proposals, pointing out that any company that wishes to retain an employee beyond retirement age can simply draft a new contract, or extend the old one. Provided both employee and boss want the relationship to continue, says Dominic Johnson, the head of employee relations at the CBI, there is no law that expressly forbids it. 

For this reason, he says, the new proposals are geared entirely to the worker and not the employer. Legislation, he says, runs the risk of clogging the courts with over-65s who will claim age discrimination if asked to leave, even if their abilities are in decline. Companies may even get rid of ageing employees earlier than retirement to avoid being saddled with them indefinitely. 

“We believe these proposals may increase litigation,” says Johnson, who points out that the abilities and motivation of some workers declines with age. These proposals mean that contractually, a person can only be dismissed for poor performance. People might say this is fair, but it might lead companies to dismiss people earlier than waiting for the cleaner, kinder cut of the state retirement age.” 

Knowing that an employee will eventually retire avoids the hassle and “personal humiliation” involved in sacking someone for sub-standard work. 

But surely the majority of workers do not wave goodbye to their employment skills or mental faculties on their 65th birthday? “The issue is whether someone justifies their salary,” says Johnson. “If an older worker justifies what is usually a higher salary, then that employee is not a net cost to the employer. There is not necessarily a correlation between age and performance, but for some people it will decline. We want to see a significant increase in the number of people working in their sixties and seventies. What we don’t want to see is employers being hauled through the courts by employees who have been dismissed.” 

Older employees might be particularly inclined to sue their employers, Johnson adds, because the potential rewards are high (discrimination awards are uncapped), the legal costs of defending such a case are high (so an employer may cut its losses and settle out of court), and a mature worker may cynically calculate that he or she is unlikely to seek work afterwards and so has nothing to lose. Those criticisms find little echo in survey after survey that lauds the mature employee. An NOP survey for FiftyOn.co.uk, a new employment website for the those over 50, reports that they have 30 per cent more disposable income than the under-50s, and prefer buying goods and services from people nearer their own age. Even younger consumers seem to prefer older salespeople, in the belief that they are more polite, professional and honest than younger workers. 

If that seems a little dry, two-thirds of Britons think Sir Trevor McDonald, 61, trounces 32-year-old Kirsty Young in the newsreading stakes, and three quarters of under-30s believe that people in their fifties can be “cool”.