Comments on: Not so retiring

By: David

David — Mon, 21 Jan 2013 10:13:47 +0000

With proper workforce planning, workplace and state pension and people policies that support our economic needs, just about everyone who wanted to retire at a particular age beyond 60/65 could so so any anyone wanting to continue work could do so. The notion that age makes you stale, tired and lacking in innovation/energy kicks in at some point but varies hugely individual to individual – for some people/jobs it happens by 40!! It’s is no real argument, as CPD and PDP would still have to be evidenced plus we keep corporate knowledge and ‘wisdom’ which is worth having. So what’s the problem? As always lack of joined up thinking……just as we want people to save and make more provision for retirement but savings rates are lousy and tax incentives barely helpful!! What we can do as organisations is ‘show a lead’ by having people policies that enable such flexibility to be at the front end of strategy as a positive ‘offer’.

By: Dan

Dan — Thu, 17 Jan 2013 17:22:34 +0000

Ferdinand, I’d like to know how you think the labour market would re-adjust? Currently, you haven’t a hope of a university department making an appointment until there’s a retirement, and even then, you’d be lucky. How exactly would you prevent university faculty ageing, with no new blood coming in, young men and women with Energy, fewer family responsibilities, new ideas, a willingness to experiment and innovate, to place beside their colleagues’ wisdom, understanding and long-term perspectives?. Would it take 10, 20 years for the labour market to re-adjust?

By: no-name

no-name — Wed, 16 Jan 2013 13:31:52 +0000

The point that an imperative exists to pursue balance in this context seems quite right, and is independent of abolishing a mandatory retirement age for academics along the lines of Ferdinand’s suggestion.

The speculation I offered depends on the empirical claim that women outlive men and on the likelihood that women are equal to men in wishing not to be obliged to retire at the age of 65 years. Agreed, there is an implicit premise that individuals will tend to choose to retire when they eventually feel not fit to continue (maybe, also that women and men are equal in ability to self-assess fitness and equally likely to decide on retirement in light of a self-assessment that points to the benefits of such a course of action); however, the suggestion that this will occur at an earlier age for men than women seems realistic given the initial empirical claim and in the absence of clear evidence of inequality on the issues raised within the implicit premises.

Separately, a position which supposes an incapacity of older people to mentor younger people is difficult to support.

By: bspolicy

bspolicy — Wed, 16 Jan 2013 10:58:38 +0000

I don’t believe that the trend towards equality is moving fast enough for us to wait for this scenario to pay out. I think there is an imperative to take action. Furthermore, unless I’m mistaken, your point only really works if the majority of women continue to work at ages beyond the life expectancies for men. I don’t think this is realistic, or an ideal scenario for mentoring.

By: no-name

no-name — Tue, 15 Jan 2013 18:20:25 +0000

One might try to argue from differential longevity statistics for women and men that if 65 years were not the arbitrarily set retirement age for both, the ranks of senior academic staff would tend to include more women than men as age increases, and from this claim, one might try further argue the probability that the increased visibility of women “at the top” would encourage balance at the entry level ranks, with the additional benefit of appropriate mentoring for those trying to ascend the ranks.

By: Anna

Anna — Tue, 15 Jan 2013 17:21:27 +0000

That might be a very useful summary of what the discourse around the ‘leisure society’ in the 1990s was about, however what I had in mind was leisure as a cultural category and leisure studies (within the social sciences) which offer a bit of a more complex perspective on the relationship between ‘free time’ and work (this link presents some of the most recent studies in the field http://www.routledge.com/books/subjects/SCSL1020/) because it intersects with issues of gender (see the reference to married women and work below and status/power, as Tomlinson had rightly pointed out).
The advent of digital technologies, with the often heard concerns regarding an ‘always online existence’ and our ‘availability’ to check work emails at any time makes the whole discussion about leisure very timely once again. One of the most interesting publications on the matter, The Internet as Playground and Factory, claims that the divide between leisure time and work has vanished so that every aspect of life drives the digital economy. http://www.routledge.com/books/details/9780415896955/
No one would deny that status and personal dignity are secured by work, it’s the *exclusivity* of the work dimension that deserves to be interrogated in order not to deprive ourselves of those individual rights that, as you rightly mention below, nobody should sacrify, in the name of work or anything else.

By: universitydiary

universitydiary — Tue, 15 Jan 2013 14:47:48 +0000

That’s interesting. In the 1990s there was quite a lot of talk about the emergence of the ‘leisure society’, in which it was leisure rather than employment that would be the basis for recognition and self-respect, and in which personal ambition would be direct towards retirement or wealth that would remove the need for employment. On the whole that view was subsequently found to be faulty. Most people still saw their status and personal dignity secured by work rather than leisure.

By: bspolicy

bspolicy — Tue, 15 Jan 2013 14:36:13 +0000

Very interesting post. Reading through it, I was about to raise the same question as cormac, with the additional point that removing the block might be likely to impact more negatively on the careers of female academics. What are your thoughts on the hypothesis that allowing the persistence of networks of men at ‘the top’ would result in a reinforcement of the glass ceiling?

By: universitydiary

universitydiary — Tue, 15 Jan 2013 12:35:16 +0000

They’re all on full pay, Cormack. I confess I don’t go with the point about careers for younger staff. Nobody should need to sacrifice their rights. Forty years ago many people argued married women should not be allowed to work because they deprived others of employment. I think the labour market adjusted, and it would again if we abolished mandatory retirement.

By: cormac

cormac — Tue, 15 Jan 2013 12:14:40 +0000

Were they also on full salaries, Ferdinand? I was most impressed with the number of active academics I encountered at Harvard that were over 65, but was too polite to ask this question.
There is no question that such academics have a huge contribution to make, but the issue is whether the practice blocks the recruitment and career paths of younger staff.
I suspect that many of the academics I encountered kept their office, research and some teaching duties, but were on reduced salaries, but I don’t know this for sure!