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

Date01 June 2021
DOI10.1177/13582291211010418
AuthorAlysia Blackham
Published date01 June 2021
Subject MatterArticles
Article
Does removing default
retirement ages benefit
individuals? A comparative
empirical case study of the
university sector
Alysia Blackham
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 indivi-
dualisation 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.
Keywords
Age discrimination, retirement age, universities, work, intensification, performance
management, United Kingdom
Melbourne Law School, University of Melbourne, Carlton, Victoria, Australia
Corresponding author:
Alysia Blackham,Melbourne Law School, Universityof Melbourne, Carlton, Victoria3010, Australia.
Email: alysia.blackham@unimelb.edu.au
International Journalof
Discrimination and theLaw
2021, Vol. 21(2) 77–93
ªThe Author(s) 2021
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/13582291211010418
journals.sagepub.com/home/jdi
Introduction
Abolishing the national default retirement age (‘DRA’) in 2011 has transformed UK
workplace relations. Rather than relying on fixed retirement ages, employers must now
generally manage and negotiate retirement on a case-by-case basis. While employers
may adopt an Employer-Justified Retirement Age (‘EJRA’) there remains significant
uncertainty regarding when a retirement age will be ‘justified’. As a result, perhaps,
many employers chose to remove fixed retirement ages, rather than risk a legal challenge
(DWF, 2012).
Removing mandatory retirement ages could be seen as promoting extended working
lives, enhancing individual choice around when to retire, and supporting the sustain-
ability of pension systems (Beck and Williams, 2015: 268; Manfredi and Vickers, 2013a:
255). Conversely, it could be seen as a contrived policy device to further individualise
the risks of ageing and old age, justifying further increases to state pension ages and
advancing a neoliberal agenda to wind back the welfare state (Macnicol, 2015; Manfredi
and Vickers, 2013a: 259–262). The removal of mandatory retirement may therefore not
be in individuals’ interests, particularly if it leads to work intensification, a renewed
focus on performance management, and lesser tolerance of reduced productivity in old
age (Beck and Williams, 2015). The question, then, is what is the impact of removing
mandatory retirement ages? 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?
Universities offer a valuable context for examining how changes to retirement ages
are impacting upon individuals and organisations. Universities have traditi onally relied
on retirement ages as a workforce management tool (Manfredi and Vickers, 2009: 364,
cf 2013b: 293). Many academics find their work rewarding and wish to continue in
their post into older age (see, for example, Rosenman and McDonald, 1995: 63). In a
survey of academic staff at 12 UK higher education institutions, 29 per cent indicated
that they would prefer to retire over the ageof65and36percentexpectedtoretire
after the age of 65 (Manfredi and Vickers, 2009: 357). This means that u niversities are
particularly exposed to the removal of mandatory retirement, and the higher education
sector offers a critical illustration of the possible impacts of moving to a world without
retirement ages.
Previous studies have considered specific concerns related to the abolition of the
DRA in universities, often drawing on comparative perspectives. For example, consid-
ering the Australian experience, I have canvassed the possible implications of removing
mandatory retirement for the performance management of academic staff, the creation of
opportunities for new generations of academics and the scope for workforce planning
(Blackham, 2015a). However, there has been minimal discussion of how UK universities
are actually responding to the abolition of mandatory retirement, and whether these
concerns are eventuating in practice in the UK context (Blackham, 2019a). Furt her,
there has been limited empirical consideration of the impact of removing retirement
ages on individuals.
This article addresses this lacuna, presenti ng original qualitative and quantitative
empirical data regarding how UK universities are responding to the abolition of
78 International Journal of Discrimination and the Law 21(2)

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT