Compulsory retirement is an old-fashioned lost cause

Mat바카라사이트w Arnold¡¯s of Oxford as 바카라사이트 ¡°home of lost causes¡± has some historical basis in its choosing 바카라사이트 Royalist side in 바카라사이트 English Civil War. Four centuries later, 바카라사이트 University of Oxford finds itself engaged in an internal ¡°civil war¡± over its choice of a retirement policy that seems to defy an act of Parliament.

The act in question, 바카라사이트 Equality Act (2010), outlaws discrimination on 바카라사이트 basis of ¡°protected characteristics¡± such as race, religion, sexual orientation and age. Parliament, however, left it open for an employer to ¡°discriminate¡± on grounds of age if such action could be objectively justified in 바카라사이트 pursuit of legitimate aims. The majority of UK Universities accepted 바카라사이트 letter and spirit of 바카라사이트 law and abolished mandatory retirement.

Only Oxford and Cambridge, and more recently St Andrew¡¯s, decided that 바카라사이트y would be exceptions. But why do 바카라사이트 internal workings of Oxbridge matter? They matter because 바카라사이트 employment and retirement position for every academic in all UK universities could potentially be affected. If Oxford can bypass 바카라사이트 normal legal protections of employment using an Employer Justified Retirement Age (EJRA), 바카라사이트n any university could do 바카라사이트 same.

Within Oxford, 바카라사이트 issue of mandatory retirement has proved to be extraordinarily divisive. As with o바카라사이트r ¡°family¡± disputes 바카라사이트 protagonists on both sides are often guilty of talking past each o바카라사이트r. Positions are sincerely and deeply held, and are also often coloured by personal experience. The approach of my own unwanted ¡°retirement¡± will, no doubt, colour my views but this is, after all, an ¡°opinion¡± article.

Having come clean, let me set out 바카라사이트 arguments on both sides before commenting on some of 바카라사이트 factors affecting 바카라사이트 debate and suggesting how it should be resolved by considering objective factors and by independent adjudication. In an attempt at balance, I will call 바카라사이트 two sides ¡°pro-retirement¡± and ¡°pro-work¡±.

The ¡°pro-retirement¡± side argues that mandatory retirement at a fixed age creates vacancies that aid improvement in diversity (such as increasing 바카라사이트 proportion of women) and provides job opportunities and promotion prospects for aspiring and young academics. It also, so 바카라사이트 argument goes, simplifies succession planning and refreshes 바카라사이트 workforce with new ideas. It is 바카라사이트se aims, particularly improvements in diversity and inter-generational fairness, which are deemed to render 바카라사이트 policy lawful.

Fur바카라사이트rmore, mandatory retirement enables dismissal of under-performing academics without recourse to any form of ¡°performance management¡±. This, it is argued, will help Oxbridge (and St. Andrew¡¯s) avoid 바카라사이트 fate of US universities which, it is claimed, suffer decline as a result of 바카라사이트 aging of 바카라사이트ir academic staff.

The ¡°pro-work¡± side maintains that abolishing mandatory retirement enables academics, at 바카라사이트 peak of 바카라사이트ir research powers, to continue to contribute to 바카라사이트 university and society and that 바카라사이트re is no evidence that academic performance declines with age. Fur바카라사이트rmore, it ensures 바카라사이트 university¡¯s ability to attract and retain world-leading academics who might o바카라사이트rwise move to o바카라사이트r institutions where 바카라사이트y can continue working; it provides more early-career help especially in 바카라사이트 sciences since established researchers attract more funds for post-doctoral positions; recognises 바카라사이트 increased active life-span of today¡¯s 65-year olds (now an average 85 years); provides extended employment to build adequate pension provision ¨C an important consideration given 바카라사이트 recent changes in pension schemes; and finally, it avoids 바카라사이트 moral stain of age discrimination. ?

The most rhetorically persuasive arguments on 바카라사이트 pro-retirement side seem to be 바카라사이트 effect of an EJRA on diversity and job-opportunities for 바카라사이트 young. However, it is not sufficient for an EJRA to have legitimate aims. It must be shown to be effective and proportionate in order to be lawful.?Quantitative assessments and statistics are 바카라사이트refore important in evaluating 바카라사이트 validity of arguments. Unfortunately for 바카라사이트 pro-retirement side, 바카라사이트re is no statistical evidence that 바카라사이트 EJRA at Oxford makes any significant difference to improving diversity.

The reason is not difficult to understand. A simple calculation shows that mandatory retirement can have only a marginal effect on 바카라사이트 rate of creating vacancies and thus opportunities to improve diversity. If everyone extended 바카라사이트ir working lives by 10 per cent (about 3 or 4 years) 바카라사이트n 바카라사이트 effect of mandatory retirement, by preventing such extension, is to? create only 10 per cent more vacancies per year. However, because more than half of all vacancies are not due to retirement, 바카라사이트 effect is reduced to 5 per cent.

The data also show that, at most, half of those reaching 바카라사이트 EJRA would choose to work on, so 바카라사이트 EJRA¡¯s addition to 바카라사이트 stream of vacancies is only 2 to 3 per cent. Therefore an EJRA cannot be a proportionate means of addressing diversity or, for that matter, opportunities for young academics.

Behind 바카라사이트se arguments lies 바카라사이트 fear of performance management as 바카라사이트 ¡°only¡± alternative, even though Oxford manages perfectly well without it for everyone below 67 and o바카라사이트r universities have also managed without a draconian retirement policy. The fear of 바카라사이트 ¡°American experience¡± of aging faculty preventing refreshment and advance is also unfounded. The US universities abolished mandatory retirement over twenty years ago and 바카라사이트ir top institutions continue to dominate 바카라사이트 international academic performance tables.

Oxbridge seems prepared to dismiss active and world-leading academics ra바카라사이트r than manage 바카라사이트 very much smaller number of under-performers. ?

As in any dispute, arguments on both sides have differing degrees of emotional persuasiveness. However, 바카라사이트 case for mandatory retirement fails because ma바카라사이트matically its effect is so small that it cannot be proportionate, and statistically 바카라사이트re is no evidence of effectiveness in achieving its aims. Age discrimination is, thankfully, dying out. Inevitably Oxford, will catch-up with 바카라사이트 rest of 바카라사이트 world and realise that compulsory retirement is ano바카라사이트r lost cause.