Gransnet forums


Over 65's cannot be retired off

(11 Posts)
pompa Sat 01-Oct-11 17:47:53

Following the change to retirement policy preventing companies retiring staff at 65. My Daughter (who is in a senior HR job) has suggested giving all staff under 65 a brown paper bag, which must be blown up and burst behind all over 65's at every opportunity, thus increasing natural wastage. (although this will mean an increase in office collections)
Seriously what do you think about over 65's continuing to work ?.
For my part I was only too pleased to retire at 57, let alone 65.

greenmossgiel Sat 01-Oct-11 17:58:10

pompa, I think it has to be up to the individual and/or how stressful (or manual) the work is that they do. I worked until I was 60, and just couldn't wait to do so! On the news this morning I heard a chap being interviewed and saying he was 74 and still going strong at his job in (I think?) B&Q. Fine for him...but also - perhaps a younger person could also do that job, therefore lessening the dole queue? It's quite an emotive issue. Our generation were lucky in the main, being able to go from job to job in our early years, but not everyone's getting a bite of the cherry now. hmm

pompa Sat 01-Oct-11 18:53:16

I have very mixed views on this subject, so many of the things I say are as the Devils advocate to stimulate a response.

There certainly is a view that the over 65's should make way for the younger generation, but as the retirement age (for women) increases and pensions become less valuable ( I was lucky to retire with a liveable pension, not huge, but we won't starve), many older couples will need to keep working to live.
Whilst we all wish that the government pension was totally adequate, while we have a declining working population and an older population that is living longer, it seems unlikely that the government pension will increase. Our children will have to invest far more to get a good pension. It's those that are due to retire in 10 years or so that are in the worst position, where they have not had the foresight to invest enough.

Jacey Sat 01-Oct-11 19:19:28

I too, have mixed feelings ...for some, who've had stressful work it is a relief to be able to retire; but those who are able to carry on and wish to ...should be allowed to.
Many companies ...and I think B & Q are one ...have found part-time staff over the age of 65 are more reliable and have a good work ethic ...hence the reason for employing them.
However ...I also think that by keeping on staff, over the age of 65, because they 'need' to work for financial reasons ...will deprive the possibility of work placements for the younger generation.
Many of our MPs etc are over the age of 65 ...not sure if that is a +ve or a -ve?? hmm
I know I wouldn't have wanted to teach into my dotage! Neither would I want to seek help from someone in the health profession in their's either!!confused

em Sat 01-Oct-11 19:26:43

Yes Jacey I am entirely in agreement. I know all too well that I'd be struggling to keep up with a class of 11year-olds these days. I took earlyish retirement because I owed it to them as much as to myself. The idea of 65+ teachers still in post while newly-qualified bright young graduates can't get the experience they need, is just ludicrous. Despite all the myths about short days and long holidays, anyone who is in touch with the world of education knows how stressful it can be and unfit stressed teachers simply aren't good enough for my GCs.

pompa Sat 01-Oct-11 21:08:22

Being able to work into older age is not just about being physically able to cope (especially in a manual job). I was in IT and found it increasingly difficult to keep up with the speed of change, I seemed to spend more time on training courses related to new technology than actually implementing it.

em Sat 01-Oct-11 21:23:13

Agree Pompa. Keeping up with those pupils also meant getting to grips with ever-changing technology as well as new policies and initiatives many of which has been tried and found failing years before - but the powers that be would come up with yet another new acronym and we'd be presented with the Holy Grail of education AGAIN. It reached the stage where I was asking what was the point of so much of this 'new' thinking while considering that so much that was worthwhile was being lost. In other words I found myself so at odds with what was being asked of me that I had to opt out for my sake and theirs.

numberplease Sat 01-Oct-11 22:05:51

My husband worked until he was 66 and 9 months, the last few months of that were part time, but then his boss decided to retire him. He was quite pleased to have stopped working at last, but then he was equally pleased 11 months later when they got in touch and asked if he`d like to go in and do a job for them. The work lasted nearly 3 weeks, and he was paid a higher hourly rate than when he worked there proper, so the extra money has come in handy, but he wouldn`t want to go back full time again.

goldengirl Sat 01-Oct-11 22:07:28

As an employer I don't care how old a person is as long as they can do the job, are willing and able to grow along with the company's needs and have the right attitude.

pompa Sat 01-Oct-11 22:24:13

Goldengirl, from my perspective it was the ability to grow along with the company's needs that caused me problems, technology moved faster than I could.

dorsetpennt Sat 01-Oct-11 23:19:39

I'm 67 years old abd choose to work two afternoons a week and I love it. I think it keeps me on the ball and aware of the younger world around me. Two of my friends have fully retired and seem to have aged mentally very quickly. I think it depends on what you do with your retirement another friend is well off and can really enjoy herself with good holidays etc.
As long as I feel fit enough to work I intend for a few more years at any rate.