Out with the old, in with the new, another case of age discrimination
I mentioned a case of age discrimination in an earlier post and then I read an article (cited below) about company practices across the pond. With the baby-boomers coming of age (so to speak), will this be a routine HR story? Or, will companies wake up to the treasures inside of the grey-haired worker? Time will tell.
Check this out…
Age discrimination is rife despite laws to protect workers, writes Roland Gribben
Wide differences have emerged about the way companies are handling age discrimination legislation, introduced a year ago to meet EU regulations ending restrictions on the employment of older people.
Employment tribunals have been swamped with complaints about continued discrimination and the Employers Forum on Age says ageism is still rife despite the legislation.
advertisementTypically, 200 age-discrimination claims are lodged with tribunals each month. Age Concern says it has uncovered “abhorrent and discriminatory” practices employed by well-known companies, while research by law firm Eversheds shows “little change to stereotypical attitudes” since the legislation was introduced.
A report produced for Peter Hain, Work and Pensions Secretary, is more comforting, suggesting that employers are adopting more “age-friendly” personnel policies and acknowledging that, while most companies had taken steps to eliminate discrimination, it did not appear to have led to increased recruitment of older people.
The recruitment and retirement issues were among the most contentious when the legislation was debated. The Government was accused of being half-hearted by giving employees the right to work beyond 65, while telling employers the extension would be conditional on their agreement.
Age Concern through Heyday, an associate organisation, is continuing to challenge the interpretation, arguing that it runs counter to EU regulations because it means over-65s do not have the right to choose to continue to work. The High Court has referred five questions on the issue to the European Court of Justice to test whether the EU rules have been correctly implemented in Britain.
An Age Concern study has already criticised the public sector for a high level of age discrimination. Ten out of 15 Whitehall departments have a mandatory retirement age of 65 while many hospitals, schools and local authorities have forced over-65s to retire. Age Concern points to B&Q, Nationwide and Abbey as having “good policies for older workers” but says US companies that would be breaking the law if they enforced mandatory retirement in the States have forced British employees to retire at 65.
SOURCE: Older staff still facing bias at work
Nothing says "Thanks for posting this Jim!" like Starbucks Coffee. Click here to buy me a cup (or two).
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
[...] Out with the old, in with the new, another case of age discrimination [...]