Canadian HR Reporter

CANADIAN HR REPORTER July 11, 2016 INSIGHT 19 Embracing older employees A look at how to eliminate ageism in an organization with a younger workforce Question: We are a technology company. Most of our employees are in their 20s and early 30s, but we recently hired a few workers who are older. How can we make our office more welcoming for employ- ees in their 40s, 50s and 60s? Answer: To a certain extent, some of the supposed generational dif- ferences in the workplace are somewhat overhyped. In many respects, people want the same things from their work whether they're 25 or 75. ese include interesting and meaningful work, fair and reasonable compensation and benefits, a safe and pleasant work environment, a certain level of job security, reasonable work- life balance and suitable learning and development opportunities. Employee engagement is largely universal in that many of the same things can engage employees of all ages. For example, employers should clearly communicate the organization's vision, mission and values and explain to employees how their jobs contribute to or- ganizational goals; ensure senior management is available and ap- proachable; give employees the resources needed to be success- ful; ensure work is stimulating and meaningful; provide employees with the freedom to determine how they complete their work; and offer career advancement. Different life stages, diversity Nevertheless, people often want different things from their jobs at different stages of their lives. Workers in their 20s are often concerned with establishing themselves, while those in their 30s and 40s may be thinking about providing for their families while climbing the corporate ladder, and those in their 50s and 60s and beyond may be thinking about re- tirement and passing their knowl- edge on to younger colleagues. erefore, it may be necessary to build some flexibility into the employment value proposition by ensuring the organization can attract and retain different demo- graphic groups. One way of doing this is by offering flexible benefits packages that allow employees to have greater coverage in certain areas depending on their indi- vidual needs, family status and life stages. Older employees in particular may appreciate expanded health benefits, life insurance and pen- sion plans and other retirement savings vehicles more than their younger counterparts. It is important to have a real and meaningful commitment to diversity when it comes to at- tracting and retaining workers of all ages. Diverse organizations are less prone to engage in groupthink and are better able to innovate, change and meet customer needs. For that reason, it makes sense to welcome employees of all ages and ensure that older workers feel welcome. Above all, managers and em- ployees need to understand di- versity represents a competitive advantage for the organization. ey also need to be trained and coached so that they understand that age discrimination and ste- reotyping are never acceptable. Welcoming all ages Creating a climate that's welcom- ing to employees of all ages can be challenging, but it can be done as long as the culture and work envi- ronment are fun and stimulating yet dignified and professional at the same time. While an employer should never assume older work- ers wouldn't be interested in "fun" activities in the workplace such as dress-up days or teambuild- ing events, such programs should be voluntary and appropriate for people of all ages. If you're like some technology companies that have perks such as beer fridges, foosball tables and pods for napping, there is a likelihood many of those types of benefits wouldn't be appreciated as much by older employees, who may see them as unprofessional. However, that's not to say they should be taken away — espe- cially if the core demographic of the workforce enjoys such perks and they help to retain and engage those employees. While many people who are familiar with the most recent tools and technologies are likely to be young, older people can and do learn and develop new skills. Older workers are also frequently able to leverage their wisdom and understanding of technology — particularly where they have been working in the field and have had to adapt to newer technologies as they were introduced. Job descriptions and recruit- ment advertising should avoid ageist language such as asking for candidates who are "recent grad- uates," "digital natives" or people with a "bubbly personality." It is also a good idea to review poli- cies, practices, norms, unwritten rules and programs to ensure they aren't ageist. With respect to existing em- ployees, it is important not to make assumptions about the ca- reer goals of older employees and ensure development opportuni- ties are provided to employees of all ages. It is also important to consider diverse opinions and perspectives and understand that older people have wisdom and experience and will often have encountered similar issues and challenges in the past. Brian Kreissl is the Toronto-based product development manager for Carswell's human resources, OH&S, payroll and records retention products and solutions. Brian Kreissl Toughest HR Question Brexit implications for employees So much employment regulation is now established as good practice that any attempt at unravelling it will now be complex, slow, regressive and counter-productive e deluge of increasingly extreme polar dichotomy arguments and claims regarding post-Brexit life also applies to the critical area of work and employment where the "Remain" and "Leave" camps have some of their greatest internal tensions and contradictions. On the one side, we have asser- tions that Brexit will allow a new blank page for laws and an escape from unnecessary and costly red tape, giving businesses greater freedoms and flexibility — and so competitive advantage. is ignores the argument that not all laws are European Union (EU)- derived, all regulation is bad or all numerical flexibility (the ability to adjust labour to meet fluctuations in demand) is good. For instance, this flexibility can encourage competition based on labour costs — and so a down- ward spiral of a "drive to the bot- tom" in terms and conditions and a consequent lack of investment, value-added and quality processes and innovation — as even the gov- ernment has now admitted by in- troducing its national living wage, low productivity is at least partly caused by poor pay. From the other side come asser- tions that the EU has been the cre- ator and bastion of worker protec- tions, preventing a rush to a totally free labour market, while hinting of a return to Dickensian exploi- tation with Brexit. is stance is now taken by the Trades Union Congress, unions and the Labour Party leader, Jeremy Corbyn. is is an interesting reversal of the previous and historical position of unions and labour politicians, who viewed the European project as a capitalist club before it meta- morphosed into a more "Social Eu- rope." is stance also ignores the fact that not all law is EU-derived and membership has not saved the U.K. workforce from the blight of retrograde and draconian employ- ment terms and conditions, such as Amazon's warehouse or Sports Direct allegedly not meeting the minimum wage. And now the growth of the so- called "gig" economy, let alone the growing disparity in rewards between senior executives and ordinary employees and capri- cious capitalism practices and manoeuvres, as in cases such as the recent collapse of BHS. ese have all resurfaced in the news in the last few days. As Vince Cable, the former long-serving business secretary recently said, it would not be a "bonfire of EU red tape" because the U.K. already has one of the least regulated labour mar- kets in the world. Both sides have betrayed a lack of historical and contemporary grounding and analysis of both employee relations and politics. A more nuanced and balanced view is needed. One problem is that there is much counterfactual argument of causation — what would have happened anyway. Nevertheless, we need to recall four simple matters about em- ployment protection and rights: • e status of employment regu- lation — some existed pre-EU, some is not EU-driven and some is EU-derived. • Much depends on the post-Brex- it U.K.-EU relationship. • e power of social norms and expectations remain. • e importance of "Realpolitik" is over-arching. Firstly, employment regulations have a mixed heritage. Some pro- tections were passed before EU membership. The U.K. intro- duced laws on race discrimination in 1965 and expanded this into the employment area in 1976. ere were also laws on equal pay. e U.K. was an early adopter that helped drive EU equality policy. Some laws are not EU creations and are purely domestic in origin. ese include unfair dismissal, minimum wages, unlawful pay deductions, industrial action and vocational training. Some regu- lations are EU-derived. Some of these have supplemented existing U.K. rights and some have been gold-plated by the U.K. Secondly, much would depend on the exact post-Brexit relation- ship with the EU. Negotiations would be lengthy and complex, and the status quo would be broadly expected to continue dur- ing that period. Indeed, retaining EU employment law may be part of any new deal. Thirdly, many employment protections have become ac- cepted and expected workplace norms, woven into the fabric of the employment relationship in a developed society. It is unreal- istic to imagine that such estab- lished rights, borne out of sense of doing-the-right-thing and fair play, would be diluted or removed. ey also reflect good HR prac- tice, and employers may not want to abandon existing family-friend- ly policies given their significance in recruitment and retention. Indeed, the government might not want to increase burdens, uncertainty and confusion for employers by making significant changes. e reality is that laws would be retained and there is unlikely to be a major shift as wholesale change would not only be unexpected by employees and employers, but would be politi- cally unthinkable, impractical and not a priority for government and politicians. Fourthly, politicians wishing re-election would surely see little political advantage in allowing employers to discriminate against people or removing shared paren- tal leave and requests for flexible working. e whole direction of movement for the U.K. has been to extend family-friendly laws underpinned by social attitude changes. ese make it politically unattractive to scale back such laws in any meaningful way. Like all the other areas in the Brexit debate, it is impossible to predict with any degree of cer- tainty how U.K. employment may change. e most likely sce- nario is business-as-usual in the short term, as rules are unlikely to change dramatically in a sudden radical departure from the status quo. Even in the long term — and irrespective of the employment rights consequences of any new U.K.-EU relationship — so much employment regulation is now established as good practice that any attempt at unravelling it will not only be complex and slow, but be seen as regressive and counter- productive — and so undesirable for not only employees but also employers and politicians. Chris Rowley is professor of human resources at the Cass Business School at City University London in the United Kingdom. He can be reached at c.rowley@city.ac.uk. Chris Rowley Guest Commentary It is unlikely to imagine established rights would be diluted or removed.

• Cover