Ageism in recruitment

I think this is potentially a more subtle issue than at first appears.  To take the OP at face value:

employee value proposition with the exclusive aim of attracting and retaining younger workers or creating an employer of choice package which works to retain them whilst not retaining the older workforce

Yes, discriminatory on an illegal level because as expressed it focuses on age.  However, I wouldn't expect such an EVP to actually focus on age but, rather, on behaviours and priorities that, at first glance, appear to prioritise younger people but which actually is more to do with prioritising certain attitudes and values.

For example, let's suppose that you're a manufacturer of upper-level high street fashion.  Your clothes are predominantly worn by people in the 16-28 age bracket.  You offer discounts on purchases to your employees.  That's an EVP element that prioritises an attitude (a desire to wear a particular fashion brand) found more prevalently among the younger age bracket.  But there's nothing in it to prevent older employees from wearing the same clothes.

Or perhaps you elect to provide daily internal promotions through TikTok - an app almost exclusively used by under-30s.  This appeals more to those within the younger age bracket who are more likely to already be engaged with this app and its content.  But that doesn't stop older employees from using it.

It is mistaken to assume that younger people behave in one way and older people behave in another.  Populations may behave in certain ways, but we deal with individuals.  If you have a corporate brand and EVP that emphasizes early technology adoption, digital communities and short-burst/low-friction interactions, that will certainly mould your workforce into one that tends to share attitudes and preferences with younger populations but it doesn't automatically mean that your workforce will be young or that your propositions are illegal.

I think this is potentially a more subtle issue than at first appears.  To take the OP at face value:

employee value proposition with the exclusive aim of attracting and retaining younger workers or creating an employer of choice package which works to retain them whilst not retaining the older workforce

Yes, discriminatory on an illegal level because as expressed it focuses on age.  However, I wouldn't expect such an EVP to actually focus on age but, rather, on behaviours and priorities that, at first glance, appear to prioritise younger people but which actually is more to do with prioritising certain attitudes and values.

For example, let's suppose that you're a manufacturer of upper-level high street fashion.  Your clothes are predominantly worn by people in the 16-28 age bracket.  You offer discounts on purchases to your employees.  That's an EVP element that prioritises an attitude (a desire to wear a particular fashion brand) found more prevalently among the younger age bracket.  But there's nothing in it to prevent older employees from wearing the same clothes.

Or perhaps you elect to provide daily internal promotions through TikTok - an app almost exclusively used by under-30s.  This appeals more to those within the younger age bracket who are more likely to already be engaged with this app and its content.  But that doesn't stop older employees from using it.

It is mistaken to assume that younger people behave in one way and older people behave in another.  Populations may behave in certain ways, but we deal with individuals.  If you have a corporate brand and EVP that emphasizes early technology adoption, digital communities and short-burst/low-friction interactions, that will certainly mould your workforce into one that tends to share attitudes and preferences with younger populations but it doesn't automatically mean that your workforce will be young or that your propositions are illegal.

very interesting thoughts - thank you - how do you think through this quandary with regards to succession planning? the company has an ageing workforce with no real way to attract and retain 'younger workers' and so the succession is a real risk to them - is there any way this can be couched in terms which are not discriminatory? i find this approach uncomfortable but do recognise the issues and risks of the business - so how do we ethically address this in HRM?

As an example of tacit signals of employer attitude, we offer 3 days paid leave in a rolling year to care for a sick child and a couple of years ago we changed the wording to say the time off is to care for a sick child or grandchild. The reason we changed the wording was to signal our desire to be more inclusive, but if you think about it, it doesn't actually change the benefit at all as we hadn't previously said that the sick child had to be the employee's own child.

If you have an ageing workforce and can demonstrate that statistically, then you should be able to defend your position if you ever face an indirect discrimination challenge. However, I think you could influence the kinds of applicants you get by thinking through your benefits package and including details in your recruitment ads. For example, listing an enhanced maternity pay package in your benefits signals to all applicants that you are a family-friendly employer but will also appeal directly to women who are of an age to have a baby. Even though there is no physical cut-off point for men to become fathers, an enhanced paternity leave package is going to attract men in a particular life stage which typically tends to occur years before retirement.

But do you offer the benefit to care for a sick parent or grandparent?

We do. We offer 3 days paid leave for that too but we just say "relative", so it could be parent, grandparent, brother or sister, uncle, cousin or anyone else who is a family connection.

I think there is a phase in life where the older generation starts needing care and that generally seems to be in the years when people's children (if they have any) are in their teens, but I have had young colleagues dealing with family illness in their twenties.

the company has an ageing workforce with no real way to attract and retain 'younger workers' and so the succession is a real risk to them

First, you need to tackle the assumption that the solution to an ageing workforce is younger workers.

What is the average length of service at the company?  If it's more than five years, you're in a minority.  The modal average length of service of an employee is now around 3 years.  So if you're doing succession planning, it needs to start from the assumption that your successors are only going to be in place for 3 to (at best) 5 years.  Once you get your head around that idea, age immediately ceases to be a priority in recruitment terms.  In fact, a 50-year-old is far more likely, statistically, to give you 5-10 years service from an appointment, whilst a 20-something is more likely to stick around no more than 2 years.

So check your assumptions, to start with.

If, having done so, you find that it's not just length of service but, say, skills and attitudes that your leadership associates with "young people", then think about that.  If it's particular technical skills you're looking for, talk to local colleges or apprenticeship providers.  If it's attitudes, then define them and build a campaign around the attitudes, not the age.

Meanwhile, if retention is a concern, look at culture, flexibility, appeal to women and minority groups (who are more likely to stay longer at an organization that treats them fairly) and the use of technology.

We're coming out of lockdown with a better understanding than ever before of how much can be achieved without needing to be in the office every day or even every week.  This ought to encourage companies to throw a wider recruitment net by accommodating more remote and flexible working concepts, and more employees are going to be looking for such working.

That said, we're also about to enter a time of record unemployment as hundreds, if not thousands, of companies make large sections of their workforces redundant as the government winds down the CJRS with no sign of an up-tick in many industries' earnings.  So you could be spoiled for choice and not have to worry about any of this.