Age Discrimination

[DianeLH]

Hi all,

Based on responses and queries within other business network groups I am involved, just thought I would post some pertinent information relating to the unwelcomed introduction of Age Discrimination.

From Sunday it will be unlawful to treat a person differently on the grounds of their age.

Every single employer in the United Kingdom will be affected by the changes, but according to the most recent research few of them are ready for it.

The DTI expects over 8,000 extra Employment Tribunal cases to be brought in the first year alone – more than for disability; religious belief; and sexual orientation discrimination combined (the three most recent new areas of law).

I am interested to know how people feel about this legislation and what impact you feel it will have on businesses nationwide.

Have a great day

Diane
First Business Support

[bwglaw]

From advising clients I do think some employers are worrying unnecessarily and many have worried about the 'length of service' which is exempted under s.32 of the Employment Equality (Age) Regulation 2006

I think the 8,000 is pure speculation on the DTI's part. Many employers will be fine if they audit their policies, procedures and practices.

There was a debate on a forum about age discrimination and someone said that 'mature' would be unlawful from 1 October 2006, whilst I disagreed. Without case law the new regulation is still subject to interpretation and in my opinion 'mature' is not entirely related to age but experience, behaviour etc

[weddingcrafter]

I have been thinking carefully about this as I need staff in our workshop who have a reasonable level of fitness, but I think with a couple of small adjustments I should be OK. Our main recruitment criteria is performance in a practical test.

The one area I'm a little unsure about is re age dependent minimum wage as I can't give someone an exact answer to "what's the pay" unless they tell me whether they are under a certain age (can't be bothered to check exactly what it is at the moment!).

Any thoughts?

[pdecaux]

I was amazed to hear about this legislation!! Not because I think it is wrong, but because I thought it was already illegal to discriminate on the basis of age.

It is sad in this day and age (no pun) that people are still not seen for what they can offer an organisation and that experience appears not ot be valued any more. As bwglaw suggests, age is not and should not be the only factor taken into account in employment decisions.

With very few (no?) exceptions, if an employer believes that a person's age is a barrier to functioning effectively in a particular job, then I would suggest they are either acting out of prejudice or have not considered all the aspects of the role or the person properly.

I have stepped off my soap box now!

[bwglaw]

The one area I'm a little unsure about is re age dependent minimum wage as I can't give someone an exact answer to "what's the pay" unless they tell me whether they are under a certain age (can't be bothered to check exactly what it is at the moment!).


It is safe to ask someone their date of birth as part of the recruitment process because employers need to apply this to the NMW etc. Age dscrimination is likely to arise where you act upon the basis of the employee's age, except where the exemptions apply.

Simply put, if you are asked the pay you can simply say what is your age and then give the pay rate.

Jonathan

[apeebles]

Don't forget the advertising when recruiting. I think this is the key area which is going to cause problems particularly when recruiting for a specific area.

[fastfences]

This will end up being processed as 'silent discrimination.' How often do we favour one over another whether it be male/female, white/coloured etc, etc. We make our decisions based upon 'our' needs and tell the unsuccessful person, 'other applicants were more suitable.' Unless 'more suitable' is tested in court, life goes on . . .
Cheers, Nigel

[DianeLH]

I am almost torn with this legislation to be honest, because part of me says it's about time the young got a fairer opportunity to gain the much needed practicalities in business to actually be deemed "qualified or experienced" but as Nigel so rightly says in the end alot will resort to the "selection process" red tape and still find a way to either not employ or indeed put out to pasture.

Already though this legislation has most certainly impacted on many scared employers.

Basically as long as companies have the correct policies and procedures in place they should be ok but vigilance and caution is definately now needed.

Diane

[Catalyst Business Dynamic]

I am in massive agreement with this legislation. I tried for ages after I left school to get someone to beleive in me and give me an opportunity in their business. No one trusted me as I was young, it had nothing to do with my back ground as I am very personable and I have had an awesome education as in the schools I have been to.

Finally my current MD caught me while I was working in a bar and said that I had massive potential. 6 months down the line and they are now asking me if there are any more 18/19 year old that I know that they can develop into strong employees in their company.

If only business owners followed this school of thought from the begining then all these legislations wouldn't be necessary.

Kristian :)

[nxmd]

i think that, broadly speaking, this law is impractical and cannot be applied accross the board. ultimately if you advertise a position - you are going to 'discriminate' against 'unsuitable' candidates in favour of 'suitable' ones - that will be down to your judgement and what you think is best for your busininess, this legislation will just allow disgruntled potential employees the chance to take the matter up at employment tribunals. i would agree that in theory - it holds water, the young should be given a chance and the elderly should be valued for their experience, but these qualities are not necessarily 'the' most valued asset across the board - if you are selling clothes to teenagers, would it really be a wise business move to have pensioners selling them?

I work in a media related industry, where every job i have seen, discriminates on the basis of age either by - saying must have X amount of experience or using more ambiguous terms such as 'dynamic', as i said, in theory, i can agree with some of the points, but for example in a job that relies on a certain level of computer literacy, you are going to discrimanate against, say over-40's more than under-40's

you can legislate against age discrimination in advertising (i already thought that was the case), but how can you legislate against an individuals assessment of a candidate.

I think things will carry on as they are, individual cases will be prosecuted and that is it - much like the disability/accessibility legislation has imapacted on webdesign

[Rob Holmes]

I called my bank (HSBC) yesterday and for ID they are no longer asking for the year of your birth - they now ask for the date and month of birth!!

I've had various emails hit my desk about this.. Some exercising beyond extreme caution.

Here are some examples of words some advise not to use in an advert - again they maybe overcautious but are listed to avoid being caught up in the 'first wave' of tribunals...

Words to avoid in job ads
* Recent graduate
* Young
* Mature
* Gravitas
* Dynamic
* Energetic
* Lively
* Ambitious
* Reliable
* Dependable
* High flier
* Quick learner

Rob

[pdecaux]

you can legislate against age discrimination in advertising (i already thought that was the case), but how can you legislate against an individuals assessment of a candidate

I certainly can't argue with the fact that the assessment of potential employees is and always will be a subjective one based on the interviewer's background, prejudices and understanding of the job requirements (which can sometimes be flawed).

However, those prejudices should not be allowed to get in the way of making a balanced assessment in the interests of the organisation. If interview procedures are fair to all, not carried out by one person, and are as transparent (auditable) as possible, then it is more likely that the best person for the job will be appointed regardless of age, race, sex etc.

Some laws are actually great in principle and, if we agree with their aims, shouldn't we try our best to live up to them rather than blame human nature as the source of their inevitable failure? To paraphrase a great thinker: "I don't try therefore I fail"

[estwig]

Being builders, we are currently looking for a labourer to.....

Make tea (obviously a top priority, must be fully conversant with all aspects of tea makeing etiqute), dig holes, sweep up, climb up and down scaffolding as required, carry large amounts of timber and other materials from A to B and wash vans when there is nothing else we can think of. You get the idea.

Does this legislation actually mean I cannot choose a 16 year old over a 60 year old for the task???

As Nigel said the answer will be "sorry we choose someone else"

[PlainText]

It's got nothing to do with age, but everything to do with fitness. There are plenty of fit 50+ builders out there who'd be capable of doing the tasks you mentioned.

[Cornish Steve]

Sorry, but this is just ridiculous. If I want to hire a new graduate, why can't I advertise for and recruit a new graduate? If I want to hire a woman over 50, why can't I advertise for and recruit a woman over 50? If I want to hire only those who are under 5 feet tall, over 20 stone, left-handed, and speak with a lisp, why shouldn't I? (For the politically correct among us, that's vertically challenged below 152.4 centimetres, gravitationally challenged over 127.3 kilos, dextrously challenged, and orally challenged.)

Hiring staff is my business. I'm looking to meet my needs. What business is it of the government to tell me who I can hire and who I can't hire? They don't exactly have the best track record for recruiting the sharpest cheese on the platter. We don't need a government that's an anti-employment organisation, doing their level best to discourage companies, and especially small business owners, from hiring anyone.

If you are a recent graduate, young, lively, and dynamic, a quick learner and ambitious high flyer who provides dependable service in a mature spirit of gravitas, do send me a PM. You're just what I'm looking for. If, on the other hand, you are a lazy and boring pile of mush, I believe the government has some job openings right now. ;)

[bwglaw]

Here are some examples of words some advise not to use in an advert - again they maybe overcautious but are listed to avoid being caught up in the 'first wave' of tribunals...

Words to avoid in job ads
* Recent graduate
* Young
* Mature
* Gravitas
* Dynamic
* Energetic
* Lively
* Ambitious
* Reliable
* Dependable
* High flier
* Quick learner

Rob

I fail to see how the above words can be discriminatory, save for 'young'

'Recent graduate' can generally apply to anyone i.e. 21yo from local Uni or a 45yo from Open Uni.

The other words refer purely to qualities of the person, abilities and fitness. Neither of the words can refer to a specific age group and exclude the same.

If 'quick learner' is discriminatory on the grounds of age then I am sure it would be discriminatory on grounds of disability.

The media has really blown age discrimination out of proportion and has caused unnecessary worry for employers. This media frenzy has caused employers to rush to their lawyers for advice and I have been inundated with related enquiries.

Jonathan

[Inqology]

Hi Dianne,

I think this will be the most hard hitting legislation for many years. With the possibility of being able to backdate these claims, employers face a massive issue that could see thousands of additional claims.

Age Discrimination has been practised in Ireland since 1999 study previous cases to gain understanding.

Recruitment is where people will be hard hit and awards are unlimited.

Remember age works both ways.

You have to keep records of all applications and why you did not hire that person in a non age discriminatory fashion.

9 Months notice should be given to an employee that you intend to retire them.(they do have a right to appeal against this)

No age on application.

Young, dynamic, can you manage the stairs and alike phrases must not be used.

Be diverse see Stonewall.

Change the way we work. Work with not against and you could actually benefit.

Role-plays to employees and employers. No old boring training educate people as one word form an employee to another can be taken as Ageism.

Remember it does not matter what you think it only matters what a Tribunal thinks. The fact we can argue will not make us right in a court of law.

Jack



Hi all,

Based on responses and queries within other business network groups I am involved, just thought I would post some pertinent information relating to the unwelcomed introduction of Age Discrimination.

From Sunday it will be unlawful to treat a person differently on the grounds of their age.

Every single employer in the United Kingdom will be affected by the changes, but according to the most recent research few of them are ready for it.

The DTI expects over 8,000 extra Employment Tribunal cases to be brought in the first year alone – more than for disability; religious belief; and sexual orientation discrimination combined (the three most recent new areas of law).

I am interested to know how people feel about this legislation and what impact you feel it will have on businesses nationwide.

Have a great day

Diane
First Business Support

[Dawg]

Can we use words and phrases in recruitment ads such as:
Ripe
Firm
Taut
Bodaceous
Fully teethed
Rippling
Strapping
Phoar
etc?

BTW I think this date might be wrong, year dot might be closer..
Age Discrimination has been practised in Ireland since 1999:)

[bwglaw]

9 Months notice should be given to an employee that you intend to retire them.(they do have a right to appeal against this)

Here, employer must give a minimum of 6 months notice but not more than 12 from the date of intention to retire.

No age on application.

Disagree. The legislation is intended to prevent employers from using age as the basis of their decision i.e. selection, training etc not for merely asking for that information. Employers need to know employee's age/DOB for HMRC etc and in applying the National Minimum Wage

To avoid litigation I have advised our clients to create a form i.e. "Entitlement to work in the UK" and set out the questions you need to ask, including date of birth. Employers have a legal duty to check that every employee they recruit is legally entitled to work here in the UK.

People are overlapping the new legislation with the structure of sex discrimination i.e. cannot ask if male/female, children? etc. However, under disability discrimination legislation you can ask if a person has a disability or long-term condition. Age discrimination legislation is structured similar to disability legislation
[/QUOTE]

If anyone has any concerns I am happy to give free initial advice at the email address below

Jonathan

[Atrades200]

Hi all,

Based on responses and queries within other business network groups I am involved, just thought I would post some pertinent information relating to the unwelcomed introduction of Age Discrimination.

From Sunday it will be unlawful to treat a person differently on the grounds of their age.

Every single employer in the United Kingdom will be affected by the changes, but according to the most recent research few of them are ready for it.

The DTI expects over 8,000 extra Employment Tribunal cases to be brought in the first year alone – more than for disability; religious belief; and sexual orientation discrimination combined (the three most recent new areas of law).

I am interested to know how people feel about this legislation and what impact you feel it will have on businesses nationwide.

Have a great day

Diane
First Business Support

Hi All

Having read a few of the threads it seems many of the business are in a similar position to ourselves.

Simply put: 'WE CANNOT AFFORD ANY MORE LEGISLATION'
To me this new law is bigger, Broader and potentially much more dangerous than any other former legislation we have faced.

We are a small business in the recruitment arena and this new Legislation frightens the life out of us. Over the years we have faced numerous rounds of legislation and only last June we were faced with the change in the employment law when it costs us lots of money to pay solicitors to redesign out T&C's, but now the Government in its infinite wisdom has imposed new fire & Safety, Maternity and to cap it all Age discrimination on us.

Please dont get me wrong, I feel that any discrimination based on Age, Gender, creed or ethnic background should be ruthlessly stamped out but this new Age discrimination law firstly lacks any kind of adequate definition or case law, but secondly it has broad brush strokes in its potential interpretation. We now as a small business are guilty until we can prove ourselves innocent at our own cost, or rather prove 'Objective Justification'.

It seems yet again that it is going to cost money on anything from legal fees, retraining staff to advertising or increased insurance. My time is now spent reading through contract after contract or ensuring the new round of red tape is implemented and obeyed. To me it doesnt really matter whether we are quoted the laws ad verbatim making everything seem ok, or perhaps 'not as bad as we think'. The reality is that this is going to cost thousands or perhaps millions per year for large and small businesses alike and what happens to a small business if there is a worst case scenario, can we afford for this eventuality, Of course we cant. My personal experience in our company tells me that if do get taken to court it could close us down, Something the Goverment seems to have forgotten, or rather a goverment that seems absolutely intent on destroying our business seems to have neglected to mention.

We are now awaiting the next wave of Red Tape, and this time I hope I will not be speaking with you as an ex-director of an insolvent company.

Regards

Dan

[Cornish Steve]

Dan,

I agree with you completely. The government is sufficatingly overbearing and appears to have little understanding of the impact new legislation has on small business. Some less-than-scrupulous individuals will see this as their ticket to an instant fortune - at the expense of well-run, profitable businesses that form the very fabric of our economy.

It seems that politicians have way too much time on their hands if they can waste it on such stupid initiatives. The only solution in the long term is significantly less taxes, because this reduces the size of government and their impact on our lives. When will they realise it's OUR money their wasting, not theirs? More to the point, when will WE realise it's our money their wasting, not theirs, and vote these jokers out of office?

[DianeLH]

Hi all,

After being out of action, so to speak, for the last few days with the dreaded flu it's interesting to come back and see the many different views, beliefs and understanding we each have regarding the imposing and unwelcomed new legislation.

As an organisation, and in order to hopefully combat the issues that employers are facing we are in the process of setting up various "legislation clinics" throughout the UK notifying employers of the do's and dont's to help them protect their business.

If any of you have an interest in attending such briefings please drop me a line via email and i will happily arrange for you to be updated.

What I should mention at this point is the briefings are free to attend and are funded purely by First Business Support.

What's the catch I'm sure you are asking ...None being the answer!

The benefit for us is that we have the opportunity to introduce our company on a grander scale should people need help at a later date.

Anyway enough of my ramblings for now, I hope you all have a great week.

[Atrades200]

Dan,

I agree with you completely. The government is sufficatingly overbearing and appears to have little understanding of the impact new legislation has on small business. Some less-than-scrupulous individuals will see this as their ticket to an instant fortune - at the expense of well-run, profitable businesses that form the very fabric of our economy.

It seems that politicians have way too much time on their hands if they can waste it on such stupid initiatives. The only solution in the long term is significantly less taxes, because this reduces the size of government and their impact on our lives. When will they realise it's OUR money their wasting, not theirs? More to the point, when will WE realise it's our money their wasting, not theirs, and vote these jokers out of office?

Hi Steve

Thank you for your words and, I think all the other small business owners out there should really sit up and take notice of this law. We have now just been informed by our insurance company that they will not insure us on a specific aspect of this regulation which constitutes 50% of our business. Practically speaking we are now doing business with no insurance thank you Goverment you have really done it this time.

I am getting a really bad feeling about this one as it goes way too far in its objectives and some which seem to me to be back door policy making to cover massive deficits in public sector spending rather than what seems on the surface to be an active and positive policy to ensure all people are treated fairly in the eyes of the law on age. It provides a 'Default' retirement age and not mandatory any more, the Goverment will save billions. It is placing unacceptable burdens on an already regulation overwhelmed private sector. It also has huge implication for the retirement age for women so watch out. I think the larger corporations will be fine with it as they have the money to spend but small business will be hit hard and fast and I cannot misinterpret this law as anything other than an anti small business and anti employment law.

You can appreciate that I am not looking forward to the last 2 years of this Government.


Kind Regards

Dan

[Bradley]

As a 57 year old i can now work as long as I like beyond 65. Arent I the lucky one!!!!!

[pdecaux]

I wonder how much of an impact the recent European Court of Justice ruling (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/5405064.stm) will have on the Age Discrimination issue?

Whilst the case was brought by Bernadette Cadman as a sex discrimination case, "in its general ruling the court said experience was an acceptable way of setting somebody's pay".

[bwglaw]

I think any discrimination lawyer (me included) will say that "experience" is justified to determine an employee's pay

[bwglaw]

As a 57 year old i can now work as long as I like beyond 65. Arent I the lucky one!!!!!

Not technically correct because the employer can give notice (6-12 months)of his intention to retire you at 65 and can justify its refusal to consider your request to work beyond the age of 65

[theMBA]

I'm over 40 and I consider myself to be highly computer-literate. Are you saying most employers would discriminate against me on this basis?

[theMBA]

Sorry - forgot to include the relevant quote when I just posted. Here it is:

i think that, broadly speaking, this law is impractical and cannot be applied accross the board. ultimately if you advertise a position - you are going to 'discriminate' against 'unsuitable' candidates in favour of 'suitable' ones - that will be down to your judgement and what you think is best for your busininess, this legislation will just allow disgruntled potential employees the chance to take the matter up at employment tribunals. i would agree that in theory - it holds water, the young should be given a chance and the elderly should be valued for their experience, but these qualities are not necessarily 'the' most valued asset across the board - if you are selling clothes to teenagers, would it really be a wise business move to have pensioners selling them?

I work in a media related industry, where every job i have seen, discriminates on the basis of age either by - saying must have X amount of experience or using more ambiguous terms such as 'dynamic', as i said, in theory, i can agree with some of the points, but for example in a job that relies on a certain level of computer literacy, you are going to discrimanate against, say over-40's more than under-40's

you can legislate against age discrimination in advertising (i already thought that was the case), but how can you legislate against an individuals assessment of a candidate.

I think things will carry on as they are, individual cases will be prosecuted and that is it - much like the disability/accessibility legislation has imapacted on webdesign

I'm over 40, but consider myself to be highky computer-literate (although the above slip might indicate otherwise, I hear people say!).
Are you saying most employers are likely to discriminate on my age, on the basis that my computer-literacy won't be good enough?

[Atrades200]

Sorry - forgot to include the relevant quote when I just posted. Here it is:



I'm over 40, but consider myself to be highky computer-literate (although the above slip might indicate otherwise, I hear people say!).
Are you saying most employers are likely to discriminate on my age, on the basis that my computer-literacy won't be good enough?

Hi The MBA

I take your point from the former quote by nxmd but I think what he was trying to say was this, the Age Discrimination law has been enforced without any adequate definitions and is totally unsupported by case law, in fact the only comparisions we have are from Ireland where I beleive they had introduced the law in 1999. This therefore gives us a binding law with massive interpretations in its potential implementation. Therfore instead of a law that simply gives us guidelines on how to eradicate Age Discrimination in the workplace, which I may add is a positive step, this Law has such breadth in its potential use by interpretation. Therefore if we take a recruitment business that was to screen candidates for a specific position and just by mere coincidence they chose all candidates that are under 40 then this could be considered Age discrimination and practically speaking it is irelevant if this was the case or not, in the eyes of this law they could be sued if the candidate considered that it was. By this law we are decidedly guilty until we can prove ourselves innocent and the absence if case law means will have to go through many cases until we can establish who would be right and who would be wrong and, I just hope that it isnt my company that has to go through it.

The potential implications are huge and span numerous areas including recruitment, training, promotion, advertising, retirement and redundancy, equal opportunities, Anti-harassment and the list just keeps on getting bigger. All expense incurred by any company through compliance with the law will be met by that company and these costs are going to be big. If we consider that the UK is made up of many small businesses then whilst some large corporates can introduce and implement these policies via a large HR departments and can afford to sued, this law will undoubtedly close thousands of small businesses, mainly because our goverment in its wisdom has provided unlimited compensation awards. Now even companies trying desperately to comply will be caught out. If we consider that most of us in the UK will be related to or know of somebody who has a small business the impact of this law will be enormous.

I have focussed many times on the impact to small business because I firmly beleive that this is where the impact of this law will be most painful.

Kind Regards

Dan

[nxmd]

hello

in response to the under-40's and computer literacy, I am making a rather simplistic generalisation, but from my experience, having worked for several small companies taking on (semi-skilled) PA's, they have assumed that under 30's would be able to display a higher level of general computer literacy than - say anyone over 40, whether that is justified or not is subjective, but the assumption is i guess that people over 40 were unlikely to have been taught any computer skills at school ?



my point was really in my opinion the legislation, although comendable in theory, throws up more problems than it will ever solve, as any company - particularly a small company is going to be highly discriminatory in terms of who they hire, as they simply cannot afford to make a mistake, they may not be allowed to use 'descriminatory' labels in the advert - but they will still do it on interview .

A point in hand - without naming names, a small photography company used to hire some full time and freelance staff, but with the obligations towards redundancy, maternity etc .... they now hire all staff as freelancers - to avoid those commitments, (and this is now standard practise wherever i go) now none of the staff have any benefits such as sick pay or whatever, legislation is all well and good - in terms of large companies, they can absorb it, but it makes a real difference to small businesses

incidentally - if anyone needs any webdesign done by a dynamic and energetic individual who still has all his own teeth, give me a call (not too late as i have to go to bed early)

[DianeLH]

John,

I hope you got yourself to bed before the curfu!

I totally agree that often the ones to suffer the most are the small businesses of this world.

Throughout the years of dealing with SME's and prior to the privatisation of Tribunal Prosecutions we have sadly seen many small company close due to the financial strains forced upon them.

I like to think that First Business Support are most definately the facility that alot of businesses can no longer afford to be without, the costs aren't massive but the savings certainly are.

If you need any help in this area, please feel free to contact me.