Afternoon:
7°c
Firms condemn 'rush' to axe default retirement age of 65
Nicholas Cecil, Deputy Political Editor29 Jul 2010
Business chiefs today accused the Government of rushing the scrapping of the default retirement age at 65.
Unions and campaigners hailed the move, which will mean millions of people being able to work into their late sixties and beyond.
But businesses warned it could spark confusion over when people should stop working. At the moment an employer can make workers retire at 65 without paying compensation.
The only requirement is to hold a meeting with the employee to discuss the issue at least six months before their 65th birthday. It remains up to the employer whether to allow the staff member to carry on working. But ministers are planning to axe this default retirement age rule in October next year. It means that the changes will come into force in April, as managers need to give the six months' notice.
John Cridland, deputy director-general of the CBI, said: "The decision to abandon the default retirement age leaves business with many unresolved problems, and the Government's timetable to scrap it will give companies little time to prepare."
Employment relations minister Ed Davey said: "People are living longer lives, living healthier lives and we think it's out of date to force them to retire at 65. We want to end this discrimination." Staff could still be asked to quit if they were unable to do the work, he added.
Reader views (4)
Mike Melbourne - a reasoned response. For the most part I agree with you, but it doesn't address the problem of those who are capable, and wish to continue working but can be thrown out of jobs they are quite capable of doing. The current regulations are a 'one size fits all' deal - bad luck for those it doesn't fit. The Government, from what I'm reading, are trying to enable those workers who actually WANT to continue and ARE capable of doing the work. How this is a 'bad thing', I fail to see. There will be problems in any change - problems more often than not CAUSED by those things that need change. That merely means it is a job that needs doing, not one to be avoided at all costs.
- Rogan, Irving, 30/07/2010 17:19
Report abuse
Rogan
Many employers don't believe that this is an acceptable way of making change at this time.What I don't like is people who act and try to deceive us as to why they are acting as they are.Confusing will reign as to health insurance and pensions provided by employers.I spent many years training people within industry and whilst some older workers are able to carry on working past the normal retirement age many were not because of the nature of their work.
- Mike Melbourne, Bedford, 30/07/2010 16:08
Report abuse
Mike Melbourne, Bedford - they are talking about the forced retirement age, whether fit or not. Slightly different from your point scoring argument. You don't like the Tories - hey, that's allowed. Don't alter what they say to suit yourself though.
...and wasn't it only yesterday or the day before that we were reading about how business leaders were applauding the move? Depends who they're talking to I suppose. How strange is that!? (Not)
- Rogan, Irving, 30/07/2010 06:45
Report abuse
The "people" who come up with these ideas haven't got a clue about manual work this is fine for people who work at desks but heavy manual work is very different and many workers are not up to heavy work before they reach retirement age. Let's be truthful the Government is just trying to collect tax for longer.
- Mike Melbourne, Bedford, 29/07/2010 19:18
Report abuse
