Hi Anna,

I think this is both an age and gender problem. It still seem that women are ‘past it’ at an earlier age than men. Men in their late-50’s are employable; women less so.

In reply to Teresa:

Agreed, Teresa. Where women take time out of work for caring or hold their careers back during that period they're often hit with the 'double whammy' of being too old to fit into traditional career structures.
This is one of the things we have to change, isn't it, as we embrace both longer working lives and older workers.

In reply to Anna:

Yes. At some point, the world of work drifted away from ‘experience’ towards ‘qualifications’. I know I’m generalising, but experience now seems to count for little and the bit-of-paper is king. I have met (and, unfortunately, employed) several who had bits-of-paper coming out of their ears, but once on the job just couldn’t relate academic learning to the real world. The older a person is the greater the experience, but also the less likely they are to have the latest bits-of-paper.

I suppose it’s the old problem of wanting to quantify the qualitative.

In reply to Teresa:

The huge number of people who post about getting into HR and have CIPD 5/7 but no experience don’t seem to agree things have drifted that way ...

In reply to Teresa:

Hi Teresa

I've noticed you've posted a few disparaging comments about having a "bit of paper" as you term the CIPD's professional qualifications. I do feel that's a little insulting to those who have spent much of their personal time, and in many cases, a considerable amount of their own money to get qualified.

I am very much of the opinion that practical and relevant experience is often more desirable than a qualification on its own, and I have posted here about the worrying trend of badge collecting HR qualifications and expecting an HR Manager role to fall into place due to this. However if you are serious about HR, generally gaining experience and a professional qualification are both important. Especially if you are making a career change, employers may expect you to show commitment to this by undertaking the relevant academic study.

Wow.

As someone who used to work for an age-related charity, that is a *dreadful* article. We used to spend our time working with employers to change their perspective of older employees as being somehow inconvenient burdens who needed special treatment. Our message was all about how older workers are an untapped resource who didn't need companies to adapt to accommodate them.

We used data to show that, contrary to expectations, older employees take no more time off than any other group (and, actually, rather less than the 18-35 group), are just as tech-savvy as school leavers (and better at typing), bring wider, deeper experience and are less likely to change jobs within two years.

The sub-text of this article seems to be "if you want to employ older people you'd better make some changes". Nice job putting up barriers to progress, there, Ageing Better.

I should add that I don't disagree that the things the article suggests are good things to do, but I don't think they have anything to do with creating job opportunities for older people.

In reply to Annabel:

Hi Annabel,

I am most apologetic if I have insulted you in any way. That was not my intention at all and I am sorry. I though I had made it clear that my problem is with the employers - obviously I hadn't.

My comment about the 'bit of paper' was not aimed specifically at the CIPD's qualifications, but rather qualifications in general. Having done much in the way of formal education myself (from both sides of the fence) I know the time, effort, money, and sometimes personal costs involved in getting any 'bit of paper', from a GCSE to a PhD or from a fork lift truck licence to a Nobel prize. I would never disparage anyone for any personal development. I celebrate them.

When I started out in business (centuries ago...) paper qualifications were less common and employers looked for someone who had walked the streets of that job - who had worked up, who knew it inside-out, yes - who had experience. Now paper qualifications are extremely common. I've just done a bit of surfing on the .gov site and I'm amazed: in 1980 over 77k people in the UK got a first degree. In 2011 this was nearly 351k - an increase of 450% over a time span that saw the population rise by 11%. This makes life much easier for employers - yes, that is primarily the HR dept - as you can now quantify the qualitative. 

In the theme of this particular discussion forum thread this is important. We're talking here about older workers, those who probably  worked their way through the experience route rather than the qualification route. In this they are now at a disadvantage as not only are they competing against younger people but also the bit of paper - whatever type or level that may be. You cannot discount an old A over a young B because of age, but you can if A doesn't have a particular qualification but B does. This form of choice-supportive bias is probably (hopefully) unintentional, but the chance is there.

Personally, I have the experience but I also recognise that in order to quantify this I'll need the specific bit of paper, which is why I'm now doing my Level 5. Hopefully, at the end I will be both qualitativable (if that's a word) and quantifiable! 

In reply to Robey:

The thing is Robey, older workers do need companies to make changes but they are not the only group that would benefit.
So, older workers who've taken time out to care for an elderly relative may struggle to get back into work. And so do many mothers who choose to stay at home when children are young.
Older workers may want to work flexible or reduced hours to care for a partner with an age-related condition or perhaps to look after grandchildren. But then again lots of other groups - parents, disabled workers etc - would also benefit from more flexibility.
So I guess it's really about encouraging employers to consider whether their current recruitment and employment practices accommodate the majority or just a small minority.

In reply to Anna:

Quite so, Anna. None of the suggestions are per se a bad thing (on the contrary, I think they're all good things), but pitching them as being part of a strategy to attract and/or retain older workers is, in my opinion, quite the wrong note to strike.

Perhaps a better approach to have taken would have been along the lines of "Look at how these popular business strategies to improve employee engagement and long-term retention of talent will *also* improve your ability to create a multi-generational workforce".

"Thousands of employers are unprepared for the aging workforce" but those employers are the aging workforce. The board or SMT or HR Department considering how to adapt to an aging workforce is aging itself. There is no ageless or ever-youthful majority in the workplace. Any article that talks about older workers as if they are a separate group distinct from the main population is missing the point.

The shift we are working through right now is not just about an aging workforce. We are moving towards true diversity, sometimes in inches, sometimes in leaps and sometimes kicking and screaming. We need to humanise our workplaces and create the conditions where everyone can do their best work for the good of us all. "Our purpose is to champion better work and working lives by improving practices in people and organisation development, for the benefit of individuals, businesses, economies and society". 

Or, to put it another way, and with thanks to David B:

Labour is blossoming or dancing where
The body is not bruised to pleasure soul.
Nor beauty born out of its own despair,
Nor blear-eyed wisdom out of midnight oil.
O chestnut-tree, great-rooted blossomer,
Are you the leaf, the blossom or the bole?
O body swayed to music, O brightening glance,
How can we know the dancer from the dance?

More organisations are starting to think and talk about age diversity in general and how to effectively support multi-generational workforces.

The CIPD conducted some research on this a few years ago which might be of interest, looking at both employee and employer perspectives and some of the things that organisations need to know.

The overall aim of the research was to look at creating strategies that help organisations to be inclusive and retain and develop age diverse workforces.

I have to admit that i haven't read the whole report (it is outstandingly and necessarily long), but have dipped into bits of it and as an 'older worker' I really don't see how they have come to the conclusion they have. A lot of the 'evidence' is subjective opinion - for example there are references to people being told that "they wouldn't be able to find any roles for them" as they were 62, however it is clear that this is referring to a recruitment agency and we all know that whilst there are some very good agencies out there, there are also some terrible ones, so it is not representative of employers as a whole.

They also make major assumption for example in relation to the bit about older workers being less likely to be given training. The implication is that it is because employers are discriminating, however it could be personal choice - my employer is willing to fund me to do the 1 year Masters Top up for my CIPD, but as I'm less than 10 years from retirement, i really can't see what the benefit would be to either me or the organisation. It would have been much more beneficial to me 10 - 15 years ago (i didn't work here then)

The vast majority of my friends are older than me and range between 52 and 74. None of them have every experienced any difficulties getting the type of work they wanted (i do acknowledge that may not be the case for everyone) and in general, they are like me - looking forward to retiring and seeing the world a bit.

So i am really in the camp that feels that more flexibility in work to enable people to deal with circumstances in their life regardless of age, gender or anything else is key really and there isn't a need for initiatives to support older workers specifically.

In reply to Teresa:

"The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'" as the old saying goes.

In reply to Teresa:

www.peoplemanagement.co.uk/.../age-discrimination-rife-says-government-agency

The attached is an article from people management dated 17 July 2018 in which they state that “Age discrimination remains rife in the workplace, and particularly in the recruitment market, according to an excoriating report from an influential government committee.”.

There was also debate about this on several forms of media around the time this was released.

In short it is an issue the government is aware of but has failed to address to date. “Meanwhile, bias – and potentially illegal discrimination – was a “significant problem” in the recruitment process, the committee found”

It is an issue where there is acknowledged discrimination against 31% of the (potentially) working population just because they happen to be over the age of 50.

It is a scandal that is just beginning to come to the forefront, not because it is manifestly wrong and unfair but because of a predicted shortage of workers.

Your friends are extremely fortunate if they have not experienced this issue.

In reply to Julie:

I have to admit that i have zero confidence in articles produced by People Management which for the past year or so has published Daily Mail'esque headlines, which bear no resemblance to any actual data or information referenced in the article. Quite frequently, they post Facebook posts blaming HR for the worlds ills and I am currently trying to see if i can stop it coming through my letter box.

The PM article is simply referring the same report that Anna initially posted about and adds no further evidence that this is an issue. They state that there is a significant problem in the recruitment process, but including nothing other than anecdotal evidence to support that very strong claim.

I have been working for more than 34 years and am in my 50's. 22 years of my working life have been spent in HR in a wide range of organisations and sectors. I genuinely have never come across age discrimination and also no of no-one who has. I am not saying that it doesn't happen, however, i never wanted to be highlighted as in need of support and assistance simply because i am a woman and i really really don't see that I need any additional support or changes simply because i am now classed as 'older'. There may be times that i do need support or adjustments to my work but, they will be due to my specific individual circumstances at the time and they could occur regardless of my age or gender.