Having a defined working age helps individuals planning their retirement as well as governments making spending plans. However, it is puzzling whether the standard retirement age of 65 will remain the same in the following decades. A large number of people outside the working age range continue to contribute to the economy in both formal and informal ways. Even with today’s pension ages, in OECD countries an average of 23% of people aged 65-69 are still working. This highlights why focusing solely on chronological age when talking about working life is a problem. As the pension age rises, the working age concept as we know it today will become increasingly irrelevant. Societies need a more innovative and dynamic approach.
There is no doubt that changes to the current structure will be complex and time-consuming, requiring layers of revisions and restructuring of systems. But a step in the right direction would be to phase out structures based on chronological age. A holistic shift, uncoupling age from economic measures, will prompt societies to reconsider their views on the value of chronological age as a measure and help eliminate the prejudicial age divide between the old and the young.
Using age as a social and economic identity is anything but consistent. In the age of fluid identities, it’s time to re-evaluate the relationships between age, society and economy. Societies need a dynamic, age-fluid approach that will recognise the value of both economic and non-economic needs and contributions.
One alternative used in some countries is the idea of a functional age, a measure of certain physical and mental capabilities. But this is only applied to a handful of jobs such as pilots, firefighters and police – where specific abilities like eyesight, fitness, brain age and decision-making – are emphasised.
Making functional age the mainstream measure isn’t necessarily the way forward, but it does show that alternative thinking is possible. Other metrics like people’s cognitive age, biological age, functional age and social age (self-perceptions of age and social norms of age-appropriate behaviour) do not always match up with a person’s chronological age, which can also impact on their abilities to work, earn and pay.

In August, Australia joined Ontario, France and several European and Latin American countries in passing a “right to disconnect” law. This law gives workers the right to ignore communications from their employer outside scheduled working hours.
The “right to disconnect” targets the growing problems of over-connectedness and over-availability. Most employees nowadays can be reached at any time via mobile devices. This ease of contact makes the division between work and home even more blurry than in the past. Some employees who work from home feel the need to compensate for their lack of visibility at the workplace by being accessible after working hours.
To tackle this downside, multiple organizations are beginning to establish clear boundaries between work and non-work time. At first, consultants and team leaders were hesitant — their careers would suffer if they were perceived as not being dedicated due to limited availability outside of working hours. Nonetheless, quite the opposite happened. Having clearly defined hours forced the consultants to work more efficiently, and to better coordinate their work with their colleagues’, resulting in improved client service and higher-quality outputs. The consultants also reported that scheduled time off left them refreshed and energized, which made them more productive during working hours.
The researchers cautioned that arrangements like these will only succeed if both employees and employers fully commit to them — consciously avoiding the temptation during time off to send just that one email or finish that last little task. But when the boundaries between work and non-work are respected and enforced, the effects are profound. When employees’ time off really is time off, they can be more productive and efficient at work. And when employers respect the boundaries between work and home, they can build workplace cultures that are more equitable and respectful.

Joining the Uber movement, more than 12,500 drivers are bringing the action against Bolt, an Estonia-based ride-hailing app which has been operating in the UK since 2019, seeking to be classed as workers at an employment tribunal. They claim that they should be treated as workers because of the significant control Bolt has over how they work, and that they should be given the same rights and protections as typical workers. In response to the situation, Bolt announced as of August 1st that its drivers would receive holiday pay and a guarantee of the “national living wage”.
Still, in a recent survey, six in 10 drivers identified the ability to choose their own hours as the most important aspect of their work. Consequently, Bolt’s management team canceled the previous decision in August based on this research, further asserting with confidence that its business model “enables drivers to be their own boss, and the majority of private-hire drivers consistently state that they wish to remain self-employed independent contractors, as they value the flexibility, personal control over pricing, and earning potential offered by this model”. Hopes of a plan to bring in a single status for all employees, which would give gig economy workers the same rights as employed staff, appear to have been replaced with a pledge to consult on a simpler employment framework.

During working hours, we need at least a 20-minute break — which could consist of two 10-minute intervals or four 5-minute intervals throughout the day — to let our brains do something mindless. Since work-from-home and hybrid arrangements have become normalized, our minds often need to make increasingly complex decisions more frequently. Due to the huge cognitive load on our brain, having the flexibility to do small chores while working from home can ensure workers are taking breaks in the first place. For instance, domestic duties that can allow your brain to switch off might include unloading the dishwasher, making the bed, or doing a spot of vacuuming. Actually, micro breaks don't even have to be mundane and can involve taking your dog for a walk during your lunch break or stepping outside when you have a free moment.
Despite evidence proving that regular and short breaks improve your productivity, you may feel a sense of guilt when it comes to taking breaks. It's a problem that often starts from the top down, with people in leadership positions modeling poor behavior by being reluctant to take breaks themselves. Still, trying to maintain peak performance at the expense of recovery and appropriate wellbeing practices is a recipe for burnout and employers should try to overcome these traditional mindsets.

Yet for many people, faith is a core component of their identity – part of the “whole self” that employees are increasingly encouraged to bring to work. It’s an important piece of diversity but one that managers often tiptoe around. And for many Americans, faith is part of why they show up at their job each day: 1 in 5 consider their work a spiritual calling.
The most common concern about bringing up religion in the workplace seems to be that it will lead to conflict – including conflict from people trying to change each other’s beliefs, whereas some expressed concerns that some forms of religious expression could make people uncomfortable, or even turn into harassment. Consequently, asking workers to bottle up their faith when they start the workday may seem like the easiest way to avoid these problems. Silence around religion may seem like a neutral request: If no one expresses their faith, after all, then no one can be discriminated against, no one can be offended, and no one is seen as getting special treatment for their religious beliefs.
There are a few problems with this logic, however. According to a team of researchers from West Virginia University, individuals who feel a sense of spiritual connection to their work report greater job satisfaction, find more meaning in their work and better manage negative experiences they encounter in the workplace. Social science research has found that people’s well-being, social interactions and performance are harmed when they feel the need to suppress an important part of themselves within a group or organization. In other words, everyone suffers when individuals are not allowed to bring their whole selves to work.