Ageism's not what it was

The European Court has upheld our govt’s view that imposing a ‘default’ retirement age of 65 on all of us is not ageist; it’s just something that will happen to us at a particular age, that’s all.

FTSE 350

Prev Close:

by Steve Bee on Mar 15, 2009 at 00:01

It may be because I’m writing this Sunday’s blog piece on Friday the 13^th and things are going wrong right left and centre, but I think I’m going to have to buy a new dictionary. My one, which is clearly out of date these days, has the following definition in it:

ageism or agism n discrimination against people on the grounds of age; specifically, discrimination against the elderly.

Now don’t get me wrong, I know the language moves on all the time and that even expensive dictionaries like mine will eventually be made redundant as a consequence, but I had expected words like ‘ageism’ to hang on in there meaning-wise for at least the rest of my time on the planet.

Apparently, though, it isn’t going to make it that far. You’ll know by now, I’m sure, that the European Court has upheld our Government’s view that imposing a ‘default’ retirement age of 65 on all of us in the UK is not ageist; it’s just something that will happen to us at a particular age, that’s all.

Another thing that happens to us at an arbitrary age set by our legislators is that we have to purchase an annuity by the time we’re 75 if we have a particular type of pension savings when we’re older. Again, that’s something that’s not ageist, but simply happens to people once they reach a particular age.

In fact, while typing that last sentence I think it’s just dawned on me what’s really going on here. There’s nothing wrong with my dictionary after all. It’s just that we all need two dictionaries these days rather than just the one that we have been able to get by with thus far. Ordinary dictionaries are still OK for every day use, but we need a new pension dictionary so we can understand what words mean when used in the context of pensions. That would do it.

It’s really the same as when Einstein’s work superseded Newton’s I suppose. In the rarified world of quantum physics Newton’s stuff doesn’t really hold up, but it’s fine for everyday use to employ his equations and approximations at the level and scale that human beings operate in the natural world.

Right, that’s it, I’m going home now for the weekend; something my dictionary reliably informs me is the period from Friday night until the end of Sunday, although goodness only knows what it means in pension argot. Probably best not to think about it…

Steve Bee is head of pensions strategy at Royal London Group where he publishes his BeeHive blog at www.scottishlife.co.uk/beehive

Email a friend

Email me when someone comments on this article Print

7 comments so far. Why not have your say?

Come on Steve. Your industry invented ageism. Are you going to give me the same anuity rate at 67 that you were going to give me at 55 or that you will offer me at 75? Or the same life cover premium?

Or did your children start school at 5 or 15 or 25?

report this

It's all a disgrace. We should be able to work at whatever age as long as we can demonstrate we are capable. And my belief is that the demographics (youth having to provide the pensions of a growing army of older people) will eventually make ageism of any type both illegal and economically unviable.

report this

If we didn't have such blatant discrimination against the 65's and over in this country, then pensioners wouldn't need to struggle financially - so long as they are fit and cabable to work that is. The problem is as things stand, an employer can chuck you out at age 65 and replace you with a younger or less experienced and cheaper employee, thus forcing you to be dependent on your pension, even if it's value has been cut to ribbons.

It's time that all discrimination in the workplace is made illegal, especially the ridiculous practice of forcing people to retire at the age of 65. What right does anyone have to assume that a worker becomes useless at that age? There are many examples of people going on to work successfully after that age and make a real contribution to both their emloyer and society.

Will the High Court have the courage to outlaw this in the interests of social justice?

We will see ....

report this

What is perhaps more important is that if you are over 50 you will be passed over for promotion, and if you lose your job you now have a 1 in 10 chance of ever getting anything better than serving at the till in B&Q. I have been told to my face that I have not had a pay rise because they were 'giving priority to the younger people who have a career ahead of them' and whilst managers are aware that they can no longer be so up-front about it the attitude still prevails.

report this

I agree with Kate Corwyn (above) that the problem of discrimination on grounds of age is not confined to the 65s and over. It has long been the case that the 50s and over have been a target where promotion or employment opportunity is concerned and I believe there is evidence to show that even employees in their 40s can be similarly affected in some fields.

It is disgraceful that the criteria for considering an applicant for a post can be based upon their age and not the experience they could bring to the organisation that they have gained over their working life. Surely this shows the basic insecurity that many younger managers feel, in that they fear their incompetence being shown up by a more competent older employee.

report this

Have you ever thought of the statement that " Everyone over the age of 50 is overpaid".

The logic is that if we are paid our "market rate" then, as anyone over the age of 50 who is made redundant will know, you will be lucky to get a job on 25% of your previous salary. Therefore you are being overpaid in your current job. Good Luck

ps I am over 50 and know this from experience

QED

report this

tom

Sep 21, 2009 at 11:45

As someone in my early thirties I am sick of baby boomers arguing only for themselves their entire lives. Retirement at 65 isn't only about retiring people. Its about giving the next generation a chance - a chance baby boomers have had their entire lives and screwed up for every other generation after them.

Retirement does not mean not working. If a retired person was actually experienced and worth something nothing stops them from starting a business and giving others a chance. Why don't such "experienced" people contribute to society and generate some economic activity? I guess its just not in the baby boomers mindset to do something for society other than themselves.

I'm lucky enough to have some experience but what about all the Gen-y's and recent grads?how do they get their chance if all these retirees try to hang around and compete for their jobs after they've already had their run?

report this

Please sign in here or register here to comment. It is free to register and only takes a minute or two.