UKACE

This site has championed the cause of academics who are being forced to retire this year, 2010, because they are unfortunate to have a default retirement age (DRA) which falls the year before the scrapping of the DRA, which Ian Duncan Smith the Works and Pensions minister has just announced will be from 1 October 2011. (See the link opposite: THE NEW SITUATION EXPLAINED).

It therefore becomes clear that the rush to dump people this year is a cynical strategy to beat the change. We will observe with pleasure universities being forced to completely scrap their existing policies which have slavishly followed the existing Age Regulations.

For those who are being forced out in the next couple of months the only comfort is that they have the moral high ground while the Vice-Chancellors occupy the torrid low ground. For those who still have the opportunity to appeal the sentence, let them make absolutely clear that they feel they are simply being sacrificed.

But after this year no more will academics be interviewed for their own jobs, often with the sure knowledge that the decision has been made against them before they walk into the room: a shattering and humiliating experience.

Meanwhile the very same Vice Chancellors, pro-Vice Chancellors, Heads of Department and HR staff who are the cullers of the 2010 cohort heroes and heroines will enjoy the fruits of the campaign they did nothing to support, but as much as they could to undermine. But it will take a long time for them to wash off the whiff of ageism.

Ed

PS This site will be maintained during the goverment consultation to help ensure that the universities do not try to wriggle out of their responsibilities.

It is time to address some gross inequities which are creeping into the UK universities’ default retirement age (DRA) saga. For recent details of the saga, see these pages. The simplest way of doing this is to put universities into separate categories in increasing levels of progressiveness. This may also be of help to those seeking employment at UK universities.

Category 1. “65 stayers: the ageist cullers”. These are universities who are sticking to their historical DRA of 65 in the face of the wind of change. They just carried out a cull this September and they are just beginning the 2010 cull. They cynically hope to beat the 2010 government review of the DRA by forcing retirement on as many academics as they can before a change in the law.

Category 2. “67 stayers” . Many universities already have a DRA of 67. This lack of fairness may be exaggerated in the following way. Those currently aged 64/65 at these universities can ride out the next two years and may be able to take advantage of a change in the law to stay on even longer.

Category 3. “65 movers”. I am told that there are some universities who are currently “65 stayers” but who are moving their DRA to 67. Although this will not help current 67/68 year olds it will be a great relief to those current 64/65 who are about to be culled in 2010. It is a move of quiet simplicity and humanity which also puts the universities in a good light.

Category 4 “Abolishionists”. It is very surprising that no university, or none that your editor has heard about, has broken ranks and simply abolished the DRA in line with the progressive thinking in UK public life (see eg the links to the Employers Forum on Age). They would have a clear vision of a future in which an active academic would NOT have the humiliation of having to apply for their own jobs, of being told that they are being kicked out in favour of “new blood”, are only being offered to continue on an hourly paid teaching basis, of having to scrabble around even for travel money, to have their research programmes run down, to beg for a desk and other support and to have to deal with the look of incomprehension on the faces of their USA counterparts as they explain that they have essentially been sacked.

So, we will draw up lists in each category and publish it here. If their own imagination cannot change the policy of vice-chancellors then maybe shame can.

Please let me know via the comments section which category your university in.

Ed.

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

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!

So now we have it: the opening sentence of section 7. “Pensions and Welfare” of the Conservative Lib-Dem coalition agreement states:

“The parties agree to phase out the default retirement age”

I do not know what the opposite of “every cloud has a silver lining”; maybe “every blue sky has ash in it”. We now must play the waiting game. I do not mean waiting to see whether the Government will scrap the DRA (it is clear they are committed to it), but to see whether UK Vice-Chancellors cynically carry on with the 2009/10 cull of academics whose DRA is this year. It was clear at the end of 2009 that the judge in the High Court case more or less instructed HMG to review the DRA in 2010, so the vice-Chancellors cannot claim this a surprise. It was even in both the Conservative and Lib-Dem election manifestos.

One waits to see if Employment Tribunals will follow the now thoroughly discredited 2006 statute or take the judge’s words and the Government’s intentions as sound reasons to allow cases of unfair dismissal for those forced out this year, or even prevent it.

The volcano option for those whose DRA is this year is that the Government will change the DRA from 2011 and the VCs will simply get away with this year’s cull. They may save a few quid, but they will pay a price in damage to their own reputations and that of their university.

Will no VC break ranks and join the “new politics”.

Ed