Improving Working Lives - except for older workers?

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.

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.

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

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.

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.