Posted By Andrew Meiklejohn
I have been asked to do the same thing. However, I think that this was the wrong way to go. I don't see much difference between someone at 64 and someone at 65. Moreover I've seen fitter 70 year old than 30 year olds. If a person is fit to work then this should be enough. If there is a problem with someone's fitness then this should be flagged by the person doing the task or their supervisor and raise with occupational health.

Posted By A Campbell
Can you not work with HR with possibility of 'continuation of work interview'?

If you was involved you can discuss current role and any potential difficulties they may encounter ... an area that may be discussed is also with regards to manual handling... as you need to assess the person and their individual capabilities to reduce likelihood of injury?

Posted By John Richards
This is a can of worms.
You're going to risk assess someone in case they present a higher risk of what ?
How about risk assessing the very young. Young males are much more likely to take unacceptable risks than 65 year old males.
I'd be really interested in a risk assessment based on age....
It is illegal to discriminate against anyone on account of their age....not just old[er] people !
You'll have to have "medical" assessments on the entire workforce.....complete with drug and alcohol tests....after all, the young are more prone to abuse drugs and alcohol !

Posted By martinw
I agree with the above, and also further above that unless something has presented itself on the day of retirement which you need to know about, it is continuation of work.
But there are a number of HR and payroll issues which need to be taken into consideration. Your staff need to be advised correctly about that or it could cost them in terms of future benefit loss or higher tax on deferred pensions.

Posted By Raymond Rapp
I would have thought a health check in the form of a medical would suffice and therefore avoid the many pitfalls that have been previously identified. For what it is worth, I also agree that a risk assessment per se is not suitable for the task. A company procedure is more likely to beneficial to both the company and employee.

Posted By Steve M Granger
Not much help to you are we Carsten!

You have been asked and all we can do is argue!
I wont discuss the relative rights and wrongs but just say that I would approach this as suggested - an interview.

There is no right or wrong way of doing a RA and a set of 'suitable' and relevant questions might be the way to go, conducted at a pre arranged meeting as would be done for YP or for maternity.

I developed a simple set of q's for maternity interview and one for temporary disability ('ski leg' victims!). It allowed a sensible approach and realistic discussion to take place with a record of agreed actions - if necessary.

Perhaps - a general health question to determine if age is having any effect on work (it's not illegal to suggest onset of age related health conditions to my knowledge), work pace and hours (a consideration that an employee of retirement age might wish to work different hours and its better to keep skills in than let them go), If shift working or 'early/lates' I think this should be discussed as part of this section.

Dare I suggest a health MOT to ensure the employer is demonstrating a duty of care - eyes may need more frequent attention as will the attention to BP etc.

Happy to hear other suggestions - say 5 Q's for a 30 minute coffee risk assessment type interview, but don't call it a OAPRA!

Fast approaching retirement myself - I'd not have a problem with this, what say the other old codgers out there?

Perhaps try it out at the Grange there are loads of oldies up there - then its tried and tested within IOSH!

Posted By Steve M Granger
John - on what basis am I discriminating?

I understood discrimination to mean treating unfairly or imposing restriction on person compared to another.

Where does this come into a sensible discussion about continued support for workers at a particular time when (as a society) we have until recently considerd it an age to retire.

65 is still recognised as a milestone for pension etc. Seems 'bonkers' not to accept that as a fact.

Carstens company want to facilitate the right to work on (by the sound of it) so I say lets help them, not skirt around the issue.

GOM Steve

Posted By Steve M Granger
Ron

I certainly agree with your caution and I would not have a cavalier approach to such a sensitive issue.

However, this is not just the realm of HR (although they may be puppet master in the event). There are many valid reasons to undertake a risk assessment and providing it is done properly (in my opinion) it does not constitute discrimination - either direct or indirect.

For example: ACAS 'Objective justification -
You may treat people differently on the grounds of their age if you have
an objective justification..... What is a legitimate aim?.... A legitimate aim might include:
• economic factors such as business needs and efficiency • the health, welfare and safety of the individual(including protection of young people or older workers)......'

As my old memory serves me HSWA always wins in 'scissors, paper stone' against HR. MHSWR require RA's to be reviewed as necessary - the employer determining when this is, and for what reasons.

IF the results are used for illegitimate reasons then it is discrimination, but IMHO to conduct a well prepared assessment and clearly intentioned (see the ACAS leaflet for a raft of things that the employer might do, and could benefit a person choosing to stay on beyond retirement age) is doing nothing that a prudent and reasonable employer might do in order to fulfil their duty of care.

Personally I would get stuck in and produce something for discussion (which is what might be useful to Carson) - in conjunction with HR, but possibly keeping hold the torch for them as I am yet to be convinced they know HSWA et Al as well as me.

Lets be careful out there, but lets not be frightened.

Senile Steve

Posted By Bob Shillabeer
I have read the various posting on this topic and offer my thoughts. What is wrong with employing someone over the normal retirement age? A large DIY store specialise in employing older people because they represent a knowlodge base which helps the store to sell thier products better. So what is wrong in using older members of staff, nothing I would say. There is a need to ensure ALL staff are able to undertake the work they are employed to do so it is the responsibility of the employer to ensure thier staff are able to perform thier duties to the required level. If this means introducing a policy of medical and assessments at whatever stage then so be it. The age discrimination laws prevent any form of discrimination based upon age. As has ben suggested a policy need sto be in place and it would be better to involve the Human Factors specialist rather than a safey professional unless there is something specifically risky about what they would be expected to do.

Posted By Swis
Come on guys,

still discussing the same topic. It's passing away time now.