Since Harper loves England, it may only be a matter of time if this problem or something like it occurs here in Canada. The issue is forced retirement at 65 and the problems of needing to work longer to get a pension. Someday soon:
It was only in October last year that the government finally got rid of the “default retirement age”, where employers could fire older workers at will. However, in light of a recent court ruling, it appears that the debate about forced retirement of older workers isn’t over yet.
What’s new is the basis for the forced retirement. On a case that got its judgment this Wednesday, the court found it acceptable to force retirement of older workers to make way for young, up-and-coming workers to climb the career ladder.
In the case, the firm Clarkson, Wright & Jakes wanted to retire worker Mr Seldon, aged 65. It was allowed on the grounds of opening new doors for young people, but the ruling is worrying many older workers. With increased State Pension age, granny-tax grabs and falling annuity rates, workers of the older generation worry about their pensions not being enough, and many must work longer in order to avoid retiring in poverty.
“Public Interest” Necessary
Another way to boost income in retirement is to take out a stakeholder pension, offered by providers like Virgin Money, or other supplementary personal pension.
The ruling came from the supreme court, and it made clear companies wanting to retire older workers must have public interest at heart, meaning opening up positions for younger people.
Legal experts claim it’s an unusual ruling and the first time the “public interest” defence has been applied to age discrimination laws. Cynics already claim that it is little more than a convenient excuse to get around the governments ban on default retirement age, and allows companies to get rid of older workers and hiring new young ones they can pay less. Many older workers count on working a few extra years past their retirement age in order to have a decent income in retirement, and for them this came as a devastating blow.
Conflicting Rulings
The news about the ruling in the CWJ case came at the same time as the Supreme Court made a separate ruling on the issue of age discrimination. It ruled that it may be ageist for companies to try and hire and promote graduates only, since it can be discriminating towards older workers with no degrees.
The CWJ case is already bound to go back to the employment tribunal, on the basis that it was not entirely shown that retiring workers aged 65 is the best way to achieve the goal of bringing younger people into the workforce and into high positions.
It was only in October last year that the government finally got rid of the “default retirement age”, where employers could fire older workers at will. However, in light of a recent court ruling, it appears that the debate about forced retirement of older workers isn’t over yet.
What’s new is the basis for the forced retirement. On a case that got its judgment this Wednesday, the court found it acceptable to force retirement of older workers to make way for young, up-and-coming workers to climb the career ladder.
In the case, the firm Clarkson, Wright & Jakes wanted to retire worker Mr Seldon, aged 65. It was allowed on the grounds of opening new doors for young people, but the ruling is worrying many older workers. With increased State Pension age, granny-tax grabs and falling annuity rates, workers of the older generation worry about their pensions not being enough, and many must work longer in order to avoid retiring in poverty.
“Public Interest” Necessary
Another way to boost income in retirement is to take out a stakeholder pension, offered by providers like Virgin Money, or other supplementary personal pension.
The ruling came from the supreme court, and it made clear companies wanting to retire older workers must have public interest at heart, meaning opening up positions for younger people.
Legal experts claim it’s an unusual ruling and the first time the “public interest” defence has been applied to age discrimination laws. Cynics already claim that it is little more than a convenient excuse to get around the governments ban on default retirement age, and allows companies to get rid of older workers and hiring new young ones they can pay less. Many older workers count on working a few extra years past their retirement age in order to have a decent income in retirement, and for them this came as a devastating blow.
Conflicting Rulings
The news about the ruling in the CWJ case came at the same time as the Supreme Court made a separate ruling on the issue of age discrimination. It ruled that it may be ageist for companies to try and hire and promote graduates only, since it can be discriminating towards older workers with no degrees.
The CWJ case is already bound to go back to the employment tribunal, on the basis that it was not entirely shown that retiring workers aged 65 is the best way to achieve the goal of bringing younger people into the workforce and into high positions.
The state pension at 60 for women could have been gained as there is no requirement to retire to get the state pension paid out to you. The raised retirement age is not about leaving a job but about payout and saving struggling firms in an economic recession in costs. See if you lose most or all of your state pension: https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/state-pension-at-60-now
ReplyDeleteIf you live in England, you should go to the link in the previous comment and sign the Petition. This change the government proposes looks as if it severely affects boomer women in the UK. Here is some information from the site:The organizers want to:
ReplyDeleteImmediately bring back state pension age at 60 to women, as permitted by the EU to France who brought back that state pension age to 60, so that women lose not one more pound of money rightfully theirs, by 30 years contribution during their working life.
Bring back immediately the state pension at 60 to those women who reach 60 in 2013, 2014 and 2015, so that they lose not one more pound of money rightfully theirs.
WHO EFFECTS?
33,000 women born after April 1953 (loss starts 2013) and 500,000 born in 1954 (loss from January 2014)
http://www.billesterson.org.uk/500000-women-forced-to-wait-more-than--a-year-for-their-pension
And altogether 2.6 million women in the UK
http://www.womensincomenetwork.org/Pensiontable.htm
LOSS OF TAX ALLOWANCE AT 65
Bring back age related higher tax allowance at 65.
REVOKE FLAT RATE (SINGLE TIER) PENSION 2016
Revoke rise from 30 years to 35 years of contribution from 2016 to get full state pension.
Revoke Loss of Right of Married Women / Widows to Gain State Pension from Husband's NI contributions from 2016.
Give up on withdrawing in 2016 Category D pension to 80 years and over with no NI record.
Not Downgrade 80,000 Welsh Pensioners' State Pensions Already More Than Flat Rate Pension.
Revoke Flat Rate (Single Tier) Pension So Not Waste £380 million of taxpayers money on implementing Flat Rate Pension from 2016 just to leave millions with no income in old age at all.
Hansard - Parliament Written Answers 3 December 2013, Paragraph 160.
NO INCOME IN OLD AGE
Grant State Pension to Workers Earning Less than £109 / Working 16 hours and less per week, Otherwise Left Penniless in Old Age By No Benefit and No State Pension.
Give up idea of No State Pension for insufficient NI record at cut-off 10 contribution years.
Effects:
a) disabled / chronic sick as this is majority reason women 60-66 not in work.
b) total loss of state pension to housewives with no NI credits of own, from husband's NI contributions.