Feeds

back to article Forced retirement due to age can be justified, rules ECJ

A UK law which allows companies to force people to retire at 65 or at that company's specified retirement age does not necessarily breach European Union laws, the EU's highest court said today. The European Court of Justice (ECJ) rejected claims by Heyday, a part of ageing charity Age Concern, that the UK's law breached EU …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
Thumb Down

Social Objective

Obviously it is to leave people to starve for three years between 65 and 68. Joined up government!

0
0

Am I the only one...

Who finds it frustrating that the generation fighting for this...

Are the same ones who made it a necessity (not a nicety) for everyone to work... No stay at home parents

Are the same ones who made it a necessity to buy a house (Selling of council housing and buying up cheep housing for them to rent out)

Are the same ones who made it a necessity for people to work every hour god sends to make ends meet.

The people retiring now have made life so hard for people under the age of 40, leaving us without the choices they had, then now want to force us all to work until we die so that the can make a bit more money. This is not about "continuing to have a perpous in life", this is about toping up there pensions, whilst the younger people will end up stuck in stagnant jobs, cut down on people retiring.

I do hope this stays in place as I don't want to be chained to my desk until I die with a keabored in my hands. I wish myself or my wife could stop working so that she could get better (she is very ill) and, eventually we could bring up healthy happy children.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

heh

Not only are your saving now worthless (no interest payments), Your pension heavily devalued (stock markets), but you can't keep your job either.

It's a pretty sad state of affairs for the over 65s, hope they like the cold becouse that's where they're gonna end up, outside begging for change.

Gotta love a government that works for the people though.

0
0
Silver badge
Thumb Down

Hmm

So I can be forced out of work at 65, but I'll need to work until I am at least 75 in order to build up a big enough pension that I could live on.

Thanks Labour, you bunch of self-serving incompetents!

0
0
Flame

give people a decent pension

These organisations should be concerned about the indecent UK state pensions if they want to look after the interests of older people. The European ruling makes perfect sense in the context of the other European countries where you can retire at 65 and get a pension which is comparable to your previous income. Why should anyone in the Netherlands or in Sweden be willing to work at 70 when you can actually get back some of the tax you have paid over decades and live decently.

The point is not to allow people to work beyond 65 but to put tax money where is due, that is to pay pensions rather wasting it for ridiculous nuclear deterrent weapons....

I am sure Sir Fred will not feel discriminated for being a pensioner at 50!

0
0
Thumb Up

@ Paul

No, you're not the only one mate. I feel exactly the same.

0
0
Go

Shuffle on...

Nothing wrong with compulsory retirement at 63. Nobody should be forced to employ people they don't want. And if you've had the best part of 50 years to work and save for a pension, I'd say its time to move over and let the next generation have a turn.

As for your savings, why worry, you might get hit by a bus tomorrow, or run over by an electric mobility buggy.

btw...."keabored" ? Best spelling of keyboard from someone probably from the IT industry.

0
0
Thumb Down

Soundbites != Law

"Gordon Lishman, director general of Age Concern" has noticed how NuLab works. Since most people have no idea how Government works or what it does, the governing classes are free to make high-sounding populist announcements to pacify the people ("British jobs for British workers") while making policy for their friends and supporters in Big Business. If anybody notices, ignore them - it will be forgotten next week.

0
0

@Nick

And what, prey tell, do you expect people to live on when they retire? The reason people are worried about savings is often because they need the money for a pension or a rainy day -- that's why they've worked hard to save the money.

I'm not sure which country you live in but you make me doubt it's the UK.

0
0
Coat

@Nick

It's Frydae mayt, give heem a brayke

eye'v all waes spelled keabored lyke thaht

0
0

No obligation, not forbiden

Just as the tittle says. Retirement at the age of 65 must be a selection of the person who retires, and nobody else.

If he/she wants to work, as long as he/she can, is up to he/she.

If the employeer wants to fire him/her, is just as a normal worker, with the same rights.

Of course, if the person don't maintain the same level of work, or is dangerous, CAN BE FIRED/dismished, on based grounds.

And if you work after 65, you must get the same freebies as any other pensioneer, minus the pension itself.

0
0
Silver badge
Thumb Up

@@Paul

..and I'll second it.

0
0

forced retirement is stupid

One of the supervisors at work recently retired, it was only then that we found out he was 74! he was much fitter and more active than most of the rest of the staff, hardly "unable to work" rather the opposite, more like he'd see someone struggling with something heavy and he'd be the first to jump in and help

0
0
Flame

@Nick

Wow, well done. I think though you will find a lot of people will be lucky to have paid back their student debt by the time they are 65!

Want an example? I will be 30 soon (in 6 weeks), I've no pension and no savings. Why? Because I've spent the last 9 years paying back debt! For the first 5 of those years I was barely earning enough to live on, let alone even think about paying into a pension. It was only in 2008 when I eventually cleared all my debts. So it's only now I can start to look at sorting out pension / savings.

0
0
Dead Vulture

@dave and others

I'm only slightly older than you and was at the tail end of people escaping with <5grand of debt from Uni (after 6 years), and under the previous Student Loans repayment approach (i.e. not garnishing of my wages). I had to rent, live frugally and pay my debts off. Pretty much missed the boat on buying a house for an affordable amount (for an OK-paid IT permie). But even so, I look forward to 30 years preparing for being old.

More generally, my response to the silver surfers complaining at the moment is:- Life's a gamble, as is the economy, and we're all in the same casino. If you're losing right now, you have my sympathy. But I'm sure you enjoyed good times over the years, and I'm just hoping you managed to save something over the years to live through some rough times as well, rather than just thinking you'd get to 65 years old and things would never change or take a turn for the worse.

Oh and to the people who lived well, saved a bit, and did very well pricing me out of the housing market - if you are short of cash it might be time to cash out of that 4 bed house in the suburbs which is worth 400-500K and downsize a bit. You can't complain you are poor if you own that kind of asset.

0
0

Oh dear...

The older generation havce a whole range of skills that need to be passe don to the younger generation. The Government's push for Apprenticeships is an indicator of this need.

Yet, if you look at, say, engineering, much of the workforce is within 5 years of retirement age. Force them all to go at 65 and all of a sudden you have a hugely diminished workforce with a complete lack of suitable applicants to fill the vacated jobs and also you lose an entire generation worth of skills and experience that have never been passed on.

0
0
This topic is closed for new posts.