The Employment Equality (Repeal of Retirement Age Provisions) Regulations 2011 started phasing out the default retirement age from the start of April this year.
From now on if employers wish to enforce retirement, their decisions will have to be objectively justified and not related simply to the age of the employee. A worker may be asked to retire but only if the standard of his work suggests that he should and there is no alternative. This is great news for those people who have never wanted to retire just because they hit a certain age and who are still fit to do their job. The well publicised statistics showing longer life mean that often these days a pension is not enough to live on making it even more important for workers to be able to work beyond 65 should they wish and have the capability.
Age UK said that instead of focusing on making space in firms for younger employees, businesses should instead look at the benefits that experienced older workers could bring. Previously, the importance of retaining talent in the company has been mentioned and this is how employers need to view the removal of the retirement age. Employers need to consider the balance between fresh ideas brought by new blood and the experience and skill that more mature workers bring the workplace. In fact the two can learn from each other.
Christopher Brooks, head of policy for work and learning at Age UK, noted that there is still a prevailing culture of ageism. He points out that ''discrimination in the recruitment process is against the law, but it still happens in practice quite a lot.” This development in the law means that employers should take heed when choosing to end someone's employment and as ever, follow the correct procedures. “You are too old” simply will not suffice any longer.
Of course the implications of this change will have differing effects on employers depending on which industry they work within and the types of roles they provide. An intensely physical role may seem to be more suited to a younger candidate, but if an elder worker still proves fit as an individual to continue in that role then the notion that it is best suited to a younger person will not be enough to warrant asking the elder person to retire from the role.
Employers might not be the only unhappy people at this change, the Federation of Small Businesses said the move was "unnecessary meddling". "It will lead to a legal quagmire for a lot of small business owners. If you can't get rid of someone, you then have to go through the process of performance managing someone out of an organisation, which if you have a big HR department and you're experienced in these things is easy," said Andrew Cave from the federation. This much is true of any measure on small business but if dealt with correctly it is arguable that there does not need to a dedicated HR team to decide whether or not an employee can be kept on within the business in an alternative role or not. This is further helped along by the process of continued communication between employers and employees. Where communication is encouraged and a culture of tolerance and understanding fostered, employees are likely to do the work for the company by saying when they feel they need to change roles or indeed retire.