Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

 
Advanced search

9182 Posts in 2295 Topics- by 184 Members - Latest Member: benjonesaa

August 29, 2014, 09:08:47 PM
HireScores.com Recruitment ForumForum CommunityNews & Information (Moderator: Forum Management)House Of Lords Strongly Support Scrapping Default Retirement Age
Pages: [1]
Send this topicPrint
Author Topic: House Of Lords Strongly Support Scrapping Default Retirement Age  (Read 1675 times)
forum admin
Administrator
somewhat obsessed
*****
Posts: 1153


« on: April 07, 2009, 12:38:23 PM »

There was strong cross-party support from the House of Lords recently for the Employers Forum on Age (EFA) campaign to scrap the default retirement age. In a debate tabled by Baroness Greengross, peers from all parties concurred that such discrimination against older workers in the UK was outdated and could have harmful effects on the economy.

The default retirement age (DRA) is an exception to the general principle of non-discrimination on the grounds of age, allowing employers to operate a mandatory retirement age of 65. There was agreement last night that the UK is undergoing a major culture change but there is still need to help overcome fears about removing the DRA, adequate support must be available to all employers who need help removing the default retirement age.

Influential peers such as the leading sociologist Lord (Anthony) Giddens and Conservative frontbench spokesman Lord de Mauley argued that in the current economic climate, retaining an experienced workforce is essential to employers. Their ability to train younger recruits and the knowledge they have assimilated over the years is vital in keeping any company well run during more difficult times. It is also beneficial to the economy that older workers make longer contributions to pension pots.

Lord Giddens pointed out 'anyone who studies pensions and has read the Turner report knows we need a higher proportion of older people in the labour force. They also know that the UK is not doing as well as some other countries, which have liberalised their age of retirement in a much more radical way than the UK has done.' He highlighted that, contrary to expectation, keeping older workers on beyond a statutory retirement age, does not reduce the proportion of younger workers entering the workforce, and in fact 'the opposite was true'.

Catharine Pusey, Director of the EFA comments: 'As Government minister Lord Carter pointed out, older workers will help businesses pull through and out of the economic downturn as markets improve, but conversely, they may be those who are often worst hit. It is therefore disappointing that the Government is not more forthcoming to anything beyond a review of the DRA in 2011, despite cross-party support for its abolition. The EFA will continue to increase awareness of this issue and campaign to eradicate this age discriminatory piece of legislation'.

And as Richard Fox, Partner at internationally recognized law firm and EFA member Kingsley Napsley , commented after the debate, ''The Government Minister put a brave face on it, emphasising as he did, that whilst the Government was not going to commit to 'reform' they were going to commit to 'review' it'.'

CBI claims that employers need a default retirement age to plan ahead and allow people to retire with dignity were rejected by the Lords, and labelled as 'an excuse for bad management' by Lord Oakeshott. If proper appraisal methods are implemented by employers, he argued, any other evaluation technique - such as age - would be redundant.

The overwhelming sentiment from the House of Lords was perhaps best summarized by Lord Stevenson, President of EFA, he commented: 'Being 65 is not what it used to be. I owe this insight to the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, who was one of the country's leading experts in geriatric medicine. When I reached the ripe old age of 60 a few years ago she consoled me by explaining that as a result of changes in diet, health, science and medicine, to get your equivalent age in your parent's generation you need to take 12 years off. Therefore, at aged 60 I was 48 in my father's years'.
Report to moderator   Logged

Bob
somewhat obsessed
*****
Posts: 850


« Reply #1 on: April 07, 2009, 03:02:42 PM »

I definitely don't want to have to work till I'm 70.
Report to moderator   Logged
Robin Tetley
Administrator
somewhat obsessed
*****
Posts: 1322


WWW
« Reply #2 on: April 08, 2009, 12:57:49 PM »

Hmmm being 65 is not what it used to be. When a hundred years ago? Being 65 is being 67 and even if we can't as a nation afford to pay people state pension at 65 I think you should be able to claim it at 65. Hell I'd move it down to 60. Retirement is supposed to be the great years of your life (I don't know who said that if not me) and I don't want to retire to the nursing home and have no life left.

What does everybody else think of this discussion?
Report to moderator   Logged

Bob
somewhat obsessed
*****
Posts: 850


« Reply #3 on: April 14, 2009, 10:41:14 AM »

You said here, "being 65 is 67". LOL. Was that a mistake?
Report to moderator   Logged
Robin Tetley
Administrator
somewhat obsessed
*****
Posts: 1322


WWW
« Reply #4 on: April 15, 2009, 12:55:42 PM »

Ooops  Shocked. It doesn't make sense apologies for that. I think I must've meant that being 65 is being 65. Clearly. I think what I was trying to say was that I'd like to enjoy a bit of retirement rather than going straight from work into the old folks care home.
Report to moderator   Logged

Bob
somewhat obsessed
*****
Posts: 850


« Reply #5 on: April 16, 2009, 01:18:52 PM »

I agree on that. I thought that being 65 could only be 67 if you owned some kind of time machine. LOL. I'd like to retire as early as I possibly can. Tomorrow if I won the lottery  Shocked.
Report to moderator   Logged
Timber
liking it
***
Posts: 199


« Reply #6 on: April 16, 2009, 06:09:17 PM »

If you think about it, people spend a majority of their life time working till they are in their 60's.  Usually that the time in your life when your are more likely to be diagnosed with a disease.  That's just aweful.

I have come across so many people who fall into this category.  Usually the golden years are suppose to be spent enjoying your retirement and spending time with your family. Instead, some are in the hospital or stuck at home to sick to get out and enjoy the day.  What a terrible way to "enjoy" life. 
Report to moderator   Logged
Robin Tetley
Administrator
somewhat obsessed
*****
Posts: 1322


WWW
« Reply #7 on: April 17, 2009, 01:30:34 PM »

Indeed I agree 100%.

My Grandpa worked in the offices of a huge laundry that cleaned sheets and towels etc for big hotels. He walked to work every day and home again and retired when he was 65. He then found out he had lung cancer and died a year or so later. This was in 1982. He was very fit and never smoked and the theory was that the chemicals used in the place he worked probably was the cause of the cancer.

What a shame. He had no retirement to speak of and I still miss him even though he died when I was just 11.
Report to moderator   Logged

Pages: [1]
Send this topicPrint
Jump to:  


Find out more about hirescores recruitment scoring
Theme orange-lt created by panic customised by creospace