Age discrimination and retirement remain hotly debated issues, and this month, among other articles, we continue with the theme of age equality. We have the results of our survey of flexible retirement policies and our case digest focuses on more age discrimination cases.
Flexible retirement
Most of the respondents to our survey offer some form of flexibility in relation to retirement. Almost all have retained, or introduced, a retirement age of 65 with the option of requesting to work beyond then. However, it seems the number of requests to continue working remains low, as does the take-up of flexible working patterns in the run-up to retirement. Many of our respondents have flexible retirement options such as part-time working, flexitime and downshifting (reducing responsibilities). So, on the basis of our responses, fears that the right to request working beyond retirement age would cause problems (see CIPD survey reported in EOR 148) appear to be unfounded.
It seems that changing the culture on age discrimination is proving more difficult than on some other equality issues – as one of our respondents stated: “It is taking longer than expected to change hearts and minds in respect of our retirement policy.” Interestingly, given the Government’s current review of the default retirement age, two of our respondents feel that removal of the default retirement age could help change attitudes to retirement, as it would encourage workers to remain in employment and force employers to manage properly employee performance regardless of age.
Independent evaluation of a single equality scheme
The Learning and Skills Council (LSC) has successfully implemented a single equality scheme, and its progress on equality has been recognised by an independent evaluation of the scheme and the council’s approach to equality generally. This has been important to the LSC as it will be handing over its responsibilities to two new agencies in April. It wants to ensure that it passes on best practice and that it has addressed any weaknesses highlighted in the independent review. Our case study looks at the success factors in the LSC’s single equality scheme, and at the weaknesses identified by the review and how they were resolved.
Key cases for 2010
Michael Rubenstein’s annual prediction of key cases to look out for in the year ahead is also included this month. This is from his annual lecture to the Industrial Law Society on key cases for 2010. This year, we publish the whole lecture rather than just the part that deals with discrimination cases.
Equality Bill
The Equality Bill underwent significant changes at Report Stage, and these are explained in our latest guide to the provisions of the Bill. At the time of writing, the Bill is making its way through the Committee Stage in the House of Lords, and the changes made so far are discussed. This started in the Lords on 11 January 2010 and was due to finish on 27 January, but, as Michael Rubenstein explains in his Diary, the Bill could be heading for the “wash-up” – where Bills that the Government wants to push through before the dissolution of Parliament are subject to negotiation with the other main parties. Some important, controversial issues could be lost. As Michael Rubenstein points out, the provisions on socioeconomic inequalities and on positive action would be the most likely to go.
Welcome to IDS Diversity readers
Also in his Diary, Michael Rubenstein extends a warm welcome to former subscribers to IDS Diversity at Work, and welcomes any comment or feedback from them. They, and indeed any of own existing subscribers, can contact Michael directly by email, or feel free to email myself or our research officers (Carol Foster or Kate Godwin) with any comments or queries on the content of the journal.
Subscribers to EOR Online can read the full text of all the articles mentioned above as well as our usual news, diary and case reports in Issue 197.
If you don't already subscribe to Equal Opportunities Review, you can find out more about EOR here, or else go ahead and subscribe to EOR here.