French lessons on managing the politics of ageing
In late April we came across an interesting academic article advocating raising the pension age to 70 by 2050. This research attracted some brief news coverage and social media attention before quickly disappearing. In a world dominated by a 24-hour news cycle, the message seemed to be why waste time talking about a hypothetical situation a long time into the future and involving future generations? Unfortunately, this attitude seems commonplace when discussing issues of the impact of ageing on our daily lives.
We are beginning to witness an increasing interest in the popular book industry of the social impacts of the global ageing population trend (2). Yet, this apparent discovery of a new global issue requiring some form of government and business response is misleading. The issue of population ageing has been well known for over thirty years and largely ignored by governments of all persuasions in Australia, Great Britain and the United States but less so in Europe. Business is also remarkably slow in adapting to the ongoing demographic changes. The British academic John Macnicol (3) suggests everyone has been collectively sleepwalking for the past few decades on this issue.
That’s why analysis on the need to potentially raise pension ages is timely. Encouraging us now to think about the future political consequences of population ageing, allows considered policy responses to be taken in the immediate term with the goal of taking any potential political sting out of the equation. We only have to look at the recent French Government’s management of the introduction of a small rise in the age to pension access to get an insight into the social unrest generated by a poorly implemented change in managing population ageing. If a narrow decision based on future potential costs of population ageing to the national budget is taken without also changing employment parameters and norms, then understandably workers approaching retirement and younger workers again perceiving further generational disadvantage will assess themselves as worse off under the proposed change.
Changing employment parameters and norms does not happen overnight. This requires sustained and long-term focus to bring about. Potentially raising the pension accessibility age in the future makes sense if we are now living for longer. But to do that without creating deep social unrest requires adopting a longer-term mindset and holistic approach to the meaning of age, work and retirement within our society. With the acceleration of demographic ageing trends, all of us whether in politics, public service or industry need to be addressing this situation with greater urgency. The time has come to wake up and make an ageing world an opportunity for positive change and not a crisis.
Allowing ageing to be positioned as a social and economic crisis risks a reactive politicisation of the issue which will be in no one’s interest be a person young, middle-aged or older, rich or less well off. A necessary pre-condition for any possible future change in pension accessibility is changing our existing attitudes to work and employability. If the current negative business attitudes to older worker employment were to continue into a time when a potential rise in the pension age was anticipated, one can imagine a significant political backlash. Older workers facing insecure employment over a prolonged period, experiencing diminishing superannuation balances due to funding periods out of work and potentially needing access to government welfare support before securing pension eligibility, all suggest a simple decision to potentially raise the pension age will be a far more complex and costly political issue than might be anticipated. Younger people already confronted by a mountain of environmental and social issues will also have their ongoing job and career prospects influenced by AI technology in the workplace whilst at the same time having to work for longer than earlier generations. Raising the pension age has major ramifications for younger workers as well.
A first and necessary step in preparing for a possible future age increase in pension age eligibility is tackling the existence of workplace ageism. Issues of future access to the pension can be reduced if the employment of older people becomes a workplace norm and older people can be reasonably expected to have equal access to good jobs, a modicum of job security and learning opportunities.
This takes time, which is why 2050 and possible pension change is a lot closer than we may care to realise. This requires an innovative response from Government to get the ball rolling. A good place to start would be revisiting the 2016 Human Rights Commission Willing to Work National Report into employment discrimination against older Australians and Australians with disability. This represents another example of some great analysis accompanied by a range of thoughtful recommendations addressing ageism in Australia sinking without a trace within a week of its release.
Two recommendations to engage our Federal Government more actively in a strategic and integrated policy response to ageing within Australia continue to resonate:
1: Creating a Cabinet Minister position for Longevity.
We need to move beyond thinking of policy applying to older people in Australia as solely focusing on aged care provision. In light of our ageing population and the need to increase our national productivity there is a compelling case to create a Cabinet role focused on longevity with the purpose of addressing the economic dimensions of living longer, increasing labour force participation of older Australians, tackling employment discrimination and positioning ageing as a positive contributor to society.
2: Developing, implementing and monitoring a national workforce strategy which has a prime objective of lifting the workforce participation of older Australians. This will require the Government to work with key stakeholders and business to create accountabilities and deliver positive outcomes.
A third recommendation we would add is the mandatory annual reporting of workplace age diversity profiles.
We advocate Governments update existing EEO legislative provisions to extend the annual requirements of company reporting on gender equality management to also cover the age composition of their existing permanent workforces at all work levels. A realistic goal should be to have workforces which more closely resemble the national demographic structure.
Our earlier PhD research highlighted a significant reason companies comply with gender reporting and actions to reduce gender inequality is driven by the perceived risk of either personal or organisation reputational damage in not fulfilling community expectations in this space. As the issue of workplace age diversity is yet to attract comparable media or political attention, organisations continue to perpetuate age-discriminatory practices as there is no negative consequence in taking such actions. By forcing companies to begin reporting on their age diversity management statistics, the goal is that the risk of incurring public reputational damage in this space forces senior management to drive positive change in addressing workplace ageism.
The role of Government outlined in our newsletter by todays existing standard could seem both idealistic and naïve. However, this is more a reflection on how low our expectations have fallen in response to the current political environment. Our past shows many positive examples of governments undertaking powerful social and economic reform programmes. Addressing population ageing is an opportunity any reformist Government will want to tackle. Depoliticising the ageing process will provide ongoing benefit for Australian citizens of all ages.
If the above comment has made you reflect on your workplace dynamics, please contact us and let us help you take practical steps to transform your existing workplace into an inclusive age-neutral one that develops your competitive and performance capability.
References
1: Emily Chantiri, E. (2023). Raise the Australian pension age to 70 by 2050: expert modelling. The Lighthouse (25 April). Macquarie Business School. lighthouse.mq.edu.au/article/april-2023/pension-age
2: Refer to: Stage (Not Age): How to understand & serve people over 60- The fastest growing, most dynamic market in the world. Susan Wilner Golden (2022).
The Super Age: Decoding our demographic destiny. Bradley Schurman (2022)
Tomorrow’s People: The future of humanity in ten numbers. Paul Morland (2022)
3: Macnicol, J. (2015). Neoliberalising Old Age; Cambridge University Press, United Kingdom
4: Australian Human Rights Commission. (2016). Willing to Work. National Inquiry into Employment Discrimination Against Older Australians and Australians with Disability.
5: Hessell, T (2021). ‘Talent and Age: How Do Human Resource Manager Meanings of Talent Influence Their Perceptions of Older Workers?’ PhD Thesis. University of Newcastle.
