Why the governments policy on getting older people back to work is half cocked and ill thought out

 Last week, the chancellor announced that a key element in his economic strategy is to get older people, who have retired, back into the labour market. This is mainly based around tax law changes that are specially beneficial to wealthy pensioners with large pension pots. I had to laugh when I watched his speach. On Monday, I'd been out for a beer with a mate of mine. He was made redundant at Xmas from a senior position at one of the countries top blue chip organisations. He'd been a victim of a 'reorganisation'. He's a month or two older than me, we both turned 60 last year.

As he feels he needs to work for at least a couple more years, I was pleased to learn that he's starting a new, senior role at another well respected company. What wasn't quite so pleasing was what he told me about another job he'd applied for. He was extremely well qualified for it and had worked for the company for 30 years, until he took his previous position seven years ago. He'd been put forward by a mutual friend, who was hoping for a finders fee bonus. When an interview did not materialise, the mutual friend made some enquiries and was told on the QT that my friend was 'too old' and they didn't want someone who would just hang around for a couple of years. 

This was quite shocking, not least because this contradicts what the company says about it's own recruitment policies on its job adverts on Linkedin. When I listened to the Chancellor, it made me wonder as to whether the government had actually done any research at all into what might tempt older people back. Clearly he's done a bit of research into the very wealthy, newly retired, who the opportunity to top up the pension pot will be attractive, but I doubt this will have a major impact, beyond a few niche roles.

Many of my friends are coming up to the point where retirement becomes an option. What is striking is that so many of the conversations are the same. It starts with "I'm not quite ready to retire, but I'd prefer to work a 2-3 day week for a few years and start to wind down.". A few have also spoken to me in recent weeks and said that they are considering re-entering employment as the recent fuel costs and inflation spike have played havoc with their household budgets. They feel that a top up to their family budget would be nice, but are wary of having to work in a stressful environment.

It strikes me that the government seemingly ignored these sort of people. It seems to me an absolute no brainer that firms should want to retain trained and skilled employees, who want to work but do not want a full 35 hour week. It would also seem to me that this offers huge opportunities for mentoring younger staff and passing on knowledge. If we need people to stay in the workplace, it is surely desirable for them to pass on skills and increase the robustness of the economy. I know of a fair few people who have left firm, only to return shortly after as part time consultants, as the firms have lacked the in house skills. My view is that the government should look at incentivising firms to retain older staff and especially to job share and pass on knowledge. One of the biggest drains on the skill set of the economy is women leaving the job market to have children and then finding it hard to get back into decent jobs. It seems to me that enlightened firms should look at using staff approaching retirement age to job share/skill share with such people. There really should be government backed schemes to enable progressive employment practices, where people who would prefer to work part time can. Huge sums are spent on apprentice schemes, but the best apprenticeship of all is to work with someone who knows their job. I'd give tax incentives and tax breaks to companies that have employment policies that encourage people to job share, work part time and utilise people who would otherwise be economically inactive. This would be a very worthwhile investment in the economy.

Firms with over 250 employees should be able to demonstrate that they have polices that ensure people are not forced out and those wanting to job share are accomodated. This will build resilience into firms, as having more people around who know the job has to be a good thing. It means that projects do not stop when holidays are taken and staff should be able to share ideas, which will improve the general performance of the companies.

It strikes me that Rishi Sunak and his governments simply to not engage and consult properly with the people they are targetting their policies at. If they were to make job sharing and part time working more desireable for firms, then they would deliver a massive premium to the economy. The Tory right are always clamouring for tax cuts. To me, the sensible thing is to target any cuts at firms that are doing the right thing. If companies that could demonstrate policies that promote employment equality are working, then surely giving them breaks, such as lower rates of corporation tax would be eminently sensible. The right believes that tax cuts make the economy more efficient. If we actually had a progressive tax system where doing the right thing was rewarded, I might be inclined to agree with them. As it is, we simply seem to be giving breaks to people who largly don't need the cash.