The retirement age should be scrapped.
Currently the retirement age is set at 60 for women and 65 for men. However, this is changing as the government are raising the retirement age for women to 65 in line with the current figure for men. With the SPA set at 65 and 60, firms are allowed to force their workers to retire at these ages. It makes sense though for the age of retirement to be scrapped. Life expectancy is much higher than when the retirement age was first set, with most people reasonably expecting to live into their 80's and 90's. It would have a positive effect on the economy as more money will be pumped into the treasury, with less being paid out in pensions.
You can also add to the debate by leaving your comment at the end of the page.
An arbitary retirement age is too general.
Having an arbitrary retirement generalizes the work-force and individual circumstances are not taken into consideration. The current rule whereby one's employer can force them to retire even if they do not want to is unfair. If fit, healthy, and eager to continue working, why should you be penalized because of your age? More needs to be done to ensure the rights of employees. Harriet Harman the equality minister has suggested measures to this effect, calling for a "massive public policy change" that allows people to work as long as they like if they so wish.[[http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/jan/11/harriet-harman-scrap-forced-retirement]]. It is a positive statement for equality in the workplace, and forces us to look at our attitudes to age in the workplace.
Whether or not someone carries on working should be based on their ability to do the job, and whether they want to carry on working. Introducing a mandatory retirement age will always discriminate against those who are wiling and able to carry on working beyond that age. Whilst it is the case that some people will be less able at the retirement age, this should be considered on a case by case basis. It is arbitrary and wrong to assume that someone will be bad at their job just because they have reached a particular age.
Retirement age is not a judgement about someone's ability to do their job. It has to be seen in the wider societal context of balancing labour market supply and demand of people of all ages. Retirement age should not be about consigning people of a certain age to the scrap heap, but offering opportunities for them to participate in society depending on their capabilities and wishes, whether through paid or unpaid activities.
It will provide a large fiscal stimulus for the government
The country loses billions of pounds each year in GDP having a set retirement age for its workers. If they retirement age was raised to say 70, £9 billion pounds could be generated from this a year. This could be very useful in cutting the deficit, as £90 billion could be generated over a 10 year period for instance. [[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/pensions/7309292/State-pension-age-should-be-70-PwC-says.html]]. This just from an increase in the retirement age, if it was scrapped all together a lot more could be generated than this, also have the knock on effect of reducing the outlay on pensions.
Whilst the Government will save on their pension’s bill, our private economical sector will suffer. They will see more of their workforce being older and therefore less productive. This will result in a lower GDP for the country as more wages would be paid for a lower level of productivity. Bearing in mind that the Government is doing all it can to help our economy recover, surely they should look into these long term effects. They may save a few pounds, but our economy will suffer greatly.
The current retirement restrictions have become outdated
The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has rightly said that the ageing population and an increased willingness to work among older people meant it was time for the government to scrap the default retirement age.
A recent survey of 1,500 workers by the commission suggests a rule change would be welcomed by many workers. It found that 64% of women and 24% of men wanted to remain economically active after the state pension age (currently 65 for men and rising to 65 for women by 2020).
It is time to move away from systems that were put into place when people died not long after reaching state pension age[[http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2010/jan/25/retirement-age-scrapped-equality-commission]].
Many people look forward to retirement. It is a time when they can forget about the 9-5 and begin to re-experience life. The retirement age is not outdated as people who are in their late 40’s would be looking forward to their retirement. If the retirement age is abolished or raised, then these people will feel very disheartened. The statistics show that the majority do wish to retire. In order to argue that people want to continue working after 65 the statistics were manipulated by separating them into men and women. But if you add the percentages together it shows that under half of the population would actually like to continue working.
People should be free from having to work once they reach a certain age
Once a person has worked the largest part of their life they should be free to choose how they spend their later years. They have already contributed to society in the work they have done through their lives, possibly by raising a family as well.
Without a mandatory or standard retirement age there will always be a large section of the community that do not have enough income or savings (or whose pensions have been eroded by poor government or big business fiscal planning) and so will have no choice but to continue to work. A mandatory retirement age coupled with sensible national retirement provision supports these valued members of our communities who deserve their retirement.
You are arguing for freedom of choice, but the current system discriminates against those who do wish to continue working full time jobs. Employers view retirement age workers as unproductive. Therefore, employers are less likely to take them on upon seeing their application and if they do employ them they will give less working hours. The arbitrary age limit for retirement is preventing people from working who do want to work. If we remove such an age, employers will look not at the age but the candidate’s health and ability. If people wanted to retire early they could. This is the system that would offer the most choice to OAPs.
Having a national retirement age benefits employers
As people get older they deteriorate physically and mentally so they are less able to be productive employees. Having an employee who is just a bit slower or not quite as strong as they once were impacts upon productivity, and is thus bad for business. It is difficult because of unfair dismissal, and just generally not very nice, to sack someone because they are getting a bit slow. It is better for all concerned if there is a mandatory retirement age as this removes less effective employees from the system in a fair way which they can anticipate and plan for.
The prohibition of a mandatory retirement age would serve to highlight the value of experienced workers to employers. Having more mature members on a workforce in mentoring roles helps to set an example to younger members of staff which can help to reduce time and money spent on training.
Many of the stereotypes regarding older workers also need to be challenged. For example, whilst it is argued that as workers become older they face physical deterioration and therefore more days off sick, research has shown that older workers are more honest with regard to not taking days off unnecessarily. According to a 2007 study of around 1,000 workers, 99% of 56 to 64 year-olds in full-time employment claimed that they had not taken a single day off sick unnecessarily in the previous 12 months. By contrast, a quarter (25%) of 16 to 24 year-old and 17% of 25 to 34 year-old workers admit they have taken at least one day off sick when they could have worked[[http://www.hi-mag.com/healthinsurance/article.do?articleid=20000101063]].
What do you think?