UKACE

Let us try to answer the question. We have to assume that they are rational. If they are to claim that they are not ageist, although they have not been challenged on this issue by anyone in public, they should, in their own minds, be preparing some kind of defense. One can imagine what this is:

1. The current economic situation means that they have to sacrifice older academics because they are more expensive than “young blood”

2. Older staff are less productive than younger

3. We have to manage the age profile of the university

4. It is the decision of heads of department and its nothing to do with them

The first three arguments clearly have an ageist element. The last is just passing the ageism buck.

But there is another and frightening possibility. This is that have simply not internalized the possibility that culling academics who have requested to continue in employment past their default retirement age might have some moral content. That is that they have taken an amoral attitude.

Conclusion: ageist, and therefore immoral, or amoral. Take you pick!

H-2-Z (Hero-to-Zero), Ed

PS: And what about the small army of pro-Vice Chancellors. Are you pro-ageism?

It looks like an all party alliance might spring up, finally, to ditch the default retirement age. See the BBC link opposite.

But, surprise surprise, not the faintest whisper from the heads of UK universities. The culling goes on. We are running out of phrases: “hero to zero”, “put on the scrap heap”, “applying for you own job”, “shafted by ageists”. If, dear reader, you detect, a note of desperation, then you would not be wrong. But its more a deep depression that not a single VC is on the side of the angels. If you are out there then speak up! You should at least use it for competitive advantage when recruiting.

One can of course make an easy prediction. When finally, and it will not be very long, the law changes you will see the rush of VC to be first with the announcement that, “oh yes, we support the move”, and they hope their present culling will be quietly forgotten. It will be the rush of the hypocrites, the stampede of the self-righteous. We will remind them, “oh yes” , but we will not respect them; that needs to be earned. They should try to earn our respect now it now before they loose it.

ABOLISH THE DEFAULT RETIREMENT AGE IN UK UNIVERSITIES NOW!

It has come to my attention that certain universities are not allowing staff to bid for research grants as a Principal Investigator (PI) if the period of the grant would cross over their default retirement age (DRA). This must surely be discriminatory. It is bad enough staff being forced to retire against their will; it is quite outrageous to prevent them from applying as PI while they are in still in full time employment. It seems to me that this is different from the issue of applying to continue in work. Section 3 of the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations (2006) relates to straight age discrimination and says, for example in 3 (b) (i), that discrimination exists where action

“puts or would put persons of the same age group …. at a particular disadvantage when compared with other persons”

Taking action which assumes that someone may be forced to retire is not only discriminatory at the time it applies, because the person is still in a full time post, but prejudices the case to continue itself: “we are forcing you to retire because you don’t have any research grants” is perfectly mirrored by “we won’t let you apply for grants because you are going the retire”. This will surely not stand up in court, or rather an employment tribunal (note you do not have to resign to go to a tribunal but it is wise to go to formal grievance procedures first).

Vice-chancellors who introduce such draconian rules are damaging UK research, introducing a kind of ageist blight to the research life of productive academics.

Ed

The great hope that we had that scrapping the default retirement age (DRA) would be built into to the Equality bill via amendment seems to have failed, despite much energy being generated on the issue. It gives us no sour grapes pleasure that the bill itself now looks doomed not to be passed in time, before the General Election. Much of the bill is excellent, including the parts on ageism.

It seems that Harriett Harman, despite being Leader of the House and Deputy Prime Minister has caved in to the Lord Mandelson wing which simply does not want to scrap the DRA and will try to make the 2010 review a damp squid. This is despite Lord Justice Scott in the “Heyday case” saying he expects a change. Vice Chancellors, must be breathing a small sigh of relief.

It is time for the law to be tested again. The cynical culling of staff in 2010 ahead of the 2010 review and in the face of the judges comments may not stand the test of an employment tribunal. I wonder if the universities really want the reputational
risk of case after case coming before the tribunals; or one really good case with lots of publicity.

Ed

The lack of a consistent, indeed any, consistent policy on research grant holders or applicants who are approaching or beyond the default retirement age (DRA) is another of the failures of UK universities and the funding councils to address the whole issue of the DRA, other than the policy to simply cull staff (see these pages). Even to describe the muddle takes some doing. Without any clear policy individual research programmes can really suffer. Here is a rough list of outcomes. For those who face forced retirement these are the options adopted by universities.

1. Cull the academic and kill off the research programme. A nice example of this is where the funding rules require the person to be in full time employment during and even after the grant finishes. Such grants are dead in the water. I know of one institution where an instruction to the research contracts office “not to sign“any research grant involving any academic would be in their post DRA period. This is nothing short of a scorched earth policy.

2. Force retirement from the full time post, but offered a percentage post. The title of the post has to be different (I am told) if the person wants to take the USS pension (USS is a bit shaky on this or at least it’s hard to get a clear policy out of them). A title like, “research fellow” or “consultant” may work. All manner of deals can be struck, but negotiations can be bloody. I know one one case when a grant was awarded just before the appeal stage of the request to stay on.

3. Emeritus (or other post) on no pay but allowed, at least, a desk and access to some facilities. Basically this amounts to unpaid work; USS subsidizing the UK research effort. I am told that the university can get the percentage of the FeC overheads for a percentage post, but only the “estates” part of FeC for an Emeritus or other unpaid post and only if it promises the desk etc support.

Ed