About retirement – sugar in first cup but not the second and other tales of frugality

When I first began this blog, my older cousin Howard agreed to pen a few missives about what it was actually like to be retired. His column ended up running to over 70 posts and rather ironically he has now “retired” from this activity to pursue other writing opportunities. Here is one of my favourite posts. 

Dear Philippa,  

Worrying tax bill? TOP gives free professional advice to older people on low incomes

Yesterday it was announced that around one million people are to face unpaid tax bills of at least £600. Of this one million people, more than 150,000 pensioners will receive this shocking news. 

This is the second year a new computer system has identified discrepancies with tax and national insurance and these unwelcome letters from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs will start landing on doormats from this weekend.

Very fortuitously this week I met someone who could help. Judith Richards is the South Central Regional Co-ordinator of TOP, an independent free tax advice service for older people on low incomes (less than £17,000 per year) who cannot afford to pay for professional advice.  

The service is provided by volunteer tax professionals who really know their way around the tax system and can help with any income tax matter including replying to a letter from HMRC. You may simply wish to have a tax health check for peace of mind and to know that everything is in order.

So how do you get help?

Very simply. Just telephone the TOP lo-call helpline on 0845 601 3321 or 01308 488066. If the office is not manned, leave your name and telephone number on the voicemail and TOP will call you back.

All interviews with an adviser are by appointment and in private. You may also seek telephone advice if your query is a simple one. Home visits will be arranged in cases of disability.

If you have any queries, contact TOP on the helpline or write to them.

TaxHelp for Older People
Pineapple Business Park
Salway Ash
Bridport
Dorset DT6 5DB

E-mail  taxvol@taxvol.org.uk

For more information, visit http://www.taxvol.org.uk/index.htm

(And if you do contact TOP, please mention The Future Perfect Company so Judith knows I kept my promise to spread the word!)

Homeshare Eden – a unique intergenerational project which is all about people sharing a home

With much in the news about the isolation of the elderly, Dean Raine of Homeshare Eden describes a unique and fascinating intergenerational project getting underway in Cumbria

Homeshare is a new scheme for Eden, Cumbria. It is operated by Age UK Carlisle and Eden, receiving funding from The Housing Action Charity (HACT). The scheme is part of HACT’s Age2Age initiative which supports intergenerational projects all over England.

The concept of Homeshare is simple; older and younger people sharing a home.

The idea is that an older person gives a room in their home to a younger person in exchange for help and support around their home.

The younger person (Homesharer) agrees to give up no more than 10 hours per week to help or support the older person. This help/support can come in many different forms. For example: housework, shopping, gardening, transport, cooking, DIY or simply companionship. In exchange for this they are offered a room in the older person’s house for minimal or no rent.

The older person (Householder) benefits from this arrangement in several ways, for example: gaining a companion who can help with tasks they find difficult, accessing services locally or the peace of mind which comes from knowing they have somebody to rely upon.

The younger person (Homesharer) benefits too. For example: they gain low cost or free accommodation. They find a place to stay near their place of work or study. They are given the chance to save money as well as gain independence. Ultimately they find a new friendship.

Homesharing offers different things to different people. Householders gain the choice to stay in their own home at a time of their lives when this may be becoming difficult. Homesharers gain an inexpensive (or free) housing solution. It’s mutually beneficial and nobody should lose out or gain financially.

Homeshare is monitored by the Homeshare Co-ordinator who finds homesharers and householders and matches them together. Successful matches are based upon rapport and common values. The Co-ordinator also acts as independent counsel – offering help and solutions to problems, should they arise.

Homeshare is very much a two way relationship; both people gain equally. The householder gets the help and support they need and the homesharer finds a place to call home.

To participate in the scheme both householder and homesharer must be CRB checked and references are required. This ensures that the scheme is as safe as it possibly can be.

There are no specific requirements to take part in Homeshare – just an open mind and a desire to help a person who is either older or younger than you.

Homeshare schemes have operated successfully all over the world and several schemes have already taken place in England. Homeshare Eden is unique as it operates over a large rural area in Cumbria.

We now have one share in place and it is going very well. The participants are incredibly happy with the arrangement and are due to be interviewed by The Guardian newspaper about their motivations for taking part in Homeshare.

For more information, visit http://www.homeshare-eden-district.co.uk/

Why we need to re-design work for an older population. Part 3 – how do we re-design work?

The UK is getting older.  Disastrous pension provision and a faltering economy, as well as personal choice, mean that many of us will not have a traditional retirement as we continue to work beyond our early 60s.  All of us are more likely than ever to become carers, if not for our parents and grandparents then for our grandchildren.  And whilst medical advances mean that many of us will live longer, most of us can expect to have chronic health conditions of some sort or other. But is the world of work ready to embrace this new cohort of older people with differing ambitions, health conditions and family responsibilities? If not, how can we re-design it to enable us all to continue working?

In this series of blog posts, we look at why work needs to change (Part 1), the case for and against flexible working (Part 2) and finally, how we need to re-design work (Part 3).

Part 3 – How do we need to re-design work?

In Parts 1 and 2 we considered why work needed to change to reflect the huge changes in society over the past 60 years and whether flexible working was the way forward. In this final post we ask whether if flexible working is the way forward, what we need to change in order to make flexible working a reality for more people. 

Here are some thoughts.

Whilst there is increasing evidence that some people are prepared to trade salary for time, we will need to accept that there will be an impact on living standards for people choosing to work flexibly. In particular, home ownership might be more difficult to achieve and there will need to be more flexible housing options such as more secure private rental models and greater use of shared equity schemes.

I think we need more democratisation of the workplace. Hierarchical structures often mean more that those further up the pyramid are allowed more freedom to choose they way they want to work  than those at the bottom. In many workplaces this means the senior managers able to leave early to watch the school play without anyone batting an eyelid whilst the secretaries have to negotiate either unpaid leave or working overtime weeks in advance. Everyone should have equal flexibility in this respect.

Denise Stephens of Enabled by Design points out that we also need a more flexible state benefit system, commenting on the current provision for people with disabilities as follows “Wanting to return to work…is simply not enough. First there is the minefield of the benefits system to navigate which up until now has very much been an all or nothing affair; you’re either well enough to work or not and there is little or no provision for people with variable conditions or intermittent periods of ill health – nor tailored support for creative adjustments to support opportunities such as working from home. ”  Entrepreneur Duncan Edwards of Trabasack echoes this, calling for flexibility and simplicity of benefits and “a tax system which does not to penalise short term /irregular work.” Whether any of will be achieved as part of the current overhaul of the benefits system remains to be seen.

From a legal perspective Catriona Watt of Fox lawyers predicts that ”The government may come under pressure to introduce legislation which better protects self-employed consultants by giving them more of the rights employees enjoy. Currently some core legal protections only apply to employees and not consultants or freelancers, most particularly the rights on termination of employment such as the right not to be unfairly dismissed and the right to receive a statutory redundancy payment.”  With more older people and disabled people in the workforce, “Employers will need to be even more focused on anti-discriminatory policies and, in due course, discrimination and flexible working legislation. The government must be proactive with initiatives on training and development for the over 50s, media campaigns to tackle ageism and disability discrimination and possibly facilitating a combination of gainful employment and social security.”

We might also want employers to provide new sorts of benefits such as geriatric care managers to help employees with their elderly care responsibilities and stress counselling. I wonder whether we will be prepared to trade salary for this sort of support.

We should perhaps consider too different sorts of working models  which make the most of the enhanced experience of an older workforce, for example job shares which team up less and more experienced people (with differentiated pay scales).

It is likely that managers will need to be trained about intergenerational differences and how this might impact on their workforces. Any flexible working schemes considered for older workers will need to be implemented consistently to avoid disadvantaging younger employees.

There are big challenges ahead but the benefits of getting flexible working right are huge too.  Marrisse Whittaker of Virtual Granny puts it well: “Having access to flexible working hours can enhance the lives of people over 60 keeping them mentally and physically active for longer, saving the country costs in healthcare going forward. And their unique and varied life experiences can enhance the lives of those they work with, care for, or play with. A win win situation all round.”

Do you agree with us ? We would love to hear your thoughts and observations.

If you would like a complete copy of the article (with all three Parts), please email us at contact@thefutureperfectcompany.com

Why we need to re-design work for an older population. Part 2 – The case for and against flexible working

The UK is getting older.  Disastrous pension provision and a faltering economy, as well as personal choice, mean that many of us will not have a traditional retirement as we continue to work beyond our early 60s.  All of us are more likely than ever to become carers, if not for our parents and grandparents then for our grandchildren.  And whilst medical advances mean that many of us will live longer, most of us can expect to have chronic health conditions of some sort or other. But is the world of work ready to embrace this new cohort of older people with differing ambitions, health conditions and family responsibilities? If not, how can we re-design it to enable us all to continue working?

In this series of blog posts, we look at why work needs to change (Part 1), the case for and against flexible working (Part 2) and finally, how we need to re-design work (Part 3).

Part 2 – The case for and against flexible working

In Part 1 we looked out how whilst the last 60 years has seen extraordinary changes in society, the workplace and our families, the way we work has so far failed to keep up. So how should work be adapted to reflect these changes?  Increasingly people are calling for more “flexible working”.

Marrisse Whittaker from Virtual Granny puts it like this: “60 is the new 40. The vast majority of people around the current retirement age are still both physically and intellectually bright and carry a vast weight of experience with them, which can be hugely valuable to any workforce.  However, having slogged it out at work for many years, most people are looking for more of a life balance and flexible working hours would allow over 60’s to contribute to the workforce and also to offer valuable help to families, particularly by helping care for grandchildren.”

But what do we mean by “flexible working”?

Rowena Cowen, City HR Director, explains “The meaning of flexible working has changed considerably over recent years – traditionally we tended to think of it applying especially to women with young children. While legislation has now extended this right, in reality, flexible working covers a whole host of different lifestyle needs. For example, single adult households who need time at home to stay in for deliveries without taking holiday, or even, in our aging population, older workers who just find the daily commute into the City each day onerous and who value being able to work at home one day a week.

Flexible working also has many guises. Working at home, part time work, fixed term contracts, compressed hours, flexi-time, job sharing, sabbaticals, time off for charitable work, are all variations on a theme”.

Disadvantages of flexible working

But of course, as many a working mother has found to her cost over the years, flexible working does not always deliver what it promises.  In the past “flexible” working has often meant less chance of advancement and earnings penalties for people unable to work “full time”. Many flexible jobs are low status and low paid.

Employers are often reluctant to adopt flexible working patterns. Flexible working can be seen as difficult to manage and there are concerns about how to monitor employees at home.

Employers can often also worry about client or customer perception, that flexible can somehow equate to unprofessional.

There is also a danger that a flexible workforce might be less cohesive. There are definite social benefits of a work environment where people are together and some people feel very isolated working at home for long periods.
 

Benefits of flexible working

Notwithstanding the challenges that it can bring, some employers are beginning to appreciate the benefits of a flexible workforce.

Rowena Cowan again: “In my experience, some sectors have embraced the concept of flexible working more readily than others. In certain, more ‘traditional’ professions, there can be a residue of hanging on to the comfort of the 9-5, must come into the office every day routine. But there is evidence that even these bastions of the ‘normal’ office routine are re-examining their policies in the face of not only mounting  pressure from their employees, but also good business acumen.   I think there are a number of reasons why companies can no longer afford to ignore the flexible working revolution. Employees are certainly aware of their rights and are very persistent in pursuing their flexible working requests. The fact is that, despite (or perhaps because of) the current economic uncertainty, people are no longer as afraid of moving jobs as they might have been a generation or so ago.  And while I would not question employees’ loyalty to a reasonable employer, the fear of changing jobs, the demise of final salary pensions, and the fear of the unknown is not as great so if employees cannot get what they reasonably ask for, the chances are high they will find it somewhere else. In addition, despite the high number of unemployed, the battle for the top talent remains as fierce as ever and employers must constantly be aware and responding to the demands of that talent if they are to attract them.

But the necessity to embrace flexible working in all its forms is not just about attracting staff, or the fear of losing them. There is now an increasing body of empirical evidence that those employers who do offer flexible working have more motivated and engaged staff which in turn, leads directly to a healthier bottom line. Flexible working is not the answer to every challenge we face as employers, but it is a good place to start.”

Entrepreneur Duncan Edwards of Trabasack agrees, highlighting a number of other benefits to employers of allowing people to work from home: “Accessibility is improved as people are working in their own suitably adapted environment more, rather than the ‘one size fits all’ workspace. Productivity can be improved as people are working at the best times for them and when they are most efficient and not merely “putting the hours in”. There are time efficiency savings with less travelling as well as time and energy efficiencies with carbon savings, less commuting and reduced office infrastructure costs.”

By removing barriers to work, flexibility can also reduce reliance on benefits and cut care costs by encouraging independence and allowing people time to look after their own family and friends.

So, although potentially very challenging for employers and employees alike, we think the case for flexible working is very persuasive.  In Part 3 we consider what sort of changes need to be made to the way we work to achieve this sort of working model.

Do you agree with us ? We would love to hear your thoughts and observations.

If you would like a complete copy of the article (with all three Parts), please email us at contact@thefutureperfectcompany.com

Why we need to re-design work for an older population. Part 1 – Why work needs to change

The UK is getting older.  Disastrous pension provision and a faltering economy, as well as personal choice, mean that many of us will not have a traditional retirement as we continue to work beyond our early 60s.  All of us are more likely than ever to become carers, if not for our parents and grandparents then for our grandchildren.  And whilst medical advances mean that many of us will live longer, most of us can expect to have chronic health conditions of some sort or other. But is the world of work ready to embrace this new cohort of older people with differing ambitions, health conditions and family responsibilities? If not, how can we re-design it to enable us all to continue working?

In this series of blog posts, we look at why work needs to change (Part 1), the case for and against flexible working (Part 2) and finally, how we need to re-design work (Part 3).

Part 1 – Why work needs to change?

Whilst the last 60 years has seen extraordinary changes in society, the workplace and our families, the way we work has so far failed to keep up.

60 years ago

When the people now hitting their sixties were born, the world was a very different place. The primary role of men was to be breadwinners and often women were the homemakers and carers of children and the elderly.

People were educated and trained once and then remained in one occupation or profession for the whole of their working life. At an agreed age people would be required to leave the workforce and live out retirement funded by pensions. Mortgages to buy homes were paid off by the age of retirement (which was shorter as people died earlier) and house equity could be used to further fund retirement activities.

Today

Women have entered the workplace in unprecedented numbers with men and women increasingly sharing childcare and housework. There are more single parent households, with “nuclear families” no longer the norm. It is much more difficult for children to become financially independent particularly with the abolition of free higher education and the rise in house prices. And people are finding that not only are they caring for parents and grandparents but increasingly babysitting grandchildren too.

The idea of retraining or lifelong learning is becoming more important as more people find themselves without a “job for life”.  There is also increasing recognition that people with disabilities do not want to be “looked after” but want equal independence.

People are living longer and wanting and needing to continue working later in life. From 6 April 2011, the Default Retirement Age is being phased out and as Catriona Watt of Fox lawyers explains “Employers will no longer be able to rely on retirement as a fair reason for dismissal. An employer will only be able to dismiss an individual over retirement age by reason of poor health or performance and the performance management system must apply equally to employees of all ages”.

Work is becoming more “task” focused rather than “time” focused removing the need for workers to keep regular hours. The advent of the internet and the extraordinary advances in technology mean that many of us could work remotely.

But notwithstanding these huge changes in the way we live, many of our jobs are designed in the same way as they were 60 years ago. Many jobs still have fixed working hours, with Monday to Friday 9-5 as the norm. There is usually a requirement to work in one particular place with time off limited to certain prescribed activities such as holidays or maternity leave. And very often sickness absence is limited.

So we have a disconnect between the needs and lifestyles of the workforce and the way jobs work.  We consider in Part 2 how we might change the way we work in order to accommodate an increasingly older workforce.

Do you agree with us ? We would love to hear your thoughts and observations.

If you would like a complete copy of the article (with all three Parts), please email us at contact@thefutureperfectcompany.com

Former Countryfile presenter wins BBC ageism case

By Catriona Watt, Fox lawyers

When BBC programme Countryfile moved from its daytime slot to a primetime slot on a Sunday evening, three of its female presenters were replaced by younger candidates. Ms O’Reilly (aged 51) was one of those dropped from the programme and subsequently brought a claim in the employment tribunal arguing that her removal from Countryfile amounted to direct discrimination on the grounds of her age and sex. The tribunal rejected Ms O’Reilly’s sex discrimination claim but held that her removal from Countryfile did amount to direct age discrimination. The tribunal noted that it was clear that Ms O’Reilly’s age was a significant factor in the BBC’s decision not to retain her for the primetime show. If she had been 10 to 15 years younger it would have given her proper consideration.

Age discrimination can, in certain circumstances, be objectively justified as “a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim”. In Ms O’Reilly’s case, the tribunal held that the BBC’s age discriminatory treatment of her was not objectively justified. Although the BBC’s wish to appeal to a primetime audience, including younger viewers, was a legitimate aim, it was not proportionate to remove older presenters to pander to the assumed prejudice of such viewers.

It is notable in this case that the tribunal gave such short-shrift to the idea that the BBC could justify replacing older presenters with younger ones to help achieve its legitimate aim of attracting a wider audience. This is a clear indication to employers that where they do implement practices which directly or indirectly discriminate against employees on the grounds of their age to achieve what the employer says is a “legitimate aim” for the business, the employer will have to work much harder to show that the practice is indeed proportionate.

This case is also significant in showing that employees are increasingly aware of, and indeed increasingly willing to pursue, their rights under the age discrimination legislation introduced in 2006 and now enshrined in the Equality Act 2010.

This is a general account of the law as it currently stands. It is always best to seek legal advice for specific queries

Will the Baby Boomers choose to live in communes?

As people live longer, pension pots shrink and more families find themselves caring not only for their own children but also parents and grandparents, some sort of communal living seems inevitable for all of us.

This represents a huge sea change in how we live in the UK. For people born after the Second World War, the nuclear family was often the norm. People moved out of the parental home as soon as they could and many moved away from their home town. The ubiquitous “modern executive detached” became the home of choice for the aspirant middle classes.   People expected older relatives to move to sheltered housing or care homes when they became frail rather than move in with them. Children were often sent to nurseries or childminders. In other words, there was a certain autonomy between the generations.

But this is changing. As the populations ages at the same time as public finances are shot, more and more people are finding themselves responsible for caring for one or more sets of parents and grandparents who often live some distance away.

At the other end of the scale, many of today’s young adults are being supported by their parents whether by being helped out with a house deposit  or  school or university fees  or even by providing childcare allowing them to work.

Finances are being squeezed every which way.  Add to this, concerns about job security, pensions coming up short, high student debt and house prices outstripping the incomes of only the most affluent and the result is that families are under severe pressure.

So, is the answer to live together and share the burdens? Whilst there is a certain economic sense to clubbing together, there are many families to whom such an arrangement will be an anathema.  Many will be reluctant to give up their own homes and hard won independence in this way. Many simply don’t get on well enough. Much of our current housing stock is not conducive to intergenerational living. Many modern homes are too small, cramped and inflexible. Larger homes are very expensive and may be unaffordable unless all the family members have money to put in the pot.

Another possibility is that people join together to buy a large house and live together as mutually supportive friends. This is a common aspiration amongst my contemporaries.  This has the attraction of living with people you ostensibly like, although you would need to choose carefully. The friends with whom you partied in your 20s or shared school runs in your 30s are not necessarily the people to share your later years with.  Whilst you might all move in with good intentions, what happens if you fall out or one person’s care needs or circumstances change dramatically? Do you boot them out or all club together to care for them?

Another alternative is the supportive community model, The Big Society idea which is all the rage in Whitehall at the moment (although no one yet has come up with a decent definition of what it means). Here communities, ie your street, your town become much more mutually supportive.  For instance, people get together to support an elderly neighbour with shopping, cooking and cleaning. But this sort of activity would have to be heavily organised in order to be effective and it also relies on huge amounts of goodwill and people in the locality having sufficient spare time to volunteer .

Perhaps we should all move to retirement villages where the organisational structures are already in place? In the UK we have been slow to embrace this concept and it is certainly an unpopular proposition amongst my friends, based on maybe outdated notions of “Old People’s Homes”.

Ultimately we will all need to find an arrangement which suits our own families. But I cannot help but think that the days of the nuclear family are numbered. Community, if not the extended family, has to be the way forward. 

What do you think? Do you agree?

About retirement – dispatches from the front line – Part 40

Dear Philippa,

About retirement – dispatches from the front line – Part 38

Dear Philippa,