Does removing default retirement ages benefit individuals? A comparative empirical case study of the university sector

Abstract

In 2011, the UK government abolished the national default retirement age. While this could support extended working lives and promote individual choice, it could also be a neoliberal ‘ploy’ to individualise the risks of old age. The question, then, is what impact does the removal of mandatory retirement have in practice: does it help to promote individual choice and autonomy? Or does it lead to work intensification and the individualisation of the risks of demographic change? Or both, perhaps simultaneously? Drawing on original qualitative and quantitative empirical data from UK and USA universities, this article considers the impact of removing mandatory retirement ages on individual workers in higher education. It argues that legal reform may have prompted or encouraged work intensification in universities, including through an increased focus and use of performance management. Thus, in practice, the consequences of removing retirement ages for individuals are mixed.

Opportunities for Older Employees during the Fourth Industrial Revolution

“…The flexibility of work arrangements is facilitated by changes in the approach of older ages in general, both at social and political levels. There are a lot of voices calling for a change in the mandatory retirement age, in the direction of its abolishment, taking note that this process has already been put to practice in some countries such as the United Kingdom and the United States of America (Blackham, 2021;World Health Organization, 2015).…”

Drivers and patterns of early retirement in the neoliberal university

“…They are therefore problematised, viewed as impeding the progression of younger workers, or as having deficiencies that might undermine organisational performance. The management response is what Ross and Savage (2021: 501) describe as ‘cleaning house,’ where those with long-standing historical memory of ‘how things were done’ are removed (sometimes quite unceremoniously) to clear the way for restructuring and ‘innovation.’ The ongoing availability of the institutional mechanism of early retirement might, therefore, be conceived of as a manifestation of business-friendly regulatory and labour frameworks that entities such as universities can utilise in managing their workforces (Blackham, 2021). Such organisational perspectives may put managers in conflict with older academics, many of whom retain a strong attachment to their work identity (Altman et al, 2020).…”

“…Notably, the education and training sector workforce is one of Australia’s oldest, with over a fifth (22%) aged 55 years or older (National Skills Commission, 2020). While recent studies have taken as their context contemporary debates concerning the prolongation of working lives, focusing on academic careers (Blackham, 2021; George and Maguire, 2021) we return to an earlier theme of research and policy on older workers, namely that of early retirement. This paper examines its deployment by Australian universities as part of restructurings aimed at making the sector more fit for purpose, considering whether their use may be grounded in hegemonic ageist attitudes among university leadership.…”