New 'Ageism' Laws - Not a happy bunny

curtlyb

I know of somebody who is about to fall foul of the new 'anti-ageism' laws, this is the scenario.........
A VERY big high street bank has circulated information to all its staff stating that from 2nd October 2006 its retirement age will increase from 60 to 65 (before you had to apply to work longer than 60 ie contravening the new laws).
I know a person who has been planning their retirement for 3years now with a view to retiring in the middle of next year. As it now stands the goalposts have been moved with 10months left and they will now have to take 'early retirement' instead, this means losing a 3month ramp-down of hours (fully paid) and tax benefits on a share option scheme which normally allows perks at retirement age. Surely this system is grossly unfair and circumstances should not be allowed to be changed so close to a final handshake ? The person involved has now got to re-evaluate their cirumstances at the eleventh hour leaving a very bitter taste:(

Optimist

It would seem they are changing this persons terms and conditions without his agreement. Haven't really read the new law so not sure how it would affect them but I would suggest they see their union or phone ACAS on 08457 474747

curtlyb

That was my immediate thought when they told me this, it specifically said in their contract of employment that they had to retire at 60, is changing that at such short notice as illegal as not changing it at all (eg falling foul of the law)...... i'll tell them to ring ACAS, many thanks

isasmurf

The age discrimination laws do not come into effect for Pension Schemes until December. As I understand it, the law now states that an employer can not force someone to retire before they are 65, unless they can 'objectively justify' it. All Pension benefits accrued prior to the law change are protected, so the person you know should be able to collect the majority of his pension as if there was no change to the law.

ffacoffipawb

curtlyb wrote:

I know of somebody who is about to fall foul of the new 'anti-ageism' laws, this is the scenario.........
A VERY big high street bank has circulated information to all its staff stating that from 2nd October 2006 its retirement age will increase from 60 to 65 (before you had to apply to work longer than 60 ie contravening the new laws).
I know a person who has been planning their retirement for 3years now with a view to retiring in the middle of next year. As it now stands the goalposts have been moved with 10months left and they will now have to take 'early retirement' instead, this means losing a 3month ramp-down of hours (fully paid) and tax benefits on a share option scheme which normally allows perks at retirement age. Surely this system is grossly unfair and circumstances should not be allowed to be changed so close to a final handshake ? The person involved has now got to re-evaluate their cirumstances at the eleventh hour leaving a very bitter taste:(

He probably still can retire at 60, his choice.

The new legislation means the EMPLOYER cannot force him to go at 60 if he does NOT want to.

curtlyb

ffacoffipawb wrote:

He probably still can retire at 60, his choice.

The new legislation means the EMPLOYER cannot force him to go at 60 if he does NOT want to.

He can retire at 60, no problem, the point is that because their retirement age has been moved back by 5years it is now classed as 'early' retirement thus relinquishing a string of retirement benefits

derrick

Optimist wrote:

or phone ACAS on 08457 474747

Or use the non ripoff number 020 72103613 for their head office, or see HERE for local office numbers.

tyllwyd

It seems very strange - as other people have said, the legislation is meant to help people who want to work rather than penalising people who want to retire. It does seem very unfair to change the rules for employees who have less than a year to go to retirement. Has he checked with the HR department to make sure that there is no exemption for someone in his situation? Has he spoken to a solicitor about it?

If he is 100% sure that he will be caught by this change, I'd be tempted to go to the newspapers about it - surely the financial sections of a broadsheet would be very interested in publishing a story like this, and if nothing else he will have the satisfaction of embarassing his employer.

Andy_L

This change to the pension scheme as very little to do with new legislation but is an attemt by the employer to reduce their pension costs.
Any change to the pension T&Cs must be agreed with the scheme trustees (and consulting staff would be a v.good idea) and shouldn't affect past service (IIRC past service is protected by law anyway.

curtlyb

tyllwyd wrote:

It does seem very unfair to change the rules for employees who have less than a year to go to retirement. Has he checked with the HR department to make sure that there is no exemption for someone in his situation? Has he spoken to a solicitor about it?

If he is 100% sure that he will be caught by this change, I'd be tempted to go to the newspapers about it - surely the financial sections of a broadsheet would be very interested in publishing a story like this, and if nothing else he will have the satisfaction of embarassing his employer.

I have to agree with this one, route one is the employer and if that doesn't give a satisfactory conclusion then the money pages of one of the dailys would be good, if only to counteract an article this Bank put out recently singing about their fantastic employee relations and retirement schemes