The clock is ticking: one year to root out age discrimination
Employers have just one year to prepare for the Age Regulations. We examine the likely impact on work practices, and look at how some organisations have pre-empted the new law. Includes case studies of Yorkshire Water and South Downs Health NHS Trust.
|
|
Age is the first true majority equality issue. Unlike other discrimination areas such as race and sex, it potentially affects us all - and some commentators predict that the forthcoming age discrimination legislation will transform the world of work.
The impact of the new law will permeate every aspect of HR policy and practice, and yet it is unlikely that the majority of employers have yet grasped its true significance. "Time is running out and there is still a great deal of complacency," warns Sam Mercer, director of the Employers Forum on Age (EFA). "Our key message, having scrutinised the draft Regulations, is that they are much more complex than may first appear. Employers need to read the small print and take measures now to ensure they are ready for October 2006."
Until now, different treatment of young and older workers has frequently been a hidden and quietly condoned practice. In the absence of any legal framework, the accepted custom of many organisations, for example, is to use retirement - and even offer inducements for early retirement - to facilitate any necessary reorganisation. Older employees are all too easily viewed as a "soft target" when labour market conditions and commercial pressures demand a shift in resourcing.
According to Rita Donaghy, chair of Acas, although the impending legislation is a welcome development, combating age discrimination is not just about compliance with the law. As she explains: "If employers focus exclusively on compliance, the Regulations will be viewed as a burden. Organisations should grasp the opportunity to develop age neutral policies and practices because there is a compelling business case and because they should want to attract and keep talent rather than waste it. The issue has as much to do with skills and mentoring as age discrimination."
Opportunity age
The forthcoming statutory change is only one factor forcing the employment of both young and mature workers to the top of the business agenda. There are several other far-reaching developments that mean employers - and public policy - can no longer ignore the importance of the issue. There is an acute pensions crisis and skills shortages in some sectors show no sign of easing at a time when the birth rate is dropping and people are living longer.
These demographic changes - not unique to the UK - mean that more than half the population will be aged 45 or over by the next decade. A report by the Department of Trade and Industry's Employment Market Analysis and Research (EMAR) unit contends that the ageing population is one of the key challenges facing today's employers1.
Unemployment may be at a historically low level but the proportion of people who are economically inactive is not. A key government priority is to increase the post-50 employment rate and achieve an overall 80% employment rate, including one million more older workers. The current administration is very aware of the unprecedented impact that demographic trends are already having on society and the step change that is needed to counter their effects. It has developed an overarching strategy - Opportunity Age2 - to manage the ageing population in order that the country can sustain its economic capacity. A key part of the strategy is the extension of working life, and removing age discrimination in employment is viewed as integral to that goal.
Old habits die hard
The below-average participation of certain age groups within the labour market cannot solely be attributed to less favourable treatment towards them because of their age. For example, early retirement is typically viewed as a measure of success and partly explains the trend of employees exiting the workforce precipitously. Biased attitudes towards both young and older people must take a large proportion of the blame, however - discrimination on any of the established grounds is socially, morally and legally unacceptable, but ageism is particularly ingrained in society.
Recent research by the EFA3 reveals that prejudice does not only affect the 50-plus age group: 25% of school-leavers had faced age discrimination compared to 21% of those over 50. The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development's guidance4 says that age discrimination can:
affect anyone regardless how old they are;
reduce employment prospects for older people, younger people and women returners;
favour people in the age group 25 to 35; and
prevent the full consideration of the abilities, potential and experience of employees.
Most experts are united in their view that a dramatic change is needed in entrenched societal attitudes towards age if the new age legislation is to be implemented effectively and if greater labour market participation by under-represented age groups is to be achieved. The House of Lords5 has expressed concern that the timescale for implementation of the new age legislation is inadequate, primarily because of the scale of the cultural shift required.
Sam Mercer also believes that one of the biggest challenges for organisations is bringing about effective cultural change. "In a little under 12 months, employers are faced with trying to make ageism as bad and unacceptable as racism or sexism," she says. "It is back to the drawing board on a whole range of accepted attitudes and employment practices. For example, how to draft a job description or job advertisement, and what constitutes acceptable language."
Forewarned is forearmed?
There is a strong indication that most employers are nowhere near prepared for the introduction of the Regulations. Research undertaken by the IRS journal Equal Opportunities Review (EOR)6 in mid-2004 revealed that less than half of employers had monitored the age profile of their workforce, and only just over half had a written policy on age diversity or discrimination.
According to the study, most respondents were waiting until they saw the detail of the new Regulations before acting. A survey by the Hay Group7 six months later provided an even more worrying scenario, with 82% of UK employers unprepared for the legislation. Just 6% of respondents had audited their business for age discrimination, while a further 21% planned to do so over the next 12 months.
More recent research by IRS Employment Review8 paints a slightly more reassuring picture, with a firm indication that an increasing number of employers are starting to gear up for the October 2006 deadline. The fourth annual IRS HR Prospects survey revealed that four in 10 employers viewed age discrimination as a priority for the next 12 months, compared with less than one in 10 who considered it a main concern for the past year.
Draft Regulations
Age represents the final discrimination strand of the Employment Framework Directive for Equal Treatment, which must be in force across EU member states by 2 December 2006. The UK government has pledged to introduce the Regulations by 1 October 2006, but the timetable has slipped considerably. The consultation on the draft Employment Equality (Age) Regulations9 was finally launched in July 2005 and ends on 17 October, well over a year behind schedule.
This delay has severely reduced what was an already inadequate preparation period.
The Regulations will:
prohibit, in employment and vocational training, direct and indirect discrimination, harassment and victimisation on grounds of age;
ban all retirement ages below 65 - except where objectively justified; and
remove the current upper age limit on the right to claim for unfair dismissal and redundancy.
The same but different
A similar approach will be adopted in respect of age as has been the case with the other main areas of discrimination law - race, sex, disability, religion or belief and sexual orientation.
Where the impending law will differ significantly is that direct discrimination on grounds of age can be justified by the employer in certain circumstances. This special feature of the age discrimination legislation is set out in Article 6(1) of the Framework Directive that states: "Member states may provide that differences in treatment on grounds of age shall not constitute discrimination, if, within the context of national law, they are objectively and reasonably justified by a legitimate aim, including legitimate employment policy, labour market and vocational training objectives, and if the means of achieving that aim are appropriate and necessary."
While employers need to be aware of this provision, it should be emphasised that this does not mean that any organisation will be in a position to claim a blanket exemption. As the draft Regulations state, "objective justification" will be considered by reference to the employer's specific aims and only if it is appropriate and necessary in the particular circumstances. And, the Regulations continue, they will have to produce supporting evidence if challenged because "assertions will not be enough".
Sam Mercer cautions that employers should not be lulled into a false sense of security by Article 6 or the Regulations themselves. "If you look closely at the fine print, you will realise that there are very few situations in which age may be justifiably used in a work-related setting," she says.
Retirement
The issue that has dominated the consultation on the forthcoming age discrimination legislation is what to do about the retirement age. As the discussion on whether to set a mandatory or default retirement age, or abolish it altogether, has progressed, so the debate has become increasingly public - and polarised. Dissent and disagreement reached the highest level, with the inability of two government departments to reach consensus causing the delay of the draft Regulations.
The government finally put an end to the waiting in December 2004 when it announced that the legislation would set a default retirement age of 65, a decision that received a mixed response from the different sides of industry. This means that it will not constitute age discrimination if employers retire employees at or above the age of 65.
In addition, the draft Regulations set out a "planned retirement" procedure that an employer must follow for any compulsory retirement. This means that:
an employer must give written notification to the employee at least six months in advance of their intended retirement date;
at the same time, the employer should notify the employee that they have the right to request to work beyond the employer's retirement age;
the employer has a "duty to consider" seriously any request to work beyond the intended moment of retirement; and
any employee who wishes to work beyond the established retirement age must make their request between 12 months and six weeks before the retirement date.
There are further, more detailed procedures, such as timescales and the right to an appeal, that must be adhered to - if these are not followed, the employee can claim unfair dismissal. For retirement at or above the default retirement age of 65, an employer can only be challenged if it has not followed the correct procedures, and not in terms of the final decision itself.
Retirement in practice
The government has pledged that it will undertake a five-year review of the retirement age and, if this suggests that compulsory retirement ages should be abolished, this is what it will do. In the meantime, what will the new statutory provision mean for employers' retirement policies, and how does it compare to current practice?
According to both the government and the EFA, the right to request to stay on after retirement age merely formalises what is already happening in practice. This would imply that many employers do not have a fixed retirement age and encourage people to carry on working. Research undertaken by IRS Employment Review10 towards the end of 2003 indicated that, at that stage, there was still some way to go before employers embraced such an approach. The study found that four-fifths of respondents operated a mandatory retirement age of either 60 or 65, while the remaining one-fifth set no mandatory retirement age at all.
When the new arrangements come into force next year, employers will not be able to retire an employee before the age of 65, unless they can objectively justify earlier retirement. The criteria will be stringent. If an organisation is operating the default retirement age of 65, employers will be legally able to refuse to recruit, promote and train individuals in the period immediately before they reach this cut-off point. But such a decision would need to be justified in the event of a challenge.
As the Regulations make clear, employers will need to seriously consider an employee's request to work after they are 65. It is envisaged that this provision will be modelled on existing Regulations that give parents the right to request flexible working, and therefore employers will need to provide a business case for refusing such a request, together with a transparent decision-making process.
A phased approach
Operating a phased retirement policy enables both the employer and the employee to be flexible on when and how they retire, and could be an approach that becomes more widespread. The research undertaken last year by EOR6 revealed that some 43% of employers offered a flexible retirement approach, although a further 19% said that they planned to introduce this.
Early exit from the workforce has long been encouraged as an alternative to compulsory redundancy, often at a high cost in terms of lost experience and corporate memory. The government is campaigning to end the so-called "cliff-edge" approach to retirement, where people go straight from full-time employment to full-time retirement, and is legislating to make it easier for people to remain in the workforce. Changes to occupational pension rules mean that, from April 2006, for the first time people will be able to carry on working for the same employer while drawing an occupational pension.
Both the employers featured here as case studies operate a flexible approach to retirement, with great success. Yorkshire Water , for example, allows employees to continue to work beyond retirement age if it fits the business, and it has even introduced a "partial redundancy" policy. This enables the company to make a partial redundancy payment while retaining an individual whose role has become redundant, provided they are redeployed into a totally different role.
The innovative approach shown by Yorkshire Water is exactly what is needed if an organisation is going to successfully retain more mature workers. Flexible-working arrangements should also be considered, for example, perhaps assigning shorter hours or redesigning the role. As the government states: "We need to encourage older workers to re-skill or change their working patterns rather than leave employment entirely." It also recognises that as people get older they are more likely to have eldercare commitments, and is currently consulting about extending rights to flexible working to make it easier for employees with care responsibilities to combine care with stable employment.
Encouraging people to work longer has significant implications for how employers successfully manage people - not only their retirement arrangements, but ensuring that there are supportive mechanisms in place. Acas has just published a new advisory booklet that offers guidance on employing older workers and effectively managing their changing needs in the workplace11.
Get ready
Some experts predict a "landslide" of discrimination claims when the age discrimination legislation comes into force next year12. Lessons from abroad, particularly the US, show that employees are willing to take employers to court over age discrimination. It is predicted that most ageism claims will focus on Article 6, which allows direct discrimination by organisations in certain circumstances. Employers would do well to heed the severe financial penalties - not to mention loss of reputation - that could be the result of an employment tribunal hearing. As is the case for other forms of discrimination, awards are uncapped for age.
The 2004 Budget announced a new high-profile national guidance campaign to support the introduction of the age discrimination legislation. The Age Partnership Group's "Be ready" campaign provides businesses with information to help prepare for the new age legislation13.
The new campaign will help to raise employers' awareness of, and ability to adopt, flexible employment and retirement opportunities in order to increase the recruitment, training and retention of older workers. There is little doubt that such a campaign is sorely needed - although a lack of consensus over the retirement age has been the main focus for the new law, organisations need to review the whole range of their employment policies and practices in order to make them age neutral.
In its Last chance guide to the new Regulations14, the EFA has this advice for what employers should do next:
audit employment policies for age bias;
remove age elements in policies wherever possible;
introduce a "no tolerance" policy on ageist behaviour; well before October 2006 (ageist attitudes won't change overnight);
roll out an age discrimination awareness training programme for employees;
sit down with employee representatives to decide how best to unpick age from existing contracts and agreements (employees need to understand why changes to their terms and conditions are being made as age laws will supersede contract laws);
develop a system for analysing staff surveys and monitoring employee information by age to help identify potential problem areas; and
review pension scheme and retirement policies.
Recruitment, selection and promotion
The draft Regulations take a firm line on age discrimination in recruitment, selection and promotion, as did its predecessor consultative document Age Matters that stated: "There is a widespread acknowledgement that there is no room for age-based recruitment practices."
The summary that precedes the new Regulations advises that "decisions about recruitment, selection and promotion should not normally be based on age". It says that the Regulations will not contain any specific provisions - "different treatment on grounds of age in these areas will only be lawful if the employer can satisfy the test of objective justification". While the Regulations may not deal in detail with resourcing, this does not in any way reduce the huge impact that the new law will have on an employer's policies and procedures in this area, all of which must be age neutral from October 2006.
The EU Directive does allow for the possibility of "a maximum age for recruitment which is based on the training requirements of the post in question or the need for a reasonable period of employment before retirement". However, the government has made clear that a strict approach will be taken in respect of potential genuine occupational requirement (GOR) exclusions, and so far, the only age-related GOR to have been identified is in acting.
Age-neutral resourcing
Age discrimination can creep into the recruitment process at a very early stage, from the drawing up of job descriptions to the final selection decision. Job advertisements, for example, can contain both overt and hidden discrimination. Research undertaken by IRS10 reported that six in 10 employers said they did not formally set a minimum or maximum age limit for new recruits, it being more likely that implicit assumptions about older workers are influential in terms of discrimination in recruitment and promotion.
While job ads that stipulate a numerical age limit may be less prevalent now than in the past, a more subtle form of age discrimination is to use language that stipulates a particular age range is being sought - for example, "bright" and "enthusiastic" for young applicants. The EFA has launched an age-neutral application form that excludes all information concerning age - including education and career history - as part of its strategy to tackle age bias in recruitment.
Running an age-targeted recruitment campaign is one particular area that needs to be examined for potential age discrimination. For example, Sainsbury's recent recruitment drive to create over 10,000 full-time jobs exclusively for the over-50s prompted commentary that such a practice would be outlawed when the new legislation comes on stream. This is not likely to bear out if - as is the case with the other strands of existing anti-discrimination law - employers can show that they are taking positive action to welcome applications from an under-represented group in their current workforce.
There has also been widespread concern that the new legislation will be the death knell of employers' graduate recruitment schemes, which could indirectly discriminate against older workers. Again, such fears should be unfounded, providing graduate recruiters embrace older people as well as young people in their recruitment campaigns.
The guiding principle is to recruit on the basis of the skills and competencies needed for the post. Recruiting managers should be trained in equal opportunities and regular monitoring of recruitment activity should be put in place.
For promotion, the government's revised Code of Practice on age diversity15 points out that many of the principles of effective promotion are the same as those for age-neutral recruitment and selection. The best promotion systems are based on ability and are judged in terms of measurable performance, demonstrated potential and the ability to achieve the aims of the post.
Access to training
Government statistics have shown that the level of training offered by employers tends to decrease with age, and access to training is a likely area for potential discrimination claims. It is not only for this reason that organisations need to review the design and take-up of their training and development initiatives. If employers genuinely wish to extend the working lives of their employees, they need to be prepared to be more innovative in how they encourage older workers to stay on. This could mean redesigning roles or offering a change of role. Training - or retraining - will form an integral part of such an approach.
The government's Code of Practice advises employers to make training available to all employees no matter how old they are, to carry out regular skills audits to find out who has what skills, and to take account of the different way in which individuals learn in order to maximise the delivery of any training and development programme.
Reward systems
The Regulations make clear that pay and non-financial benefits based on age will not be allowed unless objectively justified. Employers urgently need to review any age-related, and service- or experience-related, pay or non-pay benefits schemes in advance of the new legislation.
Fears that employers will no longer be able to reward employees for their loyalty to the organisation have proved unfounded, however. The government has taken on board employers' concerns that such practices represent a powerful retention tool and that withdrawing them could cause significant disruption. The Age Matters consultation document made clear that awards based on service or experience - such as long-service payments, additional annual leave entitlement, incremental pay and trainee pay - would still be acceptable if they can be justified.
As it pointed out: "The Directive itself provides for the possibility of justifying the fixing of minimum conditions of age, professional experience or seniority in service for access to employment or to certain advantages linked to employment."
There is no blanket exemption for service-related pay or benefits, however. Employers will be able to retain such rewards for up to five years' continuous or non-continuous service without having to justify them. Any pay or benefits that uses length of service of more than five years as a criterion will need to be justified by reference to a legitimate business aim. The most common one will be rewarding loyalty, and employers will not have to provide evidence to support this approach. So, for example, awarding additional leave based on 10 years' service will be permissible, as long as the organisation is rewarding the employee's loyalty and service to the organisation.
Any reward practice that bases an award or benefit on age - for example, additional leave at the age of 50 - is not allowed and needs to be changed. Tinkering with employees' remuneration can be a tricky exercise, and it is advisable to allow as much time as possible to consult on, and communicate, any changes to the reward offering.
Redundancy
Redundancy selection based on age will be unlawful. Employees who are made redundant at any age will have the same entitlement to a redundancy payment: the upper age limit on redundancy will be abolished. The basis of the calculation will be changed to remove some of the age-based provisions, but the 20-year maximum will remain.
The payment will therefore be based on one week's pay for each year's service for up to 20 years' service, regardless of age. It is also proposed that the upper age limit for entitlement to a statutory redundancy payment will also be removed, as will the tapering down rule. Service criteria will be retained.
Employers need to audit their company redundancy schemes and remove age as a criterion in selection for redundancy and as a factor in the calculation for redundancy payments - unless their consideration can be objectively justified. The government has not yet determined the method of calculating compensation based on service criteria, which is one area of the consultation where employers can influence the final form of the Regulations.
Don't delay
Many employers were waiting for the final Regulations before they acted to audit their work practices, and it is imperative that they comply with the detail of the law. Now that the draft legislation has been released for consultation, there is no excuse for HR and personnel professionals to delay further. Both the government's Age Positive campaign website16 and the EFA website carry a wealth of useful guidance and employer case studies that should help organisation to develop an age-neutral strategy.
"Employers should not wait for the new law to be implemented but need to take action now to review their policies," advises Donaghy. "They should also initiate a dialogue with employees about their expectations. Organisations that embrace the new law and view it as a piece of good workplace practice stand to benefit in a number of ways, including enhanced recruitment and retention, a wider skills base and improved diversity."
The approaching legislation heralds an opportunity for employers to tap into unsourced talent and boost the diversity of their workforce at a time when many skills are in short supply. Eradicating ageist attitudes - probably the least visible but most entrenched area of discrimination - will require a transformation in workplace culture. It is not going to happen overnight, but it has to start now.
Case study 1: Age diversity encourages new skills at Yorkshire
Water
Yorkshire Water employs around 2,200 people and provides a
service to 1.7 million households and
140,000 businesses in the region. The impetus for developing age-diverse employment practices sprang
from the need to attract and develop a new skills base within the organisation. The workforce profile in the mid-1990s reflected many years of low staff turnover and the source of skills for the future was beginning to dry up.
"We had a wake-up call and realised that we needed to invest in skills and technology," advises Richard Neville, employee relations manager. "The business had previously relied on internal recruitment but we started to look outside for talent and build a diverse recruitment strategy. Appealing to new and age-diverse groups was a business necessity, given the ageing workforce."
The organisation's approach to age diversity has evolved considerably over the years and the business has transformed itself. It now owns a sophisticated equality and diversity strategy and its "Open to all" diversity brand was launched at a high profile event in January 2004. Yorkshire Water is an Age Positive employer champion and won the 2004 English National Age Positive Award.
Changing the profile
Yorkshire Water embraces the recruitment of both young and mature people but, given the serious dearth of young people entering the utilities sector, it knew that this represented a big resourcing challenge. "According to the Energy and Utility Sector Skills Council, the average age of craft and manual employees in our industry is 55," advises Neville. "The average age of an employee at Yorkshire Water is 41 and the average length of service is 22 years. Given these statistics, it was vital that the company began to appeal to new pools of talent and train younger people to build a skills base for the future."
The organisation therefore resurrected its abandoned apprenticeship programme and removed the age limit for applications. It also runs a traineeship scheme. There is a graduate recruitment programme that has no age restrictions, and one graduate recruit was 35 when she joined two years ago. "Talent is beginning to break the mould of the stereotypical 41-year-old in Yorkshire Water," says Neville. "The average age of external recruits in 2003 was 31. One shining example of our trainees joined at 16 and at 19 became a plant engineer, compared to an average age of 45 for this role."
Both ends of the spectrum
Yorkshire Water's strategy to enhance its skills base by attracting new talent is by no means restricted to the young end of the age spectrum. Its policies are inclusive and aim to develop people of all ages, including more mature workers. Age is no bar to recruitment and the organisation has taken on a number of new recruits who are over 60.
Employees can continue to work beyond retirement age if it fits the business, and the organisation is currently planning both phased and flexible approaches to retirement. It has also introduced a "partial redundancy" approach in liaison with the local tax office. This provision enables the company to make a partial redundancy payment while retaining an individual whose role has become redundant, provided they are redeployed into a totally different role. This approach relies on the agreement of both parties, and it works well where an employee - typically in a more senior role - is ready to change to a job with a lower salary that is more suited to their changing lifestyle or career path.
"It may be that an employee does not want to leave the company or retire, and their circumstances suit a less demanding job or allow for a complete career change, so it means being creative in the opportunities we offer," advises Neville. "Similarly, when the occupational pension rules change next year, the organisation will have more flexibility to accommodate people's changing circumstances around retirement."
Good practice
Yorkshire Water has come a long way from its wake-up call in the 1990s. It is now ranked as the most efficient water company in the country by its regulator OfWat. Neville attributes the transformation of the business in no small part to the widening of its age profile and other diversity practices.
These achievements have not happened overnight and it has taken many years for the organisation to develop its now sophisticated age-neutral practices. These are enshrined in an overarching diversity strategy that is owned by the business rather than HR-led, and is overseen by a senior management diversity leadership group. Every employment and resourcing policy and procedure has been overhauled to ensure that they contain no potential age bias. Yorkshire Water is proud of its age diversity approach and promotes it widely, both internally and externally.
Case study 2: South Downs Health NHS Trust extends working life
South Downs Health NHS Trust employs more than 2,500 staff and provides services to people who live mainly in the city of Brighton and Hove. The organisation is an Age Positive champion, its commitment to promoting equality and diversity and tackling age discrimination in the workplace being prompted by demographic factors and good business sense.
"The labour market has changed dramatically over the past 10 or 20 years when it was much easier to recruit," says Kate Paxton, senior personnel manager. "A pool of people now want or need to continue to work beyond 65 and are fully capable of doing so. Helping to meet the needs of older workers and appealing to all age groups can improve recruitment and retention at the trust."
The trust's occupational health nurse acted as a further impetus for the change in policy, questioning why employees were being referred to her for six-monthly check-ups when they were perfectly fit and healthy. It had been standard practice to require post-retirement aged staff to undergo regular health checks, but it became apparent that it served no useful purpose.
"It is often assumed that people lose their ability to work effectively once they pass a certain age but usually this is not the case," advises Paxton. "However, it is still important that managers are trained to be confident in managing performance, as capacity could be an issue at any age and we want people to leave with dignity if they do retire."
Flexible retirement
The age profile of the South Downs Health workforce spans the breadth of the age spectrum, from 16 to 75 years, with 29 staff currently aged over 65. The trust has removed the mandatory retirement age and actively promotes flexible retirement options. Its new retirement policy was launched in 2003 and outlines a range of different working arrangements that are available through the NHS pension scheme, such as "step down" - changing to a less challenging role - or "wind down", where the employee's hours are reduced. A retired employee can also return to work for the NHS under pension plan rules.
The trust has always operated some flexibility towards staff wishing to work after 65, says Paxton, but the new policy means that employees now have the right to continue working for as long as they wish, without relying on the discretion of their line managers. It is expected that managers will have a discussion with staff to consider their retirement or working on options.
The workforce of the future
The age profile of South Downs Health has always lacked younger staff, and so the trust has developed
a number of initiatives to engage its future skills base. For example, it offers a modern apprenticeship for electrical engineers, it participates in a local nurse cadet programme and it has set up new placements in community settings that were not traditionally offered to student nurses.
The organisation's recruitment strategy also recognises the importance of appealing to younger workers. As well as increasing its involvement with local schools and colleges, South Downs Health has introduced new work experience guidelines for managers and runs jobs fairs and other events to encourage interest from young people in NHS careers.
Laying the groundwork
Paxton believes that the new policies and practices developed under Improving Working Lives served as a good grounding for addressing age diversity and encouraging flexible retirement. It meant that the organisation was already considering how best to manage the workforce and flexible working was well established.
"Hopefully, the work we have already done to achieve an age-neutral approach to employment will stand us in good stead for the forthcoming legislation, but there is still a lot to be done to completely eradicate age bias as it is so culturally embedded in society and organisations," says Paxton. "It will mean completely stamping out that shorthand in recruitment, for example, where a recruiter asks for a certain number of years' experience."
1Full and fulfilling employment: creating the labour market of the future, EMAR,www.dti.gov.uk/er/emar/index.htm.
2Opportunity Age: meeting the challenges of ageing in the 21st century, Department for Work and Pensions, March 2005,www.dwp.gov.uk/opportunity_age.
3Age at work, EFA, February 2005,www.efa.org.uk/age/facts.asp.
4Age and employment, Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, updated April 2005, www.cipd.co.uk.
5Aspects of the economics of an ageing population, 4th report of the Select Committee on Economic Affairs,www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200203/ldselect/ldeconaf/179/17901.htm.
6 "Age diversity: the story so far", Equal Opportunities Review 131, July 2004.
782% of UK companies exposed to new ageism legislation warns Hay Group (PDF format, 94.3K), Hay Group, December 2004.
8Legal changes bring new sense of discipline to HR priorities , IRS Employment Review 823, 13 May 2005.
9Equality and Diversity: coming of age, Department of Trade and Industry, July 2005,www.dti.gov.uk/er/equality/age.htm.
10Legislation comes of age , IRS Employment Review 782, 15 August 2003.
11Employing older workers, Acas, May 2005, www.acas.org.uk.
12 Ageism law set to trigger raft of claims , Personnel Today, 17 May 2005.
13Age Partnership Group's "Be ready" campaign can be found atwww.agepositive.gov.uk/agepartnershipgroup.
14Last chance: the essential guide to age discrimination legislation, EFA, summer 2005, www.efa.org.uk.
15Code of Practice on Age Diversity in Employment, DWP, 2002,www.agepositive.gov.uk/codeOfpractice.cfm?sectionid=90.
