You still can't have it all

In the 1980s when the younger baby boomers were coming of age, there was a very strong perception in the workplace that women could have it all – a challenging and successful career as well as a fulfilled personal life. And of course, many women wanted that. The problem was that there was no such thing and a lot of women learned that the hard way.

There is an old saying that if it sounds too good to be true it probably is. Women having it all fits into this category.

The truth is that equal opportunity for women is really no closer than it was 30 years ago. There are a few reasons for this. First, the culture in which women are working to achieve remains a culture defined by men. And second, because women have more than one role to fill in our society, total achievement in one area means sacrifices in another.

Women will always struggle in the workforce as long as they are the primary caretakers for both their children and frequently, their aging parents. It is not possible to take on a very responsible leadership position unless you are prepared to ignore the people who need you and depend on you.

It is also ironic that men gain respect when they become parents. They are perceived to be more responsible and reliable because they are breadwinners with mouths to feed. Women, on the other hand, often see their careers stalled because they became parents.

For women to achieve corporate success on their own terms means sacrifice. Sacrificing children. Sacrificing husbands and partners. Sacrificing sitting at the bedsides of ailing parents. Sacrificing me time. Those are big sacrifices that often cannot be corrected somewhere down the road.

There was a greeting card in circulation about 15 years ago. On the cover was a Lichtenstein-like cartoon character woman who was crying dramatically. The caption read: “Oh no, I forgot to have children.”

At the time, it was a funny card. Today, the message sounds sad. Walking away from family might well be the price that women have to pay to succeed at work. Or worse still, having children and then neglecting them for the sake of one’s career.

Forty years into the women’s movement and in many ways nothing has changed: if you want a top-level job with big responsibility then you are going to have to make sacrifices either at work or at home. Women are no more like men than they ever were. Many family responsibilities automatically fall on women’s shoulders even if they have wonderful nannies and or supportive husbands.

However, to play in a man’s world a woman has to be available for a man’s hours. Today, that means 24/7 and a lot of compromises.

The government’s age-related recruitment messages are contradictory

Is it discriminatory to insist that someone retire at 65? For some people who feel good, young-at-heart and want to keep working, the answer is a resounding yes. However, for others, reaching the holy grail of retirement at 65 is a well-earned gift.

But like it or not, it seems that the days of compulsory retirement at 65 are about to become a thing of the past. Of course, that does not mean that the British people are going to go quietly into the night. The government, for example, is facing growing anger from business groups over plans to phase out the default retirement age by October next year.

According to leading business groups, this doesn’t give companies much time to prepare. It also leaves them with many unresolved issues. For example: how to address an employee’s future after 65? While companies may have senior employees with a lot of valuable experience, they want to maintain control of managing their workforces as suits them.

As people reach 65 they will begin to worry about where they stand in the employment mix. Is a young inexperienced employee more valuable than an older, experienced one? And unfortunately, employers may not have the answers. And what if the older employee feels forced to leave their job? Will that constitute age discrimination?

It surely won’t be simple.

There will need to be more than a code of practice to address these practical issues; we will need changes in the law to deal more effectively with difficult employment situations."

At this point employers are feeling squeezed at both ends. On one hand they feel compelled to hire younger, less experienced people to help reduce youth unemployment. And now, on the other hand, the government is making retirement an outdated concept.

Something is going to have to give.