EU judges back UK retirement ag

[dipsydoodle]

The UK's compulsory retirement age of 65 is not in breach of EU legislation, according to a ruling by the European Court of Justice (ECJ).

The case was brought by Age Concern, which wanted to know whether it was legal for UK employers to force workers to retire at the age of 65.

But the ECJ said the practice was legal if it had a legitimate aim related to employment and social policy.

It said the High Court in London had to decide if the age limit was justified.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7925203.stm

I don't really understand the redundancy issue. Unless the law has been updated/changed full entitlement reduces after age 64 on a scale down to nil at age 65.

[Albus]

1. thing is though,

as we are leading longer and healthier lives, is it right that should expect to be put out to grass at a given age?

We've already seen the state pension age pushed out to 67 from 65 for the new generation of workers.

[dipsydoodle]

2. It's right because it would otherwise create an absurdity

without re-writing the Act and also removing the situation whereby it's a position which is made redundant and not an individual.

Currently, as I mentioned , payments reduce after 64th birthday. see hjere for example :

When is an employee entitled to a redundancy payment?

An employee is entitled to a statutory redundancy payment if they have been working for the employer continuously for two years.

How are payments calculated?

A statutory redundancy payment is calculated with reference to age, length of service and statutory weekly maximum:

* The minimum age that a statutory redundancy payment may be made is 18 to a maximum of 65.
* If an employee is over the age of 64, a statutory redundancy payment is reduced by one-twelfth for each month by which the individual's age exceeds 64.

http://www.personneltoday.com/articles/2005/09/21/31684/redundancy-payments.html

[muriel_volestrangler]

3. I would presume that as the state pension age rises, the maximum for statuary redundancy will rise

too.

It means that job positions become available for younger workers. It's a quid pro quo for getting the state pension.

[B Whale]

4. Has to be a sensible decision here on choice

If someone wants to retire at 65 and can't wait to get out of their god awful menial job, the n fine, if someone wants to stay and has something to offer its barmy to force them to retire

[Nihil]

5. It's sensible enough at the moment ...

... as retiring people at 65 frees up the job for the person who
will be paying for not only the (new) pensioner but at least the
next generation of them.

I really dislike the current plan to *raise* the retirement age
as this is a cruel cynical way to stop people from being able to
relax and enjoy the release from a lifetime of (in most cases)
damn hard work for a few years of comfort before they die.
This government wants to make sure that they wring the last penny
out of your taxes and have the absolute minimum to pay back to you
before you drop into your coffin (remember "Boxer"?).

:grr:

[muriel_volestrangler]

6. But life expectancy has gone up a lot

The increase in life expectancy among older adults has been particularly dramatic in recent years. Between 1980-82 and 2003-05 life expectancy at age 65 in the United Kingdom increased by 3.7 years for males and 2.5 years for females. Around one-third of this increase occurred over the last five years.

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Nl1/Newsroom/DG_064889

it's going to take them 3 decades to raise the state pension age (the common one; not the women's one that they're about to move towards the men's one). Anyone now over 50 still gets 65 as the age; 40-50 get 66, 30-40 get 67, and those under 30 get 68. But they'll still all have, on average, more time retired than men did before 1980.

[Nihil]

7. Granted ...

> The increase in life expectancy among older adults has been
> particularly dramatic in recent years.

My emphasis as I don't know how much this trend can be expected to hold
never mind continue.

From your link, the expectation for men is now 81 years (from ~77 in
the 1980 figures). This would equate to a 15 year retirement (for someone
in the 40-50 bracket at the moment). I would be pleasantly surprised if
this came to pass by the time I get there but have strong doubts.

I have seen too many male friends & relatives die in harness or after just
a few years of retirement to have any confidence in government drives to
raise the retirement age. YMMV.

:shrug:

[non sociopath skin]

8. Tend to agree.

I'm very fortunate in that I enjoy what I do and will be happy to do it part time for as long as I can.

My dad, however, was forced to continue doing what was essentially a young man's manual job up to the age of 65, in spite of the fact that it was physically exhausting him and doing damage to his hands. He was lucky in that he enjoyed over 20 years of retirement after that. Had he had to work longer, I don't think he'd have been so fortunate.

The Skin

[B Whale]

10. Your last point is very true. My

Dad and his mates used to call the Miner's retirement parties in our local club a wake, because they never lasted more than a couple more years.

[muriel_volestrangler]

11. But the trend doesn't need to continue

it just needs to not reverse. We've got that 3.7 years more, already (the decline in smoking may be a major cause of that; so I wouldn't necessarily expect the trend to continue).

I think the question is: does the stress of working at 65, 66 etc. contribute to an earlier death? If so, then people are being worked too hard.

Company pensions generally have a system in which, if you retire earlier, your yearly pension is less. Perhaps some flexibility like that for the state pension is needed (does the State Second Pension already have that? The last time I tried to understand it, I came away so confused that I wasn't sure anyone in government understood it either).

[B Whale]

9. There are people who are desperate

to get out of their back breaking or mind crushing job or both and can't wait to put their feet up deservedly for their last few years, but there are those who are healthy, alert and are in a job they love and that they want to continue with.

Its ridiculous to force them out to sit at home and do nothing when they don't want to. The demographics of this country mean we can't afford to keep things the way they are, so why waste talented motivated people who want to stay in the jobs market.

The decision should be with the worker. A right to retire at 65, but also a right to work. What's wrong with that?