Good News for those near retirement

Googlewhacker

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2010/jul/29/compulsory-retirement-65-phased-out?CMP=AFCYAH

I think this is a great idea on the whole, I always wondered why employees were forced to retire at 65 as we are now generally capable of living alot longer and being able to do the work that is required for a longer period as well.

I have read the article and think it is a good idea. Where I work there are two members of staff over the 65 barrier and one is over 75 and they are good workers and well respected.

Obviously the arguement against it will be capability and whether someone is capable of doing the job after this age and this I guess will generally be more in the laborious jobs such as building work, so whether there could be some way of measuring how capable someone is at the job at 65 and whether they are doing a fair days work for their pay for the employer. If they are not then the employer can dismiss, if they are then they stay on and are retested at 70 (I'm only thinking out loud and very much doubt this would happen)

Some cynical people believe the government are doing this to hopefully lessen the effect of people taking the pensions.

All in all a good move to get rid of it IMO.

bap98189

The problem is that if people are not forced to retire, there are no job vacancies for younger people.

bendix

!!!!!! that. I wouldn't dream of working at that age.

SarEl

bendix wrote: »

!!!!!! that. I wouldn't dream of working at that age.

Well, I suppose it had to happen sometime... I totally agree with you

Googlewhacker

SarEl wrote: »

Well, I suppose it had to happen sometime... I totally agree with you

But for alot of people they either have to carry on working or they enjoy working and I think it is unfair that employers could force through a retirement if the employee is capable.

SarEl

Googlewhacker wrote: »

But for alot of people they either have to carry on working or they enjoy working and I think it is unfair that employers could force through a retirement if the employee is capable.

In principle I don't disagree with you Googlewhacker. But I am a real sceptic on this one. If someone wants to work beyond their retirement age then I do think that this should not be made difficult, and as one of the people who genuinely love my work, I understand the point you are making. But what I do not believe is that this will benefit the majority of people or society as a whole. The vast majority of people work something like 50 years of their lives (if they are lucky!), and personally I think that putting the best years of your life into work, only getting to retire when you are getting to the age where ill health and age will start to get to you (if they haven't already) is sad to see. The vast majority of those people will be looking forward to a paltry pension (so I can see the need to keep working, rather than the desire, for many), and poverty in their old age. If they are lucky their children, assuming they have any, may be able to help them out - but what kind of reward is living off your children for people who have worked hard all their lives?

If they are unfortunate, dwindling health will also see dwindling assets - the little they have put by in thier lives eaten up by contributions to their own care, until they have nothing left. Put this together with disportionate access to health care (and that is no criticism of the NHS), and for the poorest people in society, a life expectancy "gap" that is something like 10 years or so... and they will be workking until they drop dead.

This is not a choice - it is a cut and a pretty callous one at that. If the government (and I am no fan of the last one either - they did a lot of this too) genuinely want people to be able to exercise choice on this matter then they should make it a choice - by making pensions realistic so that people do not retire into poverty, by ensuring that they have the kind of health care that they need, and so on. Then it will be a real choice for people, and not a choice to work until they drop that is foisted upon them. It is a choice if you have a nice fat pension - not otherwise.

And quite apart from all that, I have to agree with the point - where do we get jobs for the young from if we keep people working longer?

SandC

I think they had to do this because I for one at aged 39 now will not receive my state pension until age 67 so if I have nothing else in place, forcing me to finish work at 65 will leave me with no income.

My thinking is that for everyone over 65 who loves their job and wants to continue there are probably far more who have to carry on through financial necessity.

Uncertain

SarEl wrote: »

The vast majority of people work something like 50 years of their lives (if they are lucky!)

Vast majority - really?

If you leave school at 16 and work until you are 65 then that is 49 years. But, surely, most people work significantly less than that.

If you go to university or higher education you will be at least 21 and maybe quite a bit older before you are looking for a job.

Also, although the trend is beginning to change, in recent years a lot of people retired earlier. 60 was common is some fields.

Next, most women (and a few men) will have some years out of work for family reasons. Some more will opt for part time work for this reason.

Then there are quite a number of people at any one time judged to be medically unfit for work (long term).

Plus, at any time there is significant unemployment. The true figure is a lot higher than the government pretends as many choose not to claim JSA.

Finally there are more than a few people with private means, or who live on the proceeds of letting properties etc.

I suspect the average number of years worked is actually well under 40.

bendix

SarEl wrote: »

The vast majority of people work something like 50 years of their lives (if they are lucky!), ?

No, being lucky is winning the lottery or being blessed with film star good looks.

Working fifty years is not my definition of being lucky. It's my definition of exactly the opposite.

SarEl

I am not sure how that disputes the fact that working until they drop is not a genuine choice, but a necessity, for most people.

Uncertain wrote: »

Vast majority - really?

If you leave school at 16 and work until you are 65 then that is 49 years. But, surely, most people work significantly less than that. The majority of people affected by this change will be in their 40's, 50's and 60's (because it will all have changed again, for better or for worse) in the future. For people of that age, leaving school at 16 was the norm - those who stayed on for A levels, or further or higher edication, were a minority. 49 years is, by my calculation, "something like 50 years"

If you go to university or higher education you will be at least 21 and maybe quite a bit older before you are looking for a job.

Also, although the trend is beginning to change, in recent years a lot of people retired earlier. 60 was common is some fields. And why is the trend beginning to change? Because pensions (for those that have them) are being eroded or axed by many employers (or those who had them in the first place). Many people, as I have pointed out, cannot afford to retire at 65, never mind 60. For those who are fortunate enough to be able to do so, that's very nice - not everyone has that choice.

Next, most women (and a few men) will have some years out of work for family reasons. Some more will opt for part time work for this reason. I think you will find that most women and the few men will point out that bringing up a family is hard work, albeit unpaid. And often a result of being unable to secure employment which enables them to also address their familial responsibilities, either because of childcare costs, hours of work, or both. If this "unpaid army" were to enter the employment market en masse, there would be considerably more unemployment. Our society operates on the basis of a reserve army of carers being unpaid (and not just those who look after children), and often forgotten - it does not mean that these people are not working, it simply means that they are not paid for that work.

Then there are quite a number of people at any one time judged to be medically unfit for work (long term). And therefore will be amongst the poorest in society unless they are fortunate enough to have private means, which most do not. Without access to employment, and without the ability to choose to carry on working rather than retire, they will continue to be amongst the poorest. Ill health is not a choice.

Plus, at any time there is significant unemployment. The true figure is a lot higher than the government pretends as many choose not to claim JSA. I agree that the figures mask the true unemployment rate - and not just because some people may choose not to claim JSA, but because the figures do not include many people who are unemployed. Whilst I know that some people would not owrk unless you put a bomb under them, that is not true of the vast majority of the unemployed. Having no choice about whether you work or not is not a choice. Nor is it retirement or a little holiday.

Finally there are more than a few people with private means, or who live on the proceeds of letting properties etc. Yes, there arepeople who are in this position. There are many more who are not.

I suspect the average number of years worked is actually well under 40. If you average it out then yes, the average across the population will come down. You could reduce the average by much more if you knock off all their holidays and sick days too - after all, by your argument they aren't working. But that does not change the fact that for many people, making it possible to work past retirment age is not a genuine choice, unless they wish to live in poverty. 40 or 45 years is still a very long time to work, and until you have done it you don't appreciate just how long it is. None of which changes the point that I made - it is all very well making it easier for people to exercise choice about when they retire and not forcing them to do so. But a choice is only a choice if there is a realistic alternative, and poverty isn't a realistic alternative. [/QUOTE]

And it still doesn't address the point that if people stay on in work longer than that, where are the jobs for the young people going to come from? Mind you, they may be the lucky ones - according to you - because if they never have to work then they won't have to choose when or whether they retire, and they'll never have done a days work anyway, so it won't matter, will it?