Social Objective
Obviously it is to leave people to starve for three years between 65 and 68. Joined up government!
Forced retirement due to age can be justified, rules ECJ
A UK law which allows companies to force people to retire at 65 or at that company's specified retirement age does not necessarily breach European Union laws, the EU's highest court said today. The European Court of Justice (ECJ) rejected claims by Heyday, a part of ageing charity Age Concern, that the UK's law breached EU …
-
Friday 6th March 2009 11:47 GMT Paul
Am I the only one...
Who finds it frustrating that the generation fighting for this...
Are the same ones who made it a necessity (not a nicety) for everyone to work... No stay at home parents
Are the same ones who made it a necessity to buy a house (Selling of council housing and buying up cheep housing for them to rent out)
Are the same ones who made it a necessity for people to work every hour god sends to make ends meet.
The people retiring now have made life so hard for people under the age of 40, leaving us without the choices they had, then now want to force us all to work until we die so that the can make a bit more money. This is not about "continuing to have a perpous in life", this is about toping up there pensions, whilst the younger people will end up stuck in stagnant jobs, cut down on people retiring.
I do hope this stays in place as I don't want to be chained to my desk until I die with a keabored in my hands. I wish myself or my wife could stop working so that she could get better (she is very ill) and, eventually we could bring up healthy happy children.
-
Friday 6th March 2009 11:47 GMT Anonymous Coward
heh
Not only are your saving now worthless (no interest payments), Your pension heavily devalued (stock markets), but you can't keep your job either.
It's a pretty sad state of affairs for the over 65s, hope they like the cold becouse that's where they're gonna end up, outside begging for change.
Gotta love a government that works for the people though.
-
-
Friday 6th March 2009 12:15 GMT Anonymous Coward
give people a decent pension
These organisations should be concerned about the indecent UK state pensions if they want to look after the interests of older people. The European ruling makes perfect sense in the context of the other European countries where you can retire at 65 and get a pension which is comparable to your previous income. Why should anyone in the Netherlands or in Sweden be willing to work at 70 when you can actually get back some of the tax you have paid over decades and live decently.
The point is not to allow people to work beyond 65 but to put tax money where is due, that is to pay pensions rather wasting it for ridiculous nuclear deterrent weapons....
I am sure Sir Fred will not feel discriminated for being a pensioner at 50!
-
Friday 6th March 2009 12:16 GMT Nick
Shuffle on...
Nothing wrong with compulsory retirement at 63. Nobody should be forced to employ people they don't want. And if you've had the best part of 50 years to work and save for a pension, I'd say its time to move over and let the next generation have a turn.
As for your savings, why worry, you might get hit by a bus tomorrow, or run over by an electric mobility buggy.
btw...."keabored" ? Best spelling of keyboard from someone probably from the IT industry.
-
Friday 6th March 2009 13:07 GMT Hayden Clark
Soundbites != Law
"Gordon Lishman, director general of Age Concern" has noticed how NuLab works. Since most people have no idea how Government works or what it does, the governing classes are free to make high-sounding populist announcements to pacify the people ("British jobs for British workers") while making policy for their friends and supporters in Big Business. If anybody notices, ignore them - it will be forgotten next week.
-
Friday 6th March 2009 14:37 GMT Cameron Colley
@Nick
And what, prey tell, do you expect people to live on when they retire? The reason people are worried about savings is often because they need the money for a pension or a rainy day -- that's why they've worked hard to save the money.
I'm not sure which country you live in but you make me doubt it's the UK.
-
Friday 6th March 2009 17:05 GMT Albert Gonzalez
No obligation, not forbiden
Just as the tittle says. Retirement at the age of 65 must be a selection of the person who retires, and nobody else.
If he/she wants to work, as long as he/she can, is up to he/she.
If the employeer wants to fire him/her, is just as a normal worker, with the same rights.
Of course, if the person don't maintain the same level of work, or is dangerous, CAN BE FIRED/dismished, on based grounds.
And if you work after 65, you must get the same freebies as any other pensioneer, minus the pension itself.
-
-
Friday 6th March 2009 21:51 GMT Mike
forced retirement is stupid
One of the supervisors at work recently retired, it was only then that we found out he was 74! he was much fitter and more active than most of the rest of the staff, hardly "unable to work" rather the opposite, more like he'd see someone struggling with something heavy and he'd be the first to jump in and help
-
Friday 6th March 2009 21:51 GMT Dave
@Nick
Wow, well done. I think though you will find a lot of people will be lucky to have paid back their student debt by the time they are 65!
Want an example? I will be 30 soon (in 6 weeks), I've no pension and no savings. Why? Because I've spent the last 9 years paying back debt! For the first 5 of those years I was barely earning enough to live on, let alone even think about paying into a pension. It was only in 2008 when I eventually cleared all my debts. So it's only now I can start to look at sorting out pension / savings.
-
Sunday 8th March 2009 00:46 GMT Nick
@dave and others
I'm only slightly older than you and was at the tail end of people escaping with <5grand of debt from Uni (after 6 years), and under the previous Student Loans repayment approach (i.e. not garnishing of my wages). I had to rent, live frugally and pay my debts off. Pretty much missed the boat on buying a house for an affordable amount (for an OK-paid IT permie). But even so, I look forward to 30 years preparing for being old.
More generally, my response to the silver surfers complaining at the moment is:- Life's a gamble, as is the economy, and we're all in the same casino. If you're losing right now, you have my sympathy. But I'm sure you enjoyed good times over the years, and I'm just hoping you managed to save something over the years to live through some rough times as well, rather than just thinking you'd get to 65 years old and things would never change or take a turn for the worse.
Oh and to the people who lived well, saved a bit, and did very well pricing me out of the housing market - if you are short of cash it might be time to cash out of that 4 bed house in the suburbs which is worth 400-500K and downsize a bit. You can't complain you are poor if you own that kind of asset.
-
Friday 13th March 2009 11:31 GMT Anthony Mark
Oh dear...
The older generation havce a whole range of skills that need to be passe don to the younger generation. The Government's push for Apprenticeships is an indicator of this need.
Yet, if you look at, say, engineering, much of the workforce is within 5 years of retirement age. Force them all to go at 65 and all of a sudden you have a hugely diminished workforce with a complete lack of suitable applicants to fill the vacated jobs and also you lose an entire generation worth of skills and experience that have never been passed on.
This topic is closed for new posts.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
