While the law remains that employers need not give reasons for refusing requests to continue in employment past the default retirement age there is massive scope for favoritism and patronage. This is not to say that we should not celebrate when someone gets through the eye of the needle to obtain an extension; we must cheer. But for those who, despite years of hard work and good citizenship and with good academics reputations and substantial research grant awards, are shown the door, the secrecy can smack of cronyism, whether true or not. For one person to be told they are of importance and another not drives a wedge into the academic community. These days, for normal appointments there are strict rules to ensure fairness (anyone who has sat on an appointment panel will have been lectured to by the HR representative) but not so in the murky world of the academic retirement cull. It is probably down to some vague notion of cost, of the importance of the subject, of departmental support, of the power-base of the department in the university and so on and so forth.
But while we are kept in the dark ugly thoughts of patronage, of who you know, of deals done in pubs, of mutual back-scratching are bound to surface.
Ed
We would like to start a debate about the role of USS in the changing retirement climate. The basic situation is that USS does adapt to continued employment: see the link to the factsheet. Basically, if you stay on on full pay you have to postpone both the pension and the lump sum but there is an actuarial increase to take account of not taking them at 65. Although the thrust of the UKACE campaign is directed to continuing on full pay past 65, all manner of part-time arrangement are being made and there are USS rules which seems to be interpretted in different ways in different institutions.
Joanna Bornat writes:
“It would be helpful if contributors to the website could begin to share information and experiences of dealings with re pension payments and continuing employment.
I was told recently at a financial planning seminar for pending retirees that even half a day a week of a continuing grant would mean that I cannot draw any USS pension at the Open University.
The explanation is that pension cannot be drawn by someone still in employment. Of course the OU and USS seem to be passing responsibility between each other. I would be interested to hear how other universities are dealing with continuing employment and pension payments, how people have got round this and if there are any general principles that could be applied.
We know that some people have been successful in contesting the ending of their employment and are much to be congratulated. It would be helpful if we could build on these achievements so that they don’t stay one-offs.”
Ed
We can now read the Advocate General’s verdict: see the link. The final paragraph says:
“A rule such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which permits employers to dismiss employees aged 65 or over if the reason for dismissal is retirement, can in principle be justified under Article 6(1) of Directive 2000/78 if that rule is objectively and reasonably justified in the context of national law by a legitimate aim relating to employment policy and the labour market and it is not apparent that the means put in place to achieve that aim of public interest are inappropriate and unnecessary for the purpose.”
We need to show, from Government statements, that in fact although one Government department, Trade and Industry, may have dredged up some “employment policy” to support its evidence to the ECJ other Departments, eg Works and Pensions, are taking a more progressive line. It is interesting that the Advocate General does not use the term “social” in this paragraph whereas:
“43. The Commission submits that any infringement of the principle of non-discrimination on grounds of age, which is a fundamental principle of Community law, must be justified by a public interest/social policy level objective”.
Notwithstanding the rights argument there are huge social reasons to abolish retirement at 65: people are living longer, the cost of care, the poor economic
situation, the semi-collapse of occupational pensions etc. We need to collect the evidence for more progressive “objectives” emerging in government.
What will the High Court decide? If it allows the employment tribunals in relevant cases to start up again before the ongoing review is completed in 2011, then the tribunals need to know that there is another view in Government and be given the evidence for that view.
Lets publish the evidence here. Here is an example to start us off:
James Purnell, Minister for Works and Pensions, is qoted as saying: “As announced in the Pensions White Paper, we are working with employers to remove compulsory retirement ages and adopt flexible approaches. We recognise that we have an ageing population, with many older people who want the choice to continue working rather than retire”.
So, Mr Purnell, a few questions.
Are you working with the Universities? Why is abolition of the national retirement at 65 not included in the new Equality Bill, which does include age? Why miss this opportunity? Why was representation to the ECJ left to Trade and Industry when there was an Equality Bill which mentions age?
Ed
The time has come to start using the web site. So please send comments and material for the editors to use, such as news, articles and links.
Ed
This site is for UK academics, of any age, who are concerned about being forced to retire at 65 (or 67 in some institutions).
European Council Directive 2000/78/EC is explicitly intended to bring age discrimination into line with sex discrimination (prohibited by the European Council in 1976) and requires member states throughout the European Community to prohibit age discrimination. But the British Government has interpreted the Directive very narrowly by enacting the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006, which became law on 1 October 2006. Most UK universities are closely following these regulations and are missing an important opportunity to take a lead in eliminating age discrimination.
Where is the vision?
One can request to stay on but all the indications are that it will be very hard to do so. Members of staff may, literally, be interviewed for their own jobs.
We have members from all over the UK and are already making an impact. Join the campaign! Join the debate!
Please send, news, comments and material for possible articles.
Ed
