Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

86 year old Secretary sacked

260 replies

furryjammies · 06/02/2019 20:39

There is an article in the DF today about a now 88 year old woman who sacked from her NHS Secretary job for I think fairly spurious reasons at the age of 86. She has won her case for unfair dismissal. Do you think there should be a cut off point for retirement or should you be able to work as long as you want? She wanted to work until 90.

OP posts:
UnderMajorDomoMinor · 07/02/2019 08:55

I think that they young people vs. Old people theme is a false dichotomy. We don’t have more people going to university to get better jobs, we have more going because of that report back in the mid-00s that said their would be 2 million fewer entry level jobs by 2020. The knowledge or skills you need to do the most basic job are higher now because those unskilled jobs are gone. So those ppl who would have gone into unskilled jobs at 16 (or younger) are now going into semi-skilled jobs and so on. A university education is needed for a higher number of jobs.

It’s totally separate to this issue, if the tribuneral found in her favour she was clearly unfairly dismissed.

PettyContractor · 07/02/2019 09:13

There aren’t enough jobs to go round

I don't think that's how economics works. Unless government is interfering in the economy in some way that screws things up, it's always possible for everyone capable of work to be employed. (Broadly speaking, on average over time, etc. Up to a few percent unemployment not counted because that's the time it takes for a few people to switch jobs.) Even if all the jobs that are in existence today were replaced by computers/robots, almost everyone would still be able to work.

The jobs may not always be what people want to do, and may not pay what they want, or even pay at all, but there's no logical reason why all capable people willing to work would have to do nothing of economic value.

TheSerenDipitY · 07/02/2019 09:20

my grandfather is 82, 83 in march.
he is still driving a taxi
he passes all his medical and yearly driving tests easily
he had previously retired but was bored so he decided to become a taxi driver, and he loves it!, he gets to help people and chat to people all day long, it fills in his days and gives him a little spending money, i think if he didnt have something to do he might have sort of just wasted away
he feels he still has something to offer and feels he has to do something, so he is
and his Aunt has just turned 103 and is still out doing her gardening in her allotment every day, (which is now officially named after her, big ceremony and plaque and stuff), and travelling when ever she wants she comes to NZ from Canada every few years and she is still trucking along so dont count out the older folks!

AngelaHodgeson · 07/02/2019 09:39

You can't force someone to retire without their consent until they are 70.

You shouldn't be able to force someone out of work for no good reason at ANY age. I'm astounded that this is still allowed - I honestly thought it had been banned.

SnuggyBuggy · 07/02/2019 09:48

Not all jobs create value though and I don't just mean in money. Some jobs are pretty pointless like chugging or making nuisance phone calls.

mirialis · 07/02/2019 10:03

Angela - that is in France. A pp erroneously stated that France had brought in an obligatory low retirement age to deal with youth unemployment. It's not true; however, an employer can retire you from your post with them from the age of 70 whether you like it or not. If you want to carry on working and your employer is in agreement, there is no legal age at which you must stop working.

anxiousbundle · 07/02/2019 10:06

Haven't read the full thread but no one in their 80's is as competent as they were in their 20's 30's or even 50's! I'm sure they had good reason to let her go, 86 is a very old age to work till.

She was probably forgetting things/working slower/mistakes etc.

AlexaAmbidextra · 07/02/2019 10:14

law is super competitive. I suspect the reason your law grad friends couldn't get jobs was that they weren't good enough. Nothing to do with ancient solicitors everywhere. Law isn't suits and clients pay for experience. FYI there are literally 1000's of law grad training contracts available yearly and the business model is up or out - a pyramid.

howhowhow. You’re replying to the wrong person. That wasn’t my post. FWIW, I agree with you.

AlexaAmbidextra · 07/02/2019 10:22

Haven't read the full thread but no one in their 80's is as competent as they were in their 20's 30's or even 50's! I'm sure they had good reason to let her go, 86 is a very old age to work till. She was probably forgetting things/working slower/mistakes etc.

anxiousbundle. Sweeping generalisation there. And no, you can’t be sure they had good reason to let her go. In fact the tribunal found they had acted wrongly. So maybe you should read the full thread before adding your pearls of wisdom.

cherrylo86 · 07/02/2019 10:29

As an NHS secretary, if I am still doing this job in my 80's I will be willing someone to kill me tbh

Riotingbananas · 07/02/2019 11:33

It’s not fair to be a desk-hogger. Step aside and let someone else have a go.

Why not make all people who are working but dont actually need the money, forcibly leave? Or if you dont mind that sort of desk hogger, how about removing people who might need some adjustments because of a long term health condition? Or what about people whose first language isnt English who might take a little longer to train? What about disabled people? Where on earth would it stop?

The resentment towards older people on Mumsnet is really depressing.

VanGoghsDog · 07/02/2019 16:30

You shouldn't be able to force someone out of work for no good reason at ANY age. I'm astounded that this is still allowed - I honestly thought it had been banned.

It is outlawed, quite rightly. Under the Equality Act 2010.

Funnily enough, not everything written on MN is true. Even those where the posts starts "I work in HR and....".

I also work in HR....

The interesting thing about this case is that it was unfair dismissal, not age discrimination that was the claim. Though, that's only from the OP, I've not seen the actual case.

VanGoghsDog · 07/02/2019 16:32

A pp erroneously stated that France had brought in an obligatory low retirement age to deal with youth unemployment. It's not true; however, an employer can retire you from your post with them from the age of 70 whether you like it or not.

In France?

Graphista · 07/02/2019 17:23

"Graphista excellent post" thank you Blush

"Oh and the people whose problems I sort are all younger - mostly much younger - than me."

Doesn't surprise me. My dd (almost 18) despite doing 3 different IT based subjects at school (supposedly - wtf they were teaching them I don't know! One was called something like 'business IT' even but massively missed the basics!) had no clue how to use excel, nor databases, nor even word processing software properly (she could type obviously but formatting, adding or removing any graphics or even simple text boxes were beyond her!) when she left school. I taught her some (though it was challenging as she struggled to accept I knew what I was talking about and I must admit I got frustrated and impatient, not with her but that she hadn't been taught even basics).

She's now been working in an admin based role for over a year and is much better but she's commented that her boss/trainer has commented also that her generation isn't/hasn't been taught IT skills that are actually bloody useful!

Instead they've been taught things like higher level graphics skills, video creation etc that they'll rarely use! It's ridiculous! They should be getting taught/trained on the basics of msoffice and similar that they'll actually use and where the skills are transferable to similar software. That's not the fault of the younger folk, that's a failure in the curriculum.

"A university education is needed for a higher number of jobs" that may be true to a degree (no pun intended) but it's also because some employers are asking for qualifications that REALLY aren't necessary for the role needing filled. This happens when it's an employers market, employers get fussier - I suspect partly to reduce high numbers of applications.

I mistakenly thought I was ready to return to work in 2017 (mh & mobility issues but oddly when I'm doing better mh wise I can get OVER optimistic too) so I was job hunting and looking at LOTS of job ads, dd was also looking around the same time.

The number of ENTRY LEVEL ads where the job was low paid where the employer was demanding the most RIDICULOUS minimum requirements!

A-levels for checkout staff

MINIMUM 5 years experience with proof of exceeding targets for sales staff

Nursery workers expected to have MINIMUM PROVABLE 5 years childcare experience

Office JUNIORS being expected to have hnc or even hnd admin qualifications MINIMUM

And that's before you get into the stupid "must be flexible" - in other words "available whenever we need you at a moments notice" regardless of the fact you're a human being with a life!

Workers rights have been seriously eroded and continue to be but why (as a country) are we accepting this? That you need to work somewhere for 2 YEARS before you get anything but the minimum workers rights is appalling! And o hate to drop the "b" bomb but brexit IS going to make this worse, no way do I trust the tories to protect workers especially low paid, low skilled ones. They never have.

My mum noted this happening about 5/10 years before she retired as recruitment was part of her role, she said she found it embarrassing having to act as if it was completely acceptable to reject a perfectly GOOD (not even acceptable) candidate for checkout supervisor roles because they didn't have A-levels! She felt it was actually leading them to recruit LESS able candidates but who had the paper qualifications. (And then her AND their subordinates ended up carrying them!)

Pettycontractor, that may have been true in the past I really don't think it's true with tech advances.

Look at self service tills, they have and are replacing a lot of checkout staff, automation in factories has long been an issue of reducing jobs available. Certainly employers have no interest in paying employees and giving them rights if they don't have to, employees are again (after decades of us trying to get away from this) increasingly being treated as only having worth in relation to how much money they can make for the boss/owner.

Those Luddites are looking less daft by the minute. Unfortunately it seems a few may be working at mn at the moment.

Graceambrose · 07/02/2019 20:07

Age should never be a reason for ending employment. Ability
should be the deciding factor.

celticprincess · 07/02/2019 20:07

My mum retired at 60 instead of staying on longer. She chose this to help my out with my first child. She was a teacher. She did help with the child until I went back to work but she Lai found her health deteriorated really badly. It took her a long time to wind down from work and she found it hard doing nothing some days when she was used to working and travelling so many hours. By the time my second daughter was born she still tried to help out but was not able to take her out to all the places she did with my first. She’s always had mobility issues and is classes as disabled but this last year has seen her big a wheelchair and rarely wven wander round the shops. She has joined lots of groups for her she and gets out when she can but she really really struggles. I think it’s been a battle of mental versus physical health. When she was working she kept going. As she’s wound down she’s become less able over time. Do back to the OP, this lady mag have reasons for not wanting to retire. She may not be able to face being home alone. My mum has even commented on how many of her friends have passed away shortly after retiring. It could be linked.

Gwenhwyfar · 07/02/2019 20:11

"I don't think that's how economics works. Unless government is interfering in the economy in some way that screws things up, it's always possible for everyone capable of work to be employed. "

Eh? I admit I'm not good at economics, but that's NOT how the economy works.

pamhill64 · 07/02/2019 20:11

I worked with a secretary who was in her early 70’s with no plans to retire imminently as she was a widow. She enjoyed both the money and the company. Unfortunately the work she did wasn’t up to her previous standards and she made numerous mistakes, including accidentally breaking confidentiality by sending a parent the address of their child in foster care. Her colleagues covered for her as best they could but work still suffered. But even her manager was reluctant to say anything about it to her. So a very difficult situation really as I advocate for everyone’s rights to work for however long they want or need to but somehow you have to be up to the actual job, yet of course that varies from person to person

MaeBug · 07/02/2019 20:19

I read that she was dismissed, in part, because she was unable to manage the computerised referral system, resulting in some patients having to wrongly wait for over a year for non urgent medical procedures. Definitely a training issue but not all so David and Goliath as it may seem

SeamstressfromTreacleMineRoad · 07/02/2019 20:22

@newnameforthis7
Dark hair at 70 would be dyed. Your dad's pulling your leg if he told you it's natural.
Avoid sweeping generalisations - I'm 70, and have only recently discovered a few grey hairs in my dark brown hair. Good genes - my Mum was the same - not dye... Smile

Caucho · 07/02/2019 20:31

Well she wouldn’t have won the case and if the dismissal was deemed fair. Good on her for fighting it. Can’t wait till some of the people get old.

Pipnik · 07/02/2019 22:32

Definitely not in HR but have seen this.

Employer Justified Retirement Age

An employer can retire an employee lawfully at a set age provided that the
retirement age can be objectively justified, which means that it is a
proportionate response to a legitimate aim.

<a class="break-all" href="https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=m.acas.org.uk/media/pdf/e/4/Age-and-the-workplace-guide.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjJ6sDPvKrgAhWfRxUIHZbOBD0QFjAKegQIBBAB&usg=AOvVaw1HsMPYUpeSNV78CuQIgitQ" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">A guide for employers and employees - Age and the workplace - Acas

Apparently legitimate aims include
"economic factors such as business needs and efficiency "

Imissgmichael · 07/02/2019 22:58

Niccela - “the lady in the article was keeping a waiting list in paper form...it is a competency issue and she was sacked for it. I would take a guess that it was the last in a long list of small things which had built up.”

Except that the ET found in her favour as there was no evidence that training was provided with regards a new database and the sacking was unfair and based on ageism and disability discrimination. She was basically a scapegoat to cover up their lack of procedures and management failures. They were also found to have not followed the correct disciplinary procedure including the right of appeal.

dustarr73 · 07/02/2019 23:06

My mother hasn't worked since my brother was born-fifty years- and my stepdad retired early about -35 years ago
Neither of them can handle the idea of doing more than one thing per day. So it's doctors one day, then back into town the following day to buy a couple of bits that they need
Thats probably more to do with the fact they need to fill their days.
They dont have jobs or kids to look after.So they do 1 thing a day.

VanGoghsDog · 07/02/2019 23:41

@Pipnik

Yes, but the bar on that is incredibly high and not many employers would try to build that case and take the risk. Plus, you can't do it on a case by case basis, it has to be your policy for everyone, to avoid further discrimination claims.