Last October some potentially ground breaking legislation came onto the statute book. As was predictable, there was much discussion within the HR community about how it would affect business life. What has been the reality of the situation though? Is the legislation really making a difference to how we view things? What difference has it made to the ways in which we manage people?
Like most new legislation, the regulations surrounding age discrimination seemed to spawn some strange responses. I recall hearing a news report about a business that had banned birthday cards in case they could be construed as being ageist. Similarly I have heard of some publications that have refused to accept job adverts for publication on the grounds that they had contained terms such as ‘mature’ or ‘experienced’.
Now I fully support legislation that encourages employers to treat people fairly, but where I have more difficulty is when the interpretation of the legislation is taken to the nth degree such that the real objective of the legislation becomes lost.
I would find it amazing if an employee who was presented with a birthday card presented a claim for age discrimination. Even if the card was somewhat disparaging, perhaps making a reference to someone being ‘over the hill’, do we seriously think that would give rise to a serious challenge? I know it is possible in theory, but how likely is it in reality?
The concern I have here is that sometimes businesses get distracted by the marginal issues to the detriment of the major ones. The question I would ask here is what has happened to the attitudes of recruiters to job applicants in their 60s? is the recruitment market yet a level playing field for them? My fear, quite an subjective opinion I acknowledge, is that recruiters still have a mental barrier to recruiting people in their 60s and the real challenge for HR professionals is to shift this mindset.
We need to remember that as HR professionals we are not in place to police the law, we are there to enable businesses to manage the people aspects of the organisation as efficiently as possible. Of course part of this means protecting the organisation from claims of unfair treatment, but more importantly it means ensuring that the right calibre of people are employed. To my mind, when it comes to the issue of age discrimination, our role is ensure that recruiters look at the full range of possibilities, not primarily to avoid tribunal claims, but more to make best use of the skills available in the market. That is where our real skills should come into play, as influencers rather than as enforcers.
I fear though that the age discrimination legislation may have some unforeseen consequences for the way in which we establish employee benefit packages. A recent article in the Financial Times (6th March) suggested that employers could expect little comfort from Government ministers over the issue of increased insurance costs for employees over 65. This may effect such benefits as private medical cover, PHI and life assurance cover. The article quotes the Employers Forum on Age as saying “There is evidence from some employers that the significantly increased cost of providing benefits to workers post 65 discourages them from agreeing requests to work on, other than in exceptional circumstances.” We wait to see what happens in reality.
What difference has the age discrimination legislation made in your organisation? Have you come across any extreme interpretations of the legislation? Let us have your experiences – click on the ‘Comment’ button below.
Quentin Colborn is an independent HR consultant based in Essex who advises management teams on operational and strategic HR issues. Quentin can be contacted on 01376 571360 or via Quentin@qcpeople.co.uk
