After an employment tribunal last week awarded £3.2 million to an executive dismissed by a firm with a rule only to hire people under the age of 45, the Centre for Ageing Better’s Dr Emily Andrews argues that employers refusing to recruit older workers harm both themselves and the economy.
There’s not much that can shock me when it comes to ageism in the workplace. Having worked in this space for a long time, and heard many 50+ job applicants or employees recall their experiences of being treated unfairly solely because of their age, I thought I had seen it all.
But even I was taken aback somewhat by the news last week of a landmark tribunal ruling in favour of engineering manager Glenn Cowie, who was 58 when he was dismissed and replaced by a younger female manager after his employer Vesuvius introduced a policy encouraging managers not to hire people over the age of 45.
The chief executive of the firm, which develops technology for molten metal processes, had previously emailed Cowie to say that new recruits should be no older than 45 so that people have “enough time left in their career in order to develop”.
The tribunal heard that Cowie’s replacement was aged 51, which Vesuvius argued was a demonstration that the under-45 policy was a suggestion rather than a rule, but the judge decided it was “something very close to a rule”.
Having such a blinkered view of the value of older workers has proven to be a very costly error for the company – which it should be noted has appealed the decision.
‘Old fossil’
In one of the largest employment tribunal awards in recent times, Cowie – who was described as an “old fossil” – received a total award of £3.17 million to cover his financial losses, injury to feelings, and losses associated with his subsequent relocation and sale of his home.
Ageist employers
Executive called ‘old fossil’ awarded £3.2m in ageism case
Fortunately, it is very rare for an organisation to be this explicitly ageist.
Ageist employers aren’t just breaking the law, they are also living in a fantasy land where demographic shifts aren’t happening. Our population is getting older – and the supply of younger workers is not infinite.
If you’re not hiring anyone over the age of 45, you are already shrinking the talent pool you can select from pretty substantially. I don’t understand any company that would want to make it more difficult for itself to find the right people with the right skills.
As well as curbing their own prospects of meeting their skills and labour recruitment needs, such an approach is also actively damaging the UK’s productivity growth. If we allow the skills and development of UK workers to stagnate after 45, the productivity crisis – in individual firms, and across the UK economy – will only get worse.
Analysis by the Centre for Ageing Better before the general election showed giving older workers an equal opportunity in the labour market could boost the economy by as much as £9bn a year.
By closing the employment rate gap between older and younger workers, the Treasury would also net an additional £1.6bn a year in income tax and national insurance contributions.
While it may be unusual to see such explicit ageism in action as in Vesuvius’s case, the logic and thinking that underlies that decision are sadly far more widespread and prevalent.
Opportunities for older workers
We know that older workers receive significantly fewer opportunities for training and development in the workplace. Research shows that employees aged 55 and over are least likely to have received retraining of all kinds, whether it’s leadership, management, technical or digital skills.
Because of this, older workers miss out on economic benefits, but employers also miss out on the benefits of upskilling their most loyal employees.
I don’t understand any company that would want to make it more difficult for itself to find the right people with the right skills
It is absurd to think that older workers cannot develop past the age of 45. Our newly appointed Prime Minister, to give just one example, underwent a pretty drastic post-50 career move from the law into politics.
When the average UK employee stays in their role for less than five years, and older employees are the most likely to stay longer, to not view 50+ workers as worthy of your investment as an employer is grossly insulting. A company might reap the benefits of investing in the development of a 45-year-old employee for more than 20 years.
Fortunately, many organisations can see the benefits of recruiting people at 45, 55 and even 65. We have more than 370 employers – including Zurich Insurance, Arla Foods and the Department for Work and Pensions – who have signed our Age-friendly Employer Pledge and recognise the importance and value of older workers. They are committed to taking action to improve work for people in their 50s and 60s to help them flourish in a multigenerational workforce.
Businesses with a higher proportion of older workers benefit hugely from their broader work and management experience and lower job turnover, creating higher productivity.
In the end, it is these age-friendly employers who will be best placed to succeed as our country’s demographic changes.
Sign up to our weekly round-up of HR news and guidance
Receive the Personnel Today Direct e-newsletter every Wednesday
