|
Age Discrimination: Employers called upon to have their say on impending legislation 13 December 2001 Should mandatory retirement be unlawful? And if mandatory retirement is outlawed will employers have to sack everyone at the end of working life? How will employers make sure they don't discriminate against older or younger workers, when definitions of old and young vary? How should age legislation be policed? Redundancy packages are traditionally weighted to older workers. Can a scheme be created that doesn't contravene age laws? The Employers Forum on Age (EFA) is calling on employers to have their say on the UK's new anti-ageism laws, to be introduced by 2006. The Essential Guide to Age Discrimination Legislation – launched today (13 December 2001) by the EFA to coincide with the government's consultation on age legislation – campaigns for businesses to influence and take part in the debate on outlawing ageism. The Guide argues that while 2006 may seem a long way off, employers need to prepare now for the introduction of age discrimination laws. It claims that age laws have the potential to present a radical challenge to long established business practices, including issues such as mandatory retirement and rewarding loyalty. Ms Sam Mercer, campaign director of the Employers Forum on Age, says: 'We welcome the government's two-stage approach to the consultation on age discrimination legislation. It is vital for UK plc that employers start preparing now for the introduction of these laws and have their say on what the key issues are. If not, we may end up with unworkable legislation. Employers need to take part in this consultation to ensure issues such as mandatory retirement and age exemptions are fully debated. Those that believe they can prepare for age discrimination simply by removing age from job adverts and date of birth from application forms are in for a rude shock.' The UK's age laws will follow the structure of UK race and sex discrimination laws and will: cover all workers, including both younger and older employees, agency workers and the self employed; provide for unlimited compensation; be effective immediately, with no qualifying period of service; and include job applicants. However, unlike the UK's sex and race discrimination laws, the government must decide on whether they should: create an exhaustive list of circumstances in which age discrimination may be justified; state that direct age discrimination can be lawful if 'objectively and reasonably justified by a legitimate business objective' and wait for courts and tribunals to clarify what comes within the law; or provide guidance to employers on what is and what is not unlawful. 'The government has some choices to make. But if employers want exemptions they will have to be ready to participate in the consultation and provide examples of when employers should and should not be able to use age in employment related decisions,' adds Sam Mercer. 'Failing to do so may lead to legislation that is so flexible that it opens the floodgates to employment tribunals and destroys justified current business practices.' James Davies, employment partner at law firm Lewis Silkin and legal advisor to the EFA, says: 'The key issue for the government is its approach to mandatory retirement. It can choose effectively to outlaw mandatory retirement, which would no doubt increase employment opportunities for the over-60s, or the government could allow employers to retain the right to require employees to retire at a fixed age; this would have manpower and succession planning advantages. There are forceful advantages to either option and it will be interesting to see which way the government goes.' back to the archive |
