The shift from early exit to working late

Until relatively recently public policy and, by dint of this, much of the relevant research literature was focused on the ‘early exit’ of older workers from the paid labour force. While care needs to be taken not to overgeneralise, across the industrialised nations the broad picture from the 1970s through to the 1990s was one of the increasingly early labour market withdrawal of older workers. Much of this was underpinned by public policy; facilitated by the use of a range of institutional arrangements for aggregate labour market management; and viewed by the social actors as one of ‘the “bloodless” ways of coping with unemployment’ (Kohli and Rein, Reference Kohli, Rein, Kohli, Rein, Guillemard and van Gunsteren1991: 11). This approach was given strong impetus by ‘cultural norms and public opinion stressing both the responsibility for full employment in society and the belief that, given a scarcity of jobs, priority should be given to younger workers’ (Kohli and Rein, Reference Kohli, Rein, Kohli, Rein, Guillemard and van Gunsteren1991: 13). However, the discourse on ageing and work underwent a profound shift in a relatively short period of time, as this era of early exit had been immediately preceded by efforts to promote the employment of older workers against a backdrop of economic growth and labour supply concerns in the 1950s and 1960s (Kohli and Rein, Reference Kohli, Rein, Kohli, Rein, Guillemard and van Gunsteren1991). Influential bodies such as the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD, 1998, 2006) began to argue that, with an ageing population, such retirement patterns were unsustainable. Consequently, the thrust of public policy changed rapidly, from targeting the removal of older workers from the labour market to encouraging their ongoing participation (Loretto and Vickerstaff, Reference Loretto2015; Phillipson, Reference Phillipson, Chiva and Manthorpe2009).

Recent public policy thinking in Australia exemplifies the shift evident in other industrialised countries, whereby early retirement is regarded as no longer tenable if the economy is to remain competitive and to respond effectively to the ageing of populations (The Treasury, 2010; OECD, 2012). Along with this have come a raft of public policies aimed at closing off early retirement pathways and promoting longer work lives (The Treasury, 2012).

Australian older workers have rapidly passed from being viewed as blockages who should make way for younger labour market entrants to active agents in the labour market with capabilities and, moreover, the moral obligation to continue to contribute economically. This new narrative of Australian retirement reflects a wider shift in industrialised countries from what was understood as a time to enjoy later life and make way for the next generation to a time to continue contributing productively preferably through paid employment but also through volunteering. Notions of productive, healthy and active ageing have come to the fore in industrialised countries, with each one emphasising, where possible, continued labour force participation (Caro et al., Reference Caro, Bass, Chen, Bass, Caro and Chen1993; Bass and Caro, Reference Bass, Caro, Morrow-Howell, Hinterlong and Sherridan2001; Oxley, Reference Oxley2009; WHO, 2002). In fact, practical applications have often focused on labour force participation, to the detriment of other spheres. As noted by Walker (Reference Walker2009: 85), ‘for nearly a decade of a conception of active aging based on participation and wellbeing across the life course, the policy instruments still focus primarily on employment’. Other commentators go much further than Walker. Echoing Beck (Reference Beck and Camiller2000: 10), who states that ‘Work has become so omnipotent that there is really no other concept opposed to it’, Moulaert and Biggs (Reference Moulaert and Biggs2012: 35) argue that active ageing has come to mean the ‘legitimate “conduct of the self” as social engagement through the job market. The result is perhaps a new form of ageism, which requires an almost indefinite continuation of work and work-like activity as the new legitimacy for a mature identity’. In the next section we explore the prevalence of ageist discourses in the labour market and current social constructions of older workers as the basis of a further discussion of approaches to overcoming labour market age barriers.

Labour market social constructions of older workers

It is important to note that, although ageist attitudes among employers and the social actors may have contributed to the decline in older workers’ labour force participation between the 1970s and the 1990s, they were almost certainly not a main cause, with the roots of this trend to be found more in the restructuring of industry and recessions (Trinder, Reference Trinder1990). However, presently, alongside measures such as tackling work disincentives, pension reform, and the maintenance of employability, changing employer attitudes and behaviours are viewed as key to the prolongation of working lives (OECD, 2006). In this regard, there are a burgeoning number of studies that have increased understanding of the attitudes and practices of employers towards older workers (Conen et al., Reference Conen, Henkens and Schippers2012; Taylor et al., Reference Taylor, McLoughlin, Di Biase, Brooke and Steinberg2013; van Dalen et al., Reference van Dalen, Henkens and Wang2015). With the present focus on employers there has been relatively little recent attention paid to the role of the social actors in perpetuating ageist myths. A potentially significant question is how ‘age aware’ are those assigned the task of persuading employers that there is a business case for age equality?

While there has been a marked public policy shift in favour of working longer, it is apparent that negative age stereotypes are pervasive and have been credited with influencing employer behaviour. Through employer action, age stereotyping contributes to early exit aimed at the rejuvenation of workforces (Peiró et al., Reference Peiró, Tordera, Potonick and Wang2012). The pervasiveness of worker age stereotyping has received much attention in the literature. Research has consistently found that employer attitudes to older and younger workers are stereotypical. Studies have identified consistently the perceived values employers ascribe to older workers as, on the one hand, loyal, dependable, experienced and knowledgeable, as well as having wisdom, a good temperament, a strong work-ethic, corporate knowledge, commitment to an organisation, job satisfaction, and stability. On the other hand, they are ascribed a perceived inability to be flexible, adaptable and technologically competent. By contrast, employers value younger workers for their enthusiasm, innovation, technological savvy, pace-setting, ambition, risk-taking, desire to learn, openness to change, collaboration, and understanding of social media and technology (Hedge et al., Reference Hedge, Borman and Lammlein2006; Kreab and Gavin Anderson, 2014). Such inaccurate stereotypes do not acknowledge that workers of similar ages may have different experiences, skills and attributes and, conversely, that workers of different ages may have similar experiences, skills and attributes. The simplicity of stereotypical views also offers employers and, arguably, public policymakers an excuse to overlook the needs of different employee groups.

In Australia, the social policy and management discourses reveal two broad, contemporaneous and conflicting narratives of older workers. We consider both to be reductive fictions, making selective and inaccurate use of evidence that is only applied to certain sub-groups of older workers. On the one hand, a dominant vulnerability fiction describes older workers as highly disadvantaged: ageism is ‘endemic in our society’ (COTA, 2013) and ageing has predominantly negative connotations (Australian Human Rights Commission, 2013, 2015a). This fiction is widely disseminated despite evidence, for instance, that only a minority of older people report age-based discrimination in the Australian labour market (Adair et al., Reference Adair, Temple, Lea Ortega and Williams2013). On the other hand, an alternative newer and less developed fiction of productivity describes older workers as being sought after by employers for their knowledge and experience (Kreab and Gavin Anderson, 2014). This second focus narrowly centred on productivity and the extension of working lives mirrors the dominant discourse of active ageing in Europe (Foster and Walker, Reference Foster and Walker2015).

Such fictions are widely promulgated across society, particularly via the mass media. This plays a role in the social construction of older workers, conveying stereotypical images of ageing. Older people are under-represented in the media, reflecting that they are often ignored or treated with disrespect and, when they are represented, they are often portrayed poorly or unfairly as victims or as vulnerable (Australian Human Rights Commission, 2013). Australian media reports of older workers regularly rely on stereotypes. Such perceptions of age masquerade as fact when reports refer to research studies, it is argued, that demonstrate older workers are considered ‘dinosaurs’ by co-workers and face immense hurdles when looking for work (Horin, Reference Horin2011).

In the next section some present efforts, aimed at fomenting attitude and behavioural change regarding employers, are described and critiqued. We argue that such approaches are manifestly grounded in ageist assumptions about both older and younger workers and, as a consequence, significantly undermine their own case for the establishment of human resource management practices that are free of age barriers. Moreover, evidence is presented that the case for older workers is being made on the basis of arguments with which employers are likely to agree, but which are unlikely to encourage them to engage with issues of older workers’ employment.

Policies aimed at the labour market integration of older workers

Particular public policy efforts in industrialised countries are being devoted to fomenting change in attitudes about, and behaviour towards, older workers among employers, as exemplified by Conen et al. (Reference Conen, Henkens and Schippers2014). Governments play an important role as change agents, in that they may both replicate and challenge prevailing institutional norms (Flynn et al., Reference Flynn, Schröder, Higo and Yamada2014). We draw upon this observation to argue that much recent public policy targeting older workers in Australia and elsewhere, while ostensibly aimed at overcoming barriers to their employment, is firmly rooted in taken-for-granted assumptions concerning their potential to contribute to the labour force. In recent years, Australian governments have implemented a raft of measures targeting the employment of older workers, including those aimed at changing employer attitudes and behaviours. Notable has been the emergence of policies focusing on older workers specifically, which single them out as a labour market group in need of particular attention.

Drawing on both the productive and vulnerable constructions of older workers, successive Australian governments have attempted to increase their appeal to employers. The Rudd-Gillard Labor Government of 2007–2013 introduced a suite of measures with the Experience+ nomenclature (Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, 2013). Measures included:

• • Experience+ Corporate Champions Program – A programme providing support to employers committing to implementing best practice in the recruitment and retention of workers aged 45 years and over. Eligible employers received tailored support and assistance valued at up to AUD$20,000 provided by an industry expert.

• • Experience+ Jobs Bonus – A budget allocation of AUD$10 million for the introduction of an AUD$1,000 Experience+ Jobs Bonus, from 1 July 2012 as an incentive for 2,500 employers per annum who recruited a jobseeker aged 50 and over who was retained for at least three months.

• • Investing in Experience Employment Charter and Tool Kit – a practical guide and principles to help businesses employ and retain older workers.

• • Experience+ Career Advice – a telephone service for people aged 45 years and over.

• • Experience+ Work Ready – help with job preparation for eligible older job seekers.

When the Abbott Coalition Government came to power in 2013 it dispensed with the Experience+ nomenclature and most of the measures. However, it retained the Corporate Champions programme, which was renamed Corporate Champions: Experience Pays, and it also extended the Experience+ Jobs Bonus, with an employment incentive payment of AUD$10,000 per worker for employers who hired workers aged 50 and over from 1 July 2014 (Department of Employment, 2014). This employer bonus, renamed Restart: Experience Pays, was limited to any older worker who was an eligible registered older job seeker, in an ongoing full-time or part-time (minimum 15 hours per week) position (Department of Employment, 2014).

The focus on increasing the labour market participation of older workers, via wage subsidy programmes by both of the most recent Australian governments has followed a trend evident in other industrialised nations. A recent review of European public policy identified that subsidised employment had been the most popular measure implemented among Member States (Vargas et al., Reference Vargas, Fric, Curtarelli, Feifs and Weber2013). This review gave such measures a favourable evaluation, although evidence from Australia points to them having limited impact (Shields, Reference Shields2015). The utility of wage subsidies has been questioned on the grounds that older workers are a highly diverse group. Furthermore, such blunt instruments may stigmatize and reinforce negative attitudes on the part of employers to hiring and retaining older workers, signalling that they ‘are generally less productive than younger workers’ (OECD, 2006: 135).

Disjunctions appear to be present in Australian public policy regarding older workers. Both recent governments have argued for the productivity of older workers, highlighting the value of their supposed experience, while simultaneously offering a financial incentive to those willing to hire them. A financial incentive to employers operates apparently as an acknowledgment that ‘one barrier that may be discouraging employers from hiring or retaining older workers is that they simply cost too much relative to their productivity’ and that such an intervention will ‘align more closely labour costs for older workers with their productivity’ (OECD, 2006: 111). Obfuscation of the problem, due to a lack of consistency in terms of approach to tackling issues of age inequality and, moreover, an approach that is not supported by the evidence, is also apparent in efforts to promote a so-called business case for the employment of older workers in Australia. The Department of Employment (2014) posits such a case to employers, which contains a number of contentious and, it would seem, factually inaccurate statements:

• • Mature-age [older] workers can bring something special to your business: a lifetime of experience and knowledge that they can pass on to other workers and your customers.

• • Experienced workers have built up knowledge and skills during their time in the workforce. Committing to positive workplace practices will also help you to retain your mature-age workers and provides benefits in maintaining corporate knowledge and critical skills.

• • Generally, mature-age workers are less likely to take days off due to illness or to care for others, and are less likely to experience work-related injuries than other workers.

• • Staff who have both ‘work’ and ‘life’ experience are valuable assets to a business.

• • Mature-age employees are reliable, take pride in their work and are keen to make a positive contribution.

• • Employee loyalty saves money on absenteeism, training and recruitment. There is evidence that workers aged over 55 are five times less likely to change jobs compared with workers aged 20–24.

According to Loretto et al. (Reference Loretto, Duncan and White2000), the ‘origin of the concept of ageism has meant that, in policy terms and in public discourse, the phenomenon is still mostly associated with prejudice against older age groups. In recent times, however, this association has begun to loosen as evidence mounts that age prejudice in employment can be experienced at any age’. By this widened definition, the Australian approach to promoting older workers to business is ageist with the potential to encourage age discriminatory practices against the young. Observable is the apparent deployment of one set of age stereotypes in order to challenge another. So in support of older workers, their ‘experience’, ‘reliability’ and ‘loyalty’ is promoted over, presumably, that of young people who are considered to be less experienced, less reliable and lacking loyalty. In fact the Australian Age Discrimination Act 2004 includes no minimum age for age-based discrimination, stating that it ‘is unlawful to discriminate against someone on the grounds of age’, seemingly conflicting with the Australian Government's present approach to addressing labour market age barriers. Thus, there appears to be an association between ageism and older ages in the minds of both anti-discrimination advocacy organisations and public policymakers in Australia. Arguably, insufficient attention has been paid to ageism against the young. A further example of this phenomenon can be found in the announcement in 2015 of the Willing to Work: National Inquiry into Employment Discrimination Against Older Australians and Australians with Disability (Australian Human Rights Commission, 2015b).

Additionally, while reliability as an employee attribute may be viewed by employers as positive for repetitive and predictable tasks in a routine, it may be perceived unfavourably for flexible, innovative and creative employees. Emphasising experience and reliability, based on stereotypes of older workers formed in the Fordist industrial age, can confirm broader social perceptions that they are less able to meet the demands of modern economies and are, hence, less productive than younger workers. This has raised the issue of whether, in fact, industry is much interested in reliable, loyal or experienced older labour. Do such characteristics have negative or positive connotations in the minds of employers? Roberts (Reference Roberts2006) argues that, in the new capitalism, such characteristics have shifted from being a positive to a negative condition. Loyalty and reliability might be taken to mean that an older individual is a better or more productive worker and it might also mean that the older worker would remain with the firm for longer – as some research shows (Brooke, Reference Brooke2003) – although the meaning of this is unclear. It may reflect greater genuine loyalty to the firm or mobility constraints on the part of older workers. Research demonstrates that there is less labour market mobility among older workers (OECD, 2006), with the implication that they may be located in roles they find unsatisfying, with consequences for workforce productivity.

Researchers have examined perceptions of age-based attributes of workers, according to whether these are applied to younger or older workers (Steinberg et al., Reference Steinberg, Donald, Najman and Skerman1996; Bittman et al., Reference Bittman, Flick and Rice2001; Ranzijn et al., Reference Ranzijn, Carson and Winefield2004). In one study, the most preferred job-related attribute of older jobseekers was reliability and this was also perceived as an attribute of older workers generally (see Ranzijn et al., 2005). This would be viewed favourably, possibly, if the firm values long tenure and is concerned about high turnover, but it would viewed unfavourably if the emphasis instead is placed on quick turnover of staff bought in for a specific short-term purpose. Reliability, loyalty and experience might also be seen as negative attributes of older workers because of associations with characteristics such as being set in their ways or not open to change.

Sennett (Reference Sennett2006: 61) argues that ‘Cutting-edge organizations want to attract entrepreneurially minded young people’ who are more pliant, and lack family and other commitments that make them ‘sticky’. Likewise, it is far from clear that some so-described advantages of older labour fit with new approaches to managing human resources where, for instance, according to Lyon et al. (Reference Lyon, Hallier and Glover1998: 58),

Critically, research indicates that older workers are rated more highly on qualities that are considered less important by employers. Van Dalen et al. (Reference van Dalen, Henkens and Schippers2010) found that employers primarily perceived the advantages of workers aged over 50 in terms of their so-described soft qualities, whereas those of younger workers were primarily in terms of their hard qualities. Hard qualities included flexibility, physical and mental capacity and the willingness to learn new technology skills, whereas soft qualities included commitment to the organisation, reliability, and social skills. Notably, hard qualities carried greater weight than soft qualities in evaluations of productivity. This has potentially important implications for efforts to overcome age barriers in the labour market, particularly those aimed at awareness raising among employers. It indicates that not only are older workers being promoted by their advocates in terms of qualities that employers are already more likely to ascribe to them, but also that such qualities may be given a lower weighting in terms of employment decisions that take productivity into account.

Thus, the risks with such an approach, aimed at fomenting attitudinal and behavioural change among employers, is that it appears to be grounded in ageist assumptions; has the added potential to devalue the contribution of older workers; and may actually encourage age discriminatory behaviour on the part of employers. Efforts to point to some so-called ‘qualities’ of older workers in an effort to galvanise employer interest might prove counter-productive with such a simplistic solution potentially adding to the difficulties faced by this segment of the workforce. Added to this, the age-based discourse underlying policies based on chronological age may ultimately restrict opportunities by sheltering older workers in discrete niches away from the mainstream labour market. The discourse of age-segregated employment policies risks capturing older workers in marginalised employment with little prospect of escape.

Resistant factors to building ‘quality’ working lives – deficiencies in notions of the productive older worker

The language of ‘early exit’ from the labour force has all but disappeared from the policy lexicon. However, a propensity to focus on the reintegration of older workers may have resulted in the neglect of those for whom, for a variety of reasons, a prolongation of working life is problematical. It is relatively easy to point to gaps in arguments concerning the merits of blocking off early exit pathways and instead exposing older workers to the labour market via promoting re-entry and retention. For instance, older workers may nowadays be somewhat more attached to the labour market than they once were, yet their employability, due to factors such as a lack of up-to-date skills, may be poor (Phillipson, Reference Phillipson, Chiva and Manthorpe2009). ‘Activation’ in terms of the ‘right’ to work when there is no work to be had due to factors including age-based discrimination, a lack of skills currency, or physical and/or mental health issues may condemn many older workers to labour force participation without meaningful employment opportunities. Arguably, for many older workers, present public policy efforts amount to enforced labour market activation. Some unemployed older workers will ‘retire’ as a face-saving status (Walker, Reference Walker1985), while others may be prevented from withdrawing from the labour market, despite their limited job prospects, due to financial constraints. It is to some of these choices that we now turn.

In their discussion of early exit, Kohli and Rein (Reference Kohli, Rein, Kohli, Rein, Guillemard and van Gunsteren1991) describe the transition to retirement as becoming ‘fuzzier’ (Reference Kohli, Rein, Kohli, Rein, Guillemard and van Gunsteren1991: 22), with the emergence of a range of in-between statuses between paid work and full retirement. Referring specifically to early exit, and with implications for wellbeing, they consider the legitimacy of different institutional pathways and their potential for ‘stigmatization or social respect’ (Reference Kohli, Rein, Kohli, Rein, Guillemard and van Gunsteren1991: 27). Such an analysis may similarly be applied to present efforts to prolong working lives. In this regard, a scaling back of labour force participation in the form of reduced working hours – commonly referred to as gradual retirement – has long been promoted by advocacy groups, commentators and policy makers as an approach that has strong appeal to older workers as they transition to retirement. There have been strong arguments in favour of gradual retirement, with proponents positing a case based on supposed individual, organisational and societal benefits. According to Delsen and Reday-Mulvey (Reference Delsen, Reday-Mulvey, Delsen and Reday-Mulvey1996: 9) it ‘constitutes a flexible extension of working life and should be promoted as such’. In Australia, the right to work flexibility featured prominently in a report from the Advisory Panel on the Economic Potential of Senior Australians (2011) as one of seven recommendations in a section concerned with labour force participation. Flexible work was defined as including part-time work, casual work, blocks of time to take leave and return to work, and working fewer hours. The report stated that ‘Offering flexibility in the hours of work, types of work and the way the work is done, within the constraints of the particular workplace, is a key way to attract and retain older workers’ (2011: 9).

Arguably, the gradual withdrawal perspective has its roots in ageist assumptions concerning the inevitable disengagement of older people from society (Taylor and Bengston, Reference Taylor, Bengston, Morrow-Howell, Hinterlong and Sherridan2001). As noted by Bell and Rutherford (Reference Bell and Rutherford2013), many employees working reduced hours appear to consider their choices to be restricted and their productive potential underutilised. For instance, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics (2013), some 244,000 people aged 45 and over were classified as underemployed. This is defined as part-time workers who wanted, and were available for, more hours of work than they currently had, and full-time workers who worked part-time hours during the reference week for economic reasons, such as insufficient work being available. Older people experienced a longer duration of underemployment than younger people. Among those underemployed part-time workers aged 45 and over, working hours of 35 or more were the most commonly preferred option. This is not, however, acknowledged within narratives of productive ageing where any working is considered beneficial.

Added to this, although policymakers may point to the individual benefits of working, in terms of ageing productively, if the work available is not quality work then working may reduce the prospect of a healthy and secure life for older people. As noted by Phillipson (Reference Phillipson, Chiva and Manthorpe2009), many move into bridging forms of employment in contingent or non-core areas of the workforce. Some have argued that older workers have been overrepresented in the expansion of precarious work, risking ill-health and injury associated with poor work organisation, inadequate training and insufficient knowledge of the management of hazards (Quinlan et al., Reference Quinlan, Mayhew and Bohle2001; Quinlan and Bohle, Reference Quinlan, Bohle, Barling and Frone2003; McGovern et al., Reference McGovern, Smeaton and Hill2004). However, rather than dwell on the potential health and other risks associated with precarious or poor quality employment, emerging narratives of working longer from a healthy ageing perspective have ignored issues such as the quality of late career and post-career jobs. For instance, an OECD report concerned with healthy ageing identified the need for policies aimed at increasing labour market activity among older workers, without any reference to the nature of employment opportunities (Oxley, Reference Oxley2009). While the work context can optimally enhance functioning, relative health benefits depends on the kinds of work available for older people.

The emerging social construction of the older worker, that is promoted by policymakers and advocacy groups, represents any type of working longer as being beneficial. As Sahlgren (Reference Sahlgren2013) points out, the relationship between health and retirement is ambiguous as retirement can influence health and health can influence retirement and these influences may differ across sectors. Moreover, poor health can precipitate retirement. What is clear from Sahlgren's review is that, while short-, medium- and long-term impacts may be different, both mental and physical health worsen over the years spent in retirement: self-assessed health is worse, more health conditions are diagnosed, and more drugs are prescribed. This is the reasoning that underpins reports claiming that working longer is beneficial, such as an Australian Human Rights Commission report (2012: 6) that argues there are benefits for older people who remain in the workforce because ‘working is a protective factor against physical ill-health and poor mental health’. However, it is known that the extent of this health benefit varies according to the employment situation.

Late-career permanent employment, particularly in the same career field, provides the most health benefit when compared with temporary employment, unemployment and full retirement. For instance, Strandh (Reference Strandh2000) examined psychological wellbeing and new employment status after unemployment in the UK and concluded that a return to permanent employment appeared to result in a larger increase in wellbeing than one to temporary employment or self-employment. In the USA also, Zhan et al. (Reference Zhan, Wang, Liu and Shultz2009) found that secure bridge employment had a beneficial health effect compared to full retirement partly because working on provides structure and control as well as social contact enabling the maintenance of an existing lifestyle. Notably, career bridge employment, in which an employee continued working in the same career field, was more beneficial to mental health than working on in a different field or full retirement. A transition from working to full retirement, whether via a bridge retirement pathway or not, was found to be happier when it involved a choice made by, rather than imposed on, an older worker (Calvo et al., Reference Calvo, Haverstick and Sass2007).

Older worker identity and late careers – deficiencies in notions of the vulnerable older worker

Equally deficient is the ‘vulnerable’ proposition as it fails to acknowledge the diversity of older workers’ capacities and experiences and imposes a social construction that may undermine a person's efforts at maintaining a work identity. Thus, an international review of industrialised countries concludes that ‘labour force status, pay, working conditions and retirement decisions vary widely among older people in each country according to their age, skills, work experience, geographical location, household status (e.g., whether married or single) and a range of other personal factors’ (OECD, 2006: 44). Referring to the job performance of those in work, Warr (Reference Warr, Snel and Cremer1994: 309) concludes that ‘in almost every case, variations within an age group far exceed the average difference between age groups’. Moreover, in addition to there being significant individual variation in the ability to work, this variation has been shown to increase with age (Ilmarinen, Reference Ilmarinen, Bittner and Champney1995). Research indicates that older worker employment patterns in Australia vary by region, industry, job and gender. Temple (Reference Temple2014) shows that there has been growth in older women's employment over the past 30 years but growth in older men's employment only over the last 10 years. Self-employment among older workers is strong and industries focused on self-employment have high patterns of older age participation. One industry of major decline in terms of older age employment is the public sector. Populations in non-metropolitan areas are older and ageing faster than those in state capitals. However, labour force participation in different regions varies also. In Tasmania, for example, the level of population ageing is high and there are labour supply problems, but labour force participation of older workers in metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas is lower than the national average (Temple, Reference Temple2014). As noted by Riach and Loretto (Reference Riach and Loretto2009: 104), in relation to unemployed or economically inactive older people, ‘many of the current policies make assumptions about “disadvantaged” individuals, homogenizing both their experiences and their social or economic position’. In this regard Riach and Loretto report findings from a British study of non-employed older workers who describe difficulties escaping imposed non-worker identities and their conscious efforts at contesting these. Added to this is the perception that only certain jobs are considered suitable for an older worker, with respondents referring to their experiences of being offered low skill or poorly paid jobs that do not take account of their professional skills or experiences. Returning to an earlier theme, this may reflect ageist assumptions regarding the age appropriateness of particular forms of work.