Here's a real touchy subject for you... How do you manage the safety of ageing workers?

It's starting to pop up in my sector as people creep towards 60+. There, I feel can be safety implications of people working in higher risk workplaces as they age. Through the nature of ageing, hearing worsens, sight worsens, your attitude can change, your memory can worsen, etc. How do you manage this? We have one worker in this bracket, and I'm hearing complaints about their actions starting to affect the safety of themselves and others.

HR or Safety - that old chestnut - any profound insights or experience?

I'm afraid to bring it up since it is a delicate subject (especially coming from a sprightly 44 year old) and it could border on potential discrimination or harassment but if we cannot make 'reasonable adjustments' what do you do? Risk Assessment for Retirement??

garfield you're not alone in considering this.

Yes it is a touchy subject and a lot of people get very nervous when you start talking about age. However, it poses a significant risk (health, safety and business) especially when you first look in detail at the profile of the workforce in your organisation and then consider how it will look in 10 years time.

I've been giving this some considerable thought over the last 6 months, especially where STF accident are concerned. With this in mind I've also been trying to tie other sources of info into the equation (RoSPA, OHSA, etc) as age is an international standard. The results at this point are consistant but there's still trepidation in terms of how it's managed.

From my perspective the age of any workforce needs to be considered in depth. To not do this means you have a risk that is not suitably managed and will progressively get worse as time goes by (no pun intended!). Equally, with the current state of play everyone will have an ever more extended working life and with that will come a whole new tranche of occupational risks.

Nlivesey, your research sounds interesting - did you find a correlation between age and STFs? In our workforce, if I remove manual handling issues I tend to see that older employees are under-represented in accident stats, and I've wondered whether their experience leads them to better awareness of environmental risks like slips, etc.

Well-designed periodic confirmation of competency would be something I'd like to see, but it's the "well-designed" part that is the problem for most people I expect.

Good luck with that.
Another legal minefield.
And you can't just say he/she is old therefore a higher risk/at higher risk.
You'll have to set a standard, and doubtless some not-old persons will/may fail to meet that standard.
What'ya goin' to do then ?
I doubt you can have a standard that only applies to the elderly worker.
Lots of them will have been in unions for decades, although they will probably not let on ! (I never do)
As for why they feature less in musculo-skeletal injuries....try "I'm not dumb enough to try to lift that at my age"

Maybe the clumsy / accident-prone / slapdash ones have removed themselves from the pool? The ones that are still fit enough to work are the ones that pay attention to the rules and do things properly?

John, the problem is the focus is on discrimination where it should actually be on risk management. Equally I'd also suggest that if you look at other sources of accident stats it does indicate a rise in the more mature age ranges.
If this is the case and a potential hazard has been identified, then don't we have a legal obligation to do all that is reasonably practicable to assess and manage the risks? It's also worth acknowledging that as the body ages it can take longer for injuries to heal, so the severity will also be perceived to increase incrementally as people work longer.

One of the problems is trying to put all us older workers into one box! (And I am well past my sell-by date.) I know several people, who at 55 or so are starting to slow down and cannot wait until they can retire. I know of others who at well over retirement age are still fit and active and with their mental facilities unimpaired.
Yes, I have a hearing impairment (partly occupationally induced, but overseas and well before the Health and Safety Act, etc.), but with modern digital hearing aids no problem in everyday life. I am also short sighted, but no worse than I was 20 years ago.
I have no intention of giving up what I do and believe that when I visit other people's workplaces, as I have to do for my work, I can do so safely. However, I know of others who are much younger than me who I would not wish to have in my workplace (had I one!)
I would strongly object were someone to say that because I have reached a certain age I am in some way unsafe. However, I recognise that others may be. In short, we are all individuals and should be treated appropriately.
Chris

"John, the problem is the focus is on discrimination where it should actually be on risk management. Equally I'd also suggest that if you look at other sources of accident stats it does indicate a rise in the more mature age ranges.
If this is the case and a potential hazard has been identified, then don't we have a legal obligation to do all that is reasonably practicable to assess and manage the risks? It's also worth acknowledging that as the body ages it can take longer for injuries to heal, so the severity will also be perceived to increase incrementally as people work longer"

How quaint.
Age discrimination is too complex, so we can change to "risk management".
As I said, and another: "what are you going to do with those of much lesser age with the same problems as those of more "mature" years" ? ? ?
It seems, to me, that you are looking for a quick and easy "so long mate, at 65 you're too flimsy for this place.....byeeeeeeeeee"
Life isn't that easy though. So, you may well HAVE to prove a person too "unenabled" (as opposed to "disabled") to work for you and then you may well have to first look for another job he/she can do within the organisation.
I seriously doubt that you can introduce an OccH test procedure on JUST the over-whatevers.
At 63 my healing is as good as it ever was. At 63 with a herniated disk (heavy engineering) I am without pain and do not lack spinal flexibility. I know several 30-year-olds who have had spinal fusion ops to overcome the problems.
You may well find that many of your excessively-aged workers are "fitter" than your 30-year-olds....by a long way...since they won't be binging their way down the high street on a Friday night...nor going the "recreational drug" route.
One mans "risk management" is anothers "age discrimination" (or age inequality). Almost certainly, to a solicitor, the latter is going to be flagged.
As I said, good luck with that.

You've failed to grasp the simplest of concepts and jumped to the same conclusions as what the tabloids would. Let me be abundantly clear, I am talking about understanding the risk profile, where it applies and what measures can be implemented to enable people to work safely both now and in the future.
So you can talk about discrimination all you like but youre totally, utterly missing the point and leaving your workforce open to unmanaged risk in the future...

With that being the case, good luck with that john.

How about actually talking to the staff. They are adults and I expect will be more than happy to talk about your concerns.

In our company we have a driver who rides 10 miles to work, does a full day of deliveries, gets back to the yard, cleans his lorry and rides home and does it in all weathers. I spent a day with him a few weeks ago to try to convince him not to retire!

I also have more than one member of staff who have cut fingers doing something they shouldn't all under 25.

I would happy swap the under 25s with over 65s and be very confident that the number of minor injury accidents would reduce dramatically.

Dave

"Given the constantly rising percentage of older people in the population and the huge cost of treating
wounds in this patient group, the importance of examining the relationship between ageing and wound
healing cannot be underestimated. This article will examine current thinking in this area. Despite
early reports of delays in wound healing associated with age and changes in cutaneous structure, it is
now thought that wound healing in healthy older people is essentially normal but factors commonly
associated with old age, such as ischaemia may account for any differences observed"

http://www.woundsinterna....com/pdf/content_116.pdf

Really John? Advancing age is not something that affects swiftness of healing. But factors involved with advancing age may affect swiftness of healing. Is that not the point of the article you posted?

Semantics, dumb semantics. Way to try to win an argument, by providing the evidence which is needed to refute.

Garfield Esq - I am one of your ageing workers, not creeping toward 60 but still walking beyond 63! Yes 63 and still going. Are you surprised?

I have recently had a new knee, I have high blood pressure - under control, I have diabetes - under control and lots of other age related conditions, but still working.

Fortunately for me I qualify for my old age pension in just less than two years time, but may have to continue working to pay my mortgage a look after my youngish family.

What do you suggest I do, retire now and receive no income?

I believe you are being "ageist" and have to be careful not to offend the workers you suggest are getting too old to work.

The Government are looking at extending retirement age for FRS to 60, they must think that is acceptable for firefighters, a role requiring high levels of fitness.

Retirement ages are increasing for other workers over the next few years.

If there is money in the budget why not introduce a medical for your workers who pass a certain age, say 55? That way it is up to the medical people to determine people's fitness to work and takes it away from Health and Safety, or else it will be another "Elf an safety bonkers conkers " moaner.

Take care out there, it is a difficult path you are taking.

"Semantics, dumb semantics. Way to try to win an argument, by providing the evidence which is needed to refute"

I read the paper some time ago, and absorbed the point you think I overlooked.
YOU are wrong, VERY wrong.
The point of inserting the topic was to ensure you got the point, obviously you are not thinking.
We'll take women shall we ?
At menopause.
Hormonal changes. Affecting, among other things, healing ability.
We'll take diabetics shall we, due to circulation problems healing is frequently poor in the lower limbs. Many times a foot wound will not heal for many months.
We'll take people on long-term steroids shall we, frequently leading to a reduced healing ability among other problems.
A normally healthy older person has no reduced healing ability unless other factors are at play THE SAME AS FOR ANY OTHER PERSON. No matter what age.

How can you be very wrong? You are either wrong or you are not. Anyway. Hypothetically...

A group of 18 year olds with a broken tibia on a ward with no underlying illnesses. A group of 88 year olds with a broken tibia, again with no underlying illnesses. The 18 year old tibias will heal quicker. It is relative to the illness and the person with the injury. And the age, as a by-product. Why?

If the average 18 year old is recovering from a broken tibia, they will push to get up and about as soon as possible within reason, say six weeks later, as they have not got their confidence knocked by something which is not so serious for an 18 year old, but is potentially a huge event which could have been life threatening for an 88 year old. The latter are more likely to be more careful in everything they then do in terms of physical movement and their recovery is likely to take longer as a result.

I quite agree that older workers should not be discriminated against and that has been my position from the start. But the age is not the issue, it is the baggage that goes with it. If you cannot or will not see that then it appears that it is not me that is missing the point.

Clairel mention the work ethic. I started work on leaving school at 16. I still work now at 63.

In all my working life I have had 5 employers and have been self employed for the past ten years or so.

Between jobs I was out of work for a total of ten weeks.

Not bad for an old timer.

I agree with clairel's statement about accident prevention and thats the reason I'm looking into this potential issue at the moment. To say this is an HR issue is to brush it under the carpet and hope someone else will deal with it.

One thing you cant get away from is the way a job will affect the body if done over a lifetime. So although age appears to be the issue it can be more a case of the demands of the work taking its toll. Having worked in heavy industry of one sort or another my entire life so far there are some wear and tear injuries that keep rearing their heads, generally msd's of one type or another. The thing with this is the condition will get worse with age, bad backs, weak joints, havs, etc. This is the issue. I like the post refering to who does the donkey work on building sites because thats a good example of how one generation becomes the next, largely due to wearing themselves out in earlier years. Thats where looking for a measure to reduce impact across all groups becomes the priority.

This is one of those topics that fires emotion, but thats where mistakes are made because people forget to work on the available evidence. Maybe your workplace doesnt have this type of issue and if so, then nothing to worry about eh? But be aware that if a trend such as this does crop up then you'll need to keep an open mind because if you don't you may miss something that needs attention.

As ive said before, this isnt an age issue, but age may be a factor. Youll always get anomalies in any data set and those without injury or ailment could well be that kind of anomaly., but without further investigation youll never know.

Should be 'are older farmers'

I hope I did not suggest running away from this matter by giving it to HR. I said it is for them to lead. It is where the expertise properly sits for ensuring proper management in this area and where you find the most guidance and best practice.

There are so many firmly held beliefs, defensive responses and myths that there is a risk that is what gets managed rather than the subject. Those beliefs and myths are clearly visible in this thread and, just as in real life, threaten to divert what I believe is the subject here. That is whether there is now, or ever will be, a need for old age to be recognised as a specific at risk (for H&S) group and it is one that has to be tackled. We have an ageing population and no longer have a statutory retirement age. We will have people in their eighties commonly at work within a decade or so. We already identify young people as a specific group; why then is it such a 'thorny'subject as soon as we look at older people?

I have copied some extracts from a CIPD fact sheet ('Managing a Healthy Ageing Workforce: a national business imperative CIPD March 2012) that suggests there are areas that can be identified as possible factors in a risk assessment process not unlike that which exists for young people.

"Some physically demanding tasks become more difficult with age, but changes in work practices, technology and health and safety mean that there are now relatively few jobs which cannot be done by an averagely healthy 60-year-old.
Mental abilities also change with age, though not necessarily for the worse. In tests, older and younger workers achieve similar results, but by different routes. While the ability to solve problems or think quickly declines gradually throughout adulthood, the ability to learn from past experiences increases throughout life. Performance problems which appear to be age-related may in fact be due to lack of support from managers, or unmet training needs.""

"Older workers are generally less likely than younger workers to have occupational accidents, but accidents involving older workers are more likely to involve more serious injuries, such as those leading to death, than those involving younger workers (Griffiths et al 2009)."

"In general, older workers are less likely to take time off through ill health. However, for those who do have health problems, the absence is likely to be longer, making it still more important to manage return-to-work support (Scottish Centre for Healthy Working Lives 2011)."


p48