NP Rank:
Can’t grow old anymore
Shop until you drop.
In Britain, employers are prohibited from automatically throwing people out the door at age 65. That’s the trend now. Since governments are ill-prepared to provide the pensions they promised they are now encouraging people to work until they just can’t do it anymore.
My dad retired from his first job with full retirement at age 55 years. Now, I am supposed to be happy because I get to work until I am nearly dead. I am paying for my dad’s bonus round I guess.
“Government scraps default retirement age
Employers will no longer be able to force staff to retire at 65 from October, the Government confirmed today.
Fulfilling a pledge in the Coalition agreement, Employment Relations Minister Ed Davey heralded the end of the default retirement age.
The Government has confirmed that employers will no longer be able to force staff to retire at 65 from October
Age campaigners have long called for it to be scrapped.
But, while less than a third of firms still insist on people leaving on their 65th birthday, there are concerns among business leaders about the change.
The Institute of Directors has criticised the move - featured in both the Conservative and Liberal Democrat election manifestos - for reducing flexibility for employers.
Officials said the change was being phased in between April and October to allow firms to ready themselves and change their human resources policies.”



Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (6)
at 08:55 on January 13th, 2011
There is a proven and direct correlation between longevity of the individual and their continuing to work at something, their sense of accomplishment and self-fulfillment. It has been shown in studies that simply going back to school to finish a degree or to learn new subject matter can add years to ones life and improve cognitive acuity warding off the creeping dementia of aging. People with hobbies and active interests outside of work are said to have an advantage over those who's sense of identity is closely bound to their careers and "retire". I think this is a good. Leaving it to the individual to decide if they wish to continue working beyond the "retirement age". It is a welcome change in thinking from the early seventies when a huge percentage of the work force was arbitrarily fired for being over 40 and considered too old and unable to contribute. With a greater percentage of the population reaching this aging threshold today, there are many corporations now taking advantage of this accumulative experience and offering "the best place to retire and work" packages.
at 10:34 on January 13th, 2011
I have no intention of stopping, but I admit, the barriers are getting higher and the stairs at which I ran to the top are causing me to stop halfway to catch my breath.
at 10:45 on January 13th, 2011
better that you stop to catch your breath, than stop all together. My Grandad made the decision that his last day of work was going to be New Years Eve, 1999. He also quit smoking and drinking. Within the week, he was bed-ridden, with Pneumonia. After he recovered, his old employer called him up, asking if he could come backe to work, because a couple of the jobs he had spearheaded previously had fallen apart since he left. He went back to work, took up drinking and smoking again, and was jet-setting around the world within a few weeks of that! Better to keep busy, and stay healthy as a result
at 11:21 on January 13th, 2011
I'll drink to that.
at 10:31 on January 13th, 2011
Another factor is society is not ready to let the "old timers" retire. From personal experience, most professional jobs in this day and age expect you to have three to five years experience in the field, prior to them even looking at your resume. The recent university graduate, with three to five years of education on the subject, however, does not make the cut generally, because their recent work history shows customer service jobs, low level data entry, or any number of other forms of employment which do not meet the requirements set by the hiring board. They have the basic knowledge, bu not the hands on experience. They are also young, energetic, and ambitious. This, for many, comes accross as threatening and undesirable, so these "bright young minds" are overlooked, putting more strain and expectation on those who are looking at retiring. As a result, the number of professionals who are reaching "retirement age" is far larger than the number of people coming in to fill those positions. The "brain-drain" effect, of having all the experienced staf retiring has a crippling effect on a company, which in turn, cripples the economy. If everyone over the age of sixty-five were to retire, and no one who has not already been working in the business line for less than five years can get hired, think of the effect that would have, on both the private and public sector. The claim is that this is a stand against age-discrimination; in fact, it is self preservation as a result of it. Youth and ambition are frightening to those who are comfortable with the status quo, so why not make demands on those with the age and experience. They likely are willing to stay on longer, for the reasons mentioned by Thirty-aught-six, and because those pensions they have been paying into for years are often not enough to live on.
at 10:37 on January 13th, 2011
You raise a good subject here. Customers want past performance and current skills. Current skill and knowledge is often not resident in the legacy work force, yet the legacy has the experience. Fielding the right combination is a challenge as well as procuring the right talent package.