Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
cashinmattress

Lift Jobs Axe For Over-65s, Demand Mps

Recommended Posts

Lift jobs axe for over-65s, demand MPs

All-party committee says employers should no longer be able to sack older workers who want to stay

The legal right of companies to retire staff compulsorily on their 65th birthday must be abolished immediately to help address the deepening pensions crisis, a parliamentary investigation has concluded.

A report into pensioner poverty by an all-party group of MPs will recommend that older people should be able to continue working full or part-time into their 70s, 80s or 90s - with full holiday and other entitlements - so long as they are fit and able to do so.

The recommendations from the Commons work and pensions select committee, to be published next month, are a response to fears that many of the next generation of pensioners could end their years in poverty after being forced out of work at 65 with pension pots that have plummeted in value.

For those approaching retirement, the financial crisis and recession have left them with potential pension incomes of some 20% less than would have been the case a year ago and with no right to carry on working to make up the difference.

The committee's conclusions will, however, be fiercely resisted by business leaders who are determined to retain the right to shed staff at 65 and replace them, where necessary, with younger, cheaper workers. Last night the committee's chairman, Labour MP Terry Rooney, said the government had to recognise that the law not only discriminated against older workers, but also risked making the pension crisis worse.

"There are an awful lot of people now reaching pension age who are finding that their pension pots are nothing like as big as they expected them to be," he said. "They get to a situation where the employer is able to sack them at 65 and no one else will take them on."

The need for urgent action on pensions was highlighted last week by a series of alarming reports about the state of the industry. A survey of 1,000 blue-chip companies by PricewaterhouseCoopers found 96% believed their final salary schemes were unsustainable.

At the same time, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development put Britain at the bottom of a league table of what those coming up to retirement can expect in terms of income.

The Department for Work and Pensions said last night it would not review the compulsory retirement age until 2011, a date that campaigners say will be too late for the 25,000 people forced to retire against their will each year. Already ministers have announced that the retirement age will be increased in phases to 68 by 2048.

At the moment, a British employer can dismiss a member of staff without redundancy payments on his or her 65th birthday. Employees have a right to request to work beyond 65, but employers have only to "consider" the request.

In 2006, Age Concern applied to the high court arguing that the rules were illegal. Its case was referred to the European Court of Justice, which ruled in March that compulsory retirement at 65 was not in breach of EU law so long as the UK government was able to justify it. It will be up to the high court to determine, finally, later this year whether the rules are "legitimate".

John Cridland, the CBI deputy director-general, said there was no need for change. "Some people can continue in their existing job beyond 65, but this is not possible for all occupations."

Independent pension expert Dr Ros Altmann said the financial crisis meant people now approaching retirement were doing so with their assets down in value, the cost of annuities rising and government policies working against them. "If you want to supplement a disappointing pension income with some part-time work, current policies penalise you from doing so, both through age discrimination legislation and the pension credit system," she said. "Why should it be acceptable to get rid of someone at 65? It is pure discrimination."

John Ralfe, a pensions consultant, said abolishing the compulsory retirement age was a "step in the right direction", but warned it could create a rush of legal challenges. "It is OK being a 67-year-old pensions consultant or a 67-year journalist but in some jobs requiring physical endurance maybe it is rather different. I can see lots of disputes and legal challenges."

Michelle Mitchell, charity director of Age Concern and Help the Aged, said about 70% of companies had compulsory retirement at 65. "The government should scrap a piece of legislation that is at odds with the needs of an ageing society and the economy," she said.

Things we will see in the near future. More and more young people unemployed. More ambulances and coroners outside of workplaces. Canes, ramps, and big toilets full of handles and disabled access.

Pensions? What pension? Get to work, granddad!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This will dovetail neatly with disability legislation so that firing a 95 year old who is struggling with workload because they dribble, shit themselves twice a day and can't remember anyones name will be discriminatory.

Still, bring on foreign competition! Britain at its best can take them all on!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was a story on local news (Yorkshire) on Friday about a chap that had just turned 90 and was a shelf stacker in a supermarket.

He ran his own grocery business but when he retired he got bored, so went to work for the supermarket. He loves his job and says life wouldn't be the same if he didn't walk through the supermarket front doors every morning.

On the one hand you've got a loyal and dedicated worker, doing his job to a very high standard (According to his manager) Who wouldn't want to keep such an employee?

On the other hand, you've got a chap that doesn't need to work for financial reasons, as he is already getting a state pension and a private pension, and he is taking up a job that someone unemployed could be doing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lift jobs axe for over-65s, demand MPs

For those approaching retirement, the financial crisis and recession have left them with potential pension incomes of some 20% less than would have been the case a year ago and with no right to carry on working to make up the difference.

Hmm 20% thats relatively good, wait for the poor barstewards retiring in 3 to 4 years time with an 80% reduction on what they expected in 2007

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm, I think MPs fear an army of disgruntled pensioners, complaining and protesting their way through the institutions, armed with time, experience and anger.

Better keep them working 8 hours a day instead...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There was a story on local news (Yorkshire) on Friday about a chap that had just turned 90 and was a shelf stacker in a supermarket.

He ran his own grocery business but when he retired he got bored, so went to work for the supermarket. He loves his job and says life wouldn't be the same if he didn't walk through the supermarket front doors every morning.

On the one hand you've got a loyal and dedicated worker, doing his job to a very high standard (According to his manager) Who wouldn't want to keep such an employee?

On the other hand, you've got a chap that doesn't need to work for financial reasons, as he is already getting a state pension and a private pension, and he is taking up a job that someone unemployed could be doing.

That's it all wrapped up in your post. His refusal to lay down and let the next generation have a shot shows the ugly reality of our future.

He will be working for pence on the pound as well, as he is subsidised by the state through pension.

Why not stick him in a day centre doing something productive for his community, rather than taking more?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a fantastic reframe.

It's not that people want to retire but their pension has been given to the city spivs, it's evil bosses sacking them!

:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's it all wrapped up in your post. His refusal to lay down and let the next generation have a shot shows the ugly reality of our future.

He will be working for pence on the pound as well, as he is subsidised by the state through pension.

Why not stick him in a day centre doing something productive for his community, rather than taking more?

Let me get this straight: you're claiming that going to work and not using up resources in a day centre is anti-social? :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This will dovetail neatly with disability legislation so that firing a 95 year old who is struggling with workload because they dribble, shit themselves twice a day and can't remember anyones name will be discriminatory.

Still, bring on foreign competition! Britain at its best can take them all on!!!!

More Labour lunacy.Pay 20 year olds to do nothing but make 65 year olds who have worked 40+ years carry on.Dont they get it,90% of people want to retire as soon as possible.

What this is really about is the government thinking 5 million will never work,to pay for them we need to keep the hard workers working until they die.

Plus its a smokescreen to push the state pension more and more away.Get your money in ISAs not pensions and keep those assets in foreign climes.This government is getting more insane every day.

What sort of country wants to make sure its financially impossible for 65 year olds to retire while paying millions of able bodied people in their 20s,30s and 40s to do nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's a fantastic reframe.

It's not that people want to retire but their pension has been given to the city spivs, it's evil bosses sacking them!

:lol:

Perfectly put Injin.Their savings over 40 years paid from their Labour given to bankers to pay themselves whatever they choose.Not in investment so as to improve productivity to ensure the pensions could be paid,,just for consumption for the spivs as you put it so well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Let me get this straight: you're claiming that going to work and not using up resources in a day centre is anti-social? :lol:

Anti-social? Hmm, depends on how you define that term. If by this you mean that the old man is denying a real wage to a young person by refusing to conform to societies expectations, then yes. He is being very anti-social.

But you fail to see that people are actually the resource, as is the case with most Britons. It seems you've made the mistake of arbitrarily attaching a price tag to everything. This old git could impart his lifetime of knowledge and wisdom through council to those in hardship, but instead he wants to slog on and keep taking from the system in a no-brainer position.

This is the new reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
More Labour lunacy.Pay 20 year olds to do nothing but make 65 year olds who have worked 40+ years carry on.Dont they get it,90% of people want to retire as soon as possible.

What sort of country wants to make sure its financially impossible for 65 year olds to retire while paying millions of able bodied people in their 20s,30s and 40s to do nothing.

I don't know many people who would not want to retire as soon as possible, no matter how old they are :rolleyes:

65 nowadays is not really old -- this limit comes from a time when medicine was not as advanced and people worked hard physical jobs that turned them wrecks at that age.

Most 65 year old people are the physical equivalent to 50 year olds and so, there is no need to retire them.

Rather than worry about older people living longer lives and being healthier, if the younger scroungers are your problem address that, but don't scapegoat the oldies who take those jobs that the younger guys can't be bothered to take, preferring to live off the taxes the oldies generate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't believe that there are people who cannot afford to retire at 65. People just need to be aware of what help is available.

If you have zero savings and no private pension then you can live off the state pension and any other benefits you are entitled to. You won't be able to live an exciting retirement but you will be warm, fed and sheltered which is all you can expect the state to provide.

Of course people should be able to work if they want to but the thought that someone would prefer to do that rather than spend the last few years on this planet out enjoying the fresh air depresses me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't know many people who would not want to retire as soon as possible, no matter how old they are :rolleyes:

65 nowadays is not really old -- this limit comes from a time when medicine was not as advanced and people worked hard physical jobs that turned them wrecks at that age.

Most 65 year old people are the physical equivalent to 50 year olds and so, there is no need to retire them.

Rather than worry about older people living longer lives and being healthier, if the younger scroungers are your problem address that, but don't scapegoat the oldies who take those jobs that the younger guys can't be bothered to take, preferring to live off the taxes the oldies generate.

Don't talk shite there chairman Mao. I don't remember Britain flying a communist flag.

And we will 'scapegoat' oldies who are sitting on property, bank accounts, pensions, etc....whilst the young people get paltry state handouts and are continually demonized.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anti-social? Hmm, depends on how you define that term. If by this you mean that the old man is denying a real wage to a young person by refusing to conform to societies expectations, then yes. He is being very anti-social.

But you fail to see that people are actually the resource, as is the case with most Britons. It seems you've made the mistake of arbitrarily attaching a price tag to everything. This old git could impart his lifetime of knowledge and wisdom through council to those in hardship, but instead he wants to slog on and keep taking from the system in a no-brainer position.

This is the new reality.

Hang on, so, the old guy is less of a human being because he is old and thus not entitled to live his life as he wants?

What if the young guy spanks his genius on this stupid job that the old codger could do far better and doesn't bother finishing his PhD but drops out to stack shelves? Those young refusenik drop-outs are far more antisocial, every genius who keep his gift to himself instead of reaching his full potential out costs us millions in lost investment in education and lost revenue because he stacks shelves instead of filing patents.

Btw, yes people are a resource. But not using one resource in order to use another that is inferior to those who actually employ it is positively nuts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember once in a Wal-Mart in Kansas City, asking a shelf stacker where peanut butter was. Of course, we didn't quite understand each other's accents and it took a bit of teasing, but this chap was well into ill-health old age, had evidence of both congestive cardiac failure and chronic respiratory disease. I don't think this man was working for fun - he looked terrible.

I considered this to be a callous facet of the 'American Dream' and thanked my lucky stars I lived in a country that had more dignity for it's elders.

This was 2001. Now it's coming here.

Pathetic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I remember once in a Wal-Mart in Kansas City, asking a shelf stacker where peanut butter was. Of course, we didn't quite understand each other's accents and it took a bit of teasing, but this chap was well into ill-health old age, had evidence of both congestive cardiac failure and chronic respiratory disease. I don't think this man was working for fun - he looked terrible.

I considered this to be a callous facet of the 'American Dream' and thanked my lucky stars I lived in a country that had more dignity for it's elders.

This was 2001. Now it's coming here.

Pathetic.

I was in 'Denny's' in Virginia a few years ago, and there was a little old lady, of 85 years, petering about and serving tables. I asked the old dear why it was that she was there, and didn't she want to retire?

Her reply was that she had no pension and was deemed fit enough to work by her GP. The alternative was to be put into a state care home.

That, I'm afraid, is the American way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm, there's an angle to this I don't like.

If a person is able and wants to work on then I can't agree with any of this idea they are "taking a job from a younger person". It must mean that at 70+ they are better than this young person, in which case the issue is with that useless sack of 20 year old shit.

I don't like it that their pension was pinched to pay bankers, or that employers will get punished to have to keep on people who are unable to pull their weight, but I'm all for choice.

All the 20 year old has to do to have a job is be better than an OAP. If he isn't up to that, then tough shit on him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hmm, there's an angle to this I don't like.

If a person is able and wants to work on then I can't agree with any of this idea they are "taking a job from a younger person". It must mean that at 70+ they are better than this young person, in which case the issue is with that useless sack of 20 year old shit.

I don't like it that their pension was pinched to pay bankers, or that employers will get punished to have to keep on people who are unable to pull their weight, but I'm all for choice.

All the 20 year old has to do to have a job is be better than an OAP. If he isn't up to that, then tough shit on him.

I largely agree with what you say but you're missing two points. The first is that even if the 20 year old is 'better' than the OAP there would be some serious employment law problems with replacing the OAP. You can't force him or her into retirement, you can't make him redundant (and still replace him) and unless the 20 year old is infinitely better you probably can't pay the oldie off.

Secondly it's very hard at 18 to be better than someone with 50 years of experience straight away. At that age I took an extremely lowly position in a large corporate on next to nothing to gain some experience and worked up from there. That will no longer be possible as companies slash recruitment as they're still paying £60-70k each to an army of 80 year olds.

Edited by impatient_mug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I largely agree with what you say but you're missing two points. The first is that even if the 20 year old is 'better' than the OAP there would be some serious employment law problems with replacing the OAP. You can't force him or her into retirement, you can't make him redundant (and still replace him) and unless the 20 year old is infinitely better you probably can't pay the oldie off.

Secondly it's very hard at 18 to be better than someone with 50 years of experience straight away. At that age I took an extremely lowly position in a large corporate on next to nothing to gain some experience and worked up from there. That will no longer be possible as companies slash recruitment as they're still paying �60-70k each to an army of 80 year olds.

Your approach will always work; no company will resist the allure of short term cost reduction and medium term staff renewal/development. It's the dozy git who relies on capable people being outsed to "give" him a job who'd suffer, and that's fine by me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   296 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.