Intergenerational Equity Politics:[1]
A presentation by me.
Keep in mind that Mandatory Retirement was abolished from
Canada some years ago.
According to
Michael Ignatieff, “ Rights
represent our attempt to give meaning to values we most care about---dignity,
equality, and respect.[2] While Canada’s Charter of Rights
and Freedom originally focused on the importance of group equality, in respect
to limited resources, current political climate favors protection of personal
choices and “… the personal is rapidly becoming political as a major shift in
the workforce looms.”[3]
The
conflict over the control of limited resources has a long history. In the distant past, it appears that
the elderly were particularly vulnerable in cultures that placed high values on
youth and strength. In a modern
example of a similar relationship, the Supreme Court of Canada once supported
the argument that mandatory retirement was essential in Universities so that
they could have access to new thinking generated by a younger generation
faculty. Another example is that individuals over the age of 65, in British
Columbia at least, had little or no protection under the civil rights
legislation.
The
tension between generations is framed as a “generational equity debate.” This debate
was focused on questions about whether or not seniors were consuming valuable
government resources at the expense of future generations. Ellen Gee referred this as “Apocalyptic
Demography “[4] In the
context of work this could describe seniors as holding on to valuable positions
at the expense of their juniors.
Tension between
generations is a natural process. The young are more often ready to change, and
encourage older workers to rethink their positions, while seniors raise
important questions using the wisdom of their experience. If there is a healthy tension and open
discussion both can be changed by the process.
Intergenerational
relations became increasingly tense as the younger looked into the future of
their earning capacity and the use of society’s resources. They wanted to get as far as they could
and have security for themselves in old age. Many of them believed that they would not reach their
parents standard of living. At the
same time it could not be automatically assumed that older workers had adequate
cushions, if and when the retired and people over 65 had few rights. Both “sides” were fuelled by the fear
that they would be short charged.
The
value involved in this debate expressed as. “What does one generation owe the
next?” It is one of intergeneration reciprocity. At its core, the generational
equity debate appears to be about winners and losers. It assumes the relationships can never be balanced; that the
debate is really battle.
Women
have a special interest in this debate.
In 1950 women constituted only 20% of the workforce in Canada. By 2005 they reached 46% (I couldn’t find any 2014 data). They also have less traditional career
paths than men. On the average,
they start later, drop out for family care reasons most frequently and, because
they live longer, over the length of their retirement they get smaller pension
benefits.
On the
other side, ending the obligation to retire at 65 was thought to lead to
stronger valuation and forced departure at an earlier age. This could be unsettling to younger
workers.
Recent Immigrants may face similar
problems. Many arrive in Canada as
middle aged or older adults. The time it would take to reach Mandatory
Retirement might not allow to time to build a pension fund, especially since
many of them faced lower wages than their Canadian counterparts.
Betty
Freman has reported that mandatory retirement was initiated in the U.S. during
the Great Depression of the 1930’s, because the elimination of older workers
created positions for younger employees, this suggests that from the beginning
mandatory retirement was about corporate succession planning.
Retirement
in Canada emerged gradually as an effect of industrialization. According to Snell[5],
retirement increased greatly with the introduction with the Old Age Security
Act of 1951 and as
firms became bigger and less able to meet the needs of older workers. Also, senior workers had moved to the
top of the ladder and management required a cut of point to expenses. The arbitrary point of 65 was
determined to be that point.
As
mandatory retirement slipped in Northcot reported it and Millken indicated that
“…many British Columbia employers have a policy of mandatory retirement linked
to their pension plans. In
addition, Section 13 of British Columbia’s Human Rights Code states that age
is a characteristic that cannot be used to refuse the continuation of
employment. In Section 3 of
the code however, this age discrimination stipulations referred to pension or
employee insurance plans. Further,
the Charter allows “discrimination” under certain circumstances:” While things
are not perfect they are better than they were.
The
primary purpose of this essay was to explore the some of the major
generalization equity issues involved in post secondary teaching; the problem
of an “aging academic work force”
When
I retired from the Psychology Dept at Kwantlen Polytechnic University I had
reached the age of 72; after mandatory retirement had been eliminated.
[1] This article was never
published. I sent it around but no
one was interested. Or perhaps it
just wasn’t good enough. Now that I have my own blog, I have decided to bring it
into public. I will be very
interested it some of you have something to say.
[2] Ignatieff,
(2000) , The Rights revolution, House of Anasi Press.
[3] For more on
historical accounts in generational conflict see “Framing the generational
equity debate, Williams J. B., Watts-Roy, D.M. & Kingston Eds Columbia
University Press, 1999.
[4] In the “overselling
of Population Aging” Ellen Gee. & Gloria Gutman Eds In Oxford University Press
