How to end Age-related Discrimination -- that is if you really want to

The last government talked a lot about how wrong age-based discrimination is, but, with it's huge majority in Parliament, it could have ended such discrimination once and for all, by making it unlawful to request age-related information until after hiring someone. Indeed, that Labour government's opposition to ageism seemed to be a bit of vote grabbing political window-dressing, for why would you make something supposedly unlawful so easy to get around? Will this new, more fragile coalition government be equally unwilling to tackle the problem? In an era where there is immense pressure on pension systems and, generally, on social programs for older people, wiping out the legal loop-holes that permit ageism should be a priority.

Certainly, older people should not be forced to retire. 25,000 workers in the UK are force retired for no reason but their age. It's not fair and applying the same standard to the Parliament, 1 in 8 MPs would be forced to retire immediately. (Well maybe that should be the exception!). However, the real problem is getting older people hired. No one wants to hire someone over 55 or even over 50, because the presumption is they will only work until 65. That presumption exists because most companies don't want anyone over 65 working for them.

In this day and age, that's not just impractical, it's irrational. The medical facts are thus: 60 is the new 40. There are all sorts of pretty good examples why ageism is impractical as well as irrational. For instance, in an era when financial circumstances mean fuel poverty for many older people, it's even more important for older workers to be able to choose to work longer, especially if they want to. And many do.

What is needed are enforceable laws. Logically enough, if you want to end age discrimination, you pass laws that restrict employers from asking a job applicant's age or for information from which a person's age can be inferred until after a formal offer of employment is made. Really, it's that simple. So, why doesn't this government do that? Or why doesn't the government just set an example by removing age related questions from its jobs applications and refusing to do business with companies that don't do the same? Or, separately, why doesn't the government commit to filling just five percent of its future vacancies with people over 65 year's of age?

The truth is that ageism is not really something governments in general want to tackle yet. The truth is we live in an Ageist society and big business does not want "old" people around. It's a bit like the current government's approach to financial reform. Superficially opposing big banker bonuses makes good political window-dressing, but, in the end, big government tends to want to please big business. It takes major political courage to resist this. In very much in the same way, resistance to passing effective anti-ageist legislation is based on the tendency of big government to side with big business. In the place of truly effective legislation, window-dressing legislation is seen as a politically expedient way of buying the votes of seniors.

Hopefully, simple mechanical koutowing to big business is not something this new government will have in common with the last. If it does, it will be to our peril and by that I mean the peril of us little people. In much the same way that the current financial crisis (and previous ones also caused by banking practices based purely on corporate greed) hurt ordinary folks (while the perpetrators walked away enriched), this crisis of ageing we are well into is going to bite us ordinary folk yet again very hard if it goes unchecked. Far better we take concrete steps now to address it. Let's hope the new government does that.