| Is this institutionalised ageism?
Sorry to
mention the E word - I know weve all had our fill of matters relating to the
election. But there was one issue on which
all political parties were notably silent, and since it affects many who log on to
laterlife, I feel obliged to mention it. Nobody,
as far as I could see, showed any interest in making compulsory retirement at 65 illegal in Britain.
I
dont know where or why three score and five was the allotted birthday for
retirement, or why five years short of that was once deemed more suitable for women (who
live longer than men). If ever the
rule made sense, it certainly doesnt now. Chronological
age is no measure of ability. It is generally
accepted that birthdays are arbitrary ways to assess fitness or suitability for
employment.
If you have
doubts about that, consider these cases: June
is a fitness teacher. She works at various
health centres and for many years ran classes part time at a further education college. At 65, despite full enrolment and no record
of absenteeism, she had to retire from the college.
Her regulars - many of similar age or older - were very upset to lose a
teacher who recognised and met their needs.
Linda is a
counsellor. She qualified in her late
fifties and practices successfully. She
began teaching counselling skills when in her sixties and enjoyed sharing her knowledge. She still has her own clients, but again her
birthday meant that she can no longer teach her subject in an academic setting, despite
her enthusiasm and the freshness of her approach.
What these
cases show is an absurd waste of talent and truly institutionalised ageism. Over in
the US, where grey power really counts for something, it is illegal to retire people at a
specific age. Some of course choose to leave
at 65, others reduce their hours, work part time and gradually phase themselves out.
Pity nobody
thought that a promise on this issue might attract older voters, especially as
theres no age limit for MPs.
Send me
your views: helen@laterlife.com
|