TheJournal.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more »
Dublin: 8 °C Wednesday 22 May, 2013

Column: Why force people to retire at 65, or any age?

Scrapping mandatory retirement means people can contribute to the economy – and their pensions – for as long as they wish, writes Peter Kavanagh.

Peter Kavanagh

IN FEBRUARY, FIANNA Fáil published a policy document around Active Ageing and Quality Caring that recommended, among many other reforms, the abolition of mandatory retirement at 65 in both public and private sector employment. It has come under recent scrutiny as their proposals around mandatory retirement are about to be brought before the Oireachtas. Their argument is that forcing someone out of a job because of their calendar age is ageist, and therefore should be illegal.

In Ireland, there is no statutory ‘retirement age’. What we do have is a pensionable age of 66, at which milestone citizens with sufficient social contributions from their working lives are rewarded with the contributory State Pension of up to €230.30 per week. Anyone without the required contributions for a full contributory pension can be means-tested and may qualify for a non-contributory State Pension of up to €219 per week. Technically, Irish people can retire at any age; it’s just that not many can afford to retire early.

There are, of course, many older people who want to keep working after 65, but who are restricted from doing so by their employers. A 2007 case heard by the European Court of Justice ruled that it was indeed illegal to restrict someone from carrying on in employment simply because of their age, as long as the individual is capable in all other senses of carrying out their duties. The Labour Court and the High Court have both recognised this decision and accepted that there are only a few circumstances under which mandatory retirement ages could be justified. If people are able to do their jobs, they shouldn’t be effectively shown the door because of the date on the calendar.

Opposition

Opponents of the move to scrap mandatory retirement cite high youth unemployment as a reason to maintain current practice. This simply isn’t true. A 65-year-old, having worked for over forty years, isn’t going to be directly replaced by a 20-something year old school-leaver or graduate. In fact, research shows that, all across Europe, the countries with the best practices for older workers also have the highest rates of employment among the young. It’s obvious enough, when you think about it; the best countries to work in are the best for all ages. Shunting one generation out doesn’t automatically benefit other generations.

Of course, scrapping mandatory retirement ages doesn’t mean that people shouldn’t retire. Many people will feel that they could contribute more to society in retirement, be it through joining an Active Retirement Association, volunteering, becoming active in the community or any amount of other activities. While no-one should be forced to retire, no-one should be forced to stay at work either.

As such, any reforms should include a deferrable state pension age. In the UK, residents can ‘top-up’ their pensions if they choose to stay in work longer. At the moment in Ireland, there’s no reason not to claim your state pension at the age of eligibility, but seeing as not having to pay everyone at 66 would save the State money, it’s in the national interest to incentivise people to defer their pensions.

Pensionable age

Our system of social transfers is almost bankrupt and certainly needs a rethink. The government’s only response so far has been to raise the pensionable age. If they don’t scrap mandatory retirement in employment contracts, we may be faced with people being turfed out of their jobs at 65, and reliant on the dole for support until they reach 67 or 68.

Scrapping mandatory retirement ages would be a good first step to tackling this issue, but only if we see it as just that: the first step of many. We need to look at retirement in a whole new light. Allowing people to take a phased approach to retirement, working part-time and claiming a reduced pension for a few years in older age, needs to be examined. Not only does this keep experience and expertise in businesses, it eases the burden on the State too. Surely Michael Noonan, aged just 69 years, could see the financial sense in that.

Peter Kavanagh works with Active Retirement Ireland, Ireland’s largest community-based older people’s organisation, and is a member of the National Steering Group for the European Year for Active Ageing and Solidarity Between Generations.

Read next:

Comments (36 Comments)

  • If people still want to get out there and earn and contribute to society then whats the problem? Let them work as long as they like.

    If your good enough, your old enough.

    Reply
  • If you are able bodied and want to or enjoy working you should be able too. Alot of people feel like they have no reason to wake up in the morning and become depressed, bored and stagnant if not working .. Some even die because they feel useless and not needed

    Reply
  • My father is still working at 84. If I reach that age I hope to do the same.

    Reply
  • Whatever about those who want to keep working. Can we get our politicians ‘pensionable age’ put back in line with the rest of the country. I believe it was Haughey who gave our politicians FULL pensions at age 50. Age FIFTY!!

    Raise the age for these bloodsuckers!

    Reply
  • people should be allowed to work till they’re a 100,take Vincent Browne for example

    Reply
  • Alot of common sense in this article – which of course means it won’t be acted upon in Ireland any time soon.

    Reply
  • I’ve seen a number of cases where a person of retirement age is directly replaced with a graduate. It happens all the time in bank, accountants, generally anything financial. Businesses don’t want the old worker with the ‘inflated’ salary (which, incidentally, they’ve earned their right to), they want a graduate they can pay a third of the wages to who’s actually going to be a worthwhile investment when it comes to paying for training etc. I have older family members and graduate mates in these industries who’ve seen this first hand. It’s terrible, but don’t say it doesn’t happen or make sense because for the employer it makes perfect sense tbh.

    Reply
  • @ Richard – a person who retires at 65 we can presume has worked his/her way up through levels of mgt with increased responsibility and ingrained experience of how that company works. You can’t replace a person with this level of experience with a graduate. You’re comparing apples and oranges.

    Reply
    • I think what Richard is saying is that someone retiring at 65 would work it’s way along the employment food chain. Ideally someone would be promoted to replace the retiree and it with have a knock on effect. Although in practice in this country it wouldn’t work like that. The employer would likely cut a position out of the company.

      Reply
    • It is not accurate to talk as if there is a fixed number of Jobs. Jobs can be Created by creative people where they previously did not exist.

      Reply
    • Maria 22/11/12 #

      Karl: u can’t teach an old dog new tricks either.

      Reply
  • Have to agree, people are living a lot longer now than when that law was introduced. Forcing people into retirement at that age is a massive drain on the public purse when they could still be contributing their wealth of knowledge to the work environment and in turn to the state.

    Reply
  • For those interested in ‘working beyond retirement’, they might find the following site helpful – http://www.ventureforward.ie

    Reply
  • totally agree with Richard . Who in God’s name wants to work till there dead? 65 should be it. people should go and try and travel for the rest of their lives because when I get to that age I no ill be trying it.

    Reply
    • Can you afford to travel on ?200 a week? Retirement is a wonderful thing, but some people don’t want it just yet. Should they be forced out?

      Reply
    • After a career in the public sector they should be able to go out and start their own business in the private sector if they want to keep working. Or apply for jobs in the private sector (difficult to get them at that age but still).

      This country needs its young people working – not the aged who ran this country into the ground.

      Reduce the retirement age Peter – don’t raise it.

      Reply
    • Yes, Ian, but it should be an individual CHOICE to go or continue working. That is the point.

      Reply
  • Gaf

    Reply
  • “Opponents of the move to scrap mandatory retirement cite high youth unemployment as a reason to maintain current practice. This simply isn’t true. A 65-year-old, having worked for over forty years, isn’t going to be directly replaced by a 20-something year old school-leaver or graduate.”

    Who exactly is making this particular argument?

    No one is suggesting that a 65 year old is going to be replaced by a 20 year old or graduate. What they are arguing is that, in many cases, most particularly in the public sector, the replacement will be found internally, which will free up other spaces for promotion and so on down the line until you have a need for new employees from recent graduates.

    This will not of course happen in every case. But if the retirement age was reduced significantly you would have a complete overhaul of the public sector on you hands which could potentially open up a vast number of positions at entry level for recent graduates. THESE are the people that will rebuild this country. THESE are the people that will PAY for the largesse of their predecessors. These are the ones we should be bending over backwards to find jobs for.

    Reply
  • Every one should retire at 65, let the young people have a job.

    Reply
    • Don’t forget, when you reach 65 your pension will be worthless and your state pension will be non existent. Working at that age is a privilege not a burden.

      Reply
    • There are plenty of jobs that young people from other countries are happy to do. We need to train young Irish people in a broader range of work, professions and trades.

      Reply
    • @ TOM!!!

      HAHAHAHAHA

      Hilarious Tom. Thanks for your deep insight there.

      What you’re saying is that the young people should be willing to take jobs as labourers and, furniture removal men and working in McDonalds and Burger King? Young Irish people should be happy to do these jobs because those of other nationalities are willing to do them?

      In what particular fields do we lack trained professionals exactly? Where are these niches in the market that are being filled by the foreign immigrant?

      Training young people in a broader range of professions and trades! HA! Our young people are leaving in droves because they cannot get jobs. (Except for Michael Noonan’s kids of course). Your argument is basically that they should have trained in a different profession? Thats very helpful. Thanks Tom. I’ll pass that on to all the young lawyers, accountants, engineers, IT professionals, programmers, marketing experts, producers and financial experts that have left our shores.

      “Sure lads what did ye expect? We have loads of those – all the ol fellas who ruined the country are already in those professions. You should have trained to flip Burgers or lift things.”

      Reply
    • This is nonsense for two reasons. First there is no finite pot of work for all t share so that displacing older works is the only way to create work for the young. The economy must grow and create work for young coming into the workforce. Secondly, the like-for-like replacement (an 65-er retires and 20-er takes job) is only possible at the very bottom of the productivity chain, i.e. on production line, behind hotel reception desk, or behind Costa Coffee counter – and when was the last time you saw a 65-er in that position? In vast majority of jobs the 65-ers can’t be replaced with entrants into the workforce. One may argue that gradual shift is possible but that is not happening. In France they tried various moves based on the ‘finite pot of work’ fallacy (i.e. short work week, forcing retirement, etc) and it didn’t work.

      Reply
    • @ Dom Morgan

      No one is suggesting that releasing older workers is the ONLY way to create work for the young. We’re has anyone said that?

      It is equally ridiculous to suggest that “the economy must grow” – in an ideal world that would be fine. But it’s not an ideal world. The economy’s not growing – its an absolute mess. Youth unemployment is massive and emigration is worse than it was even in the 80s.

      The ones who are going to save this country are not the people who destroyed it. It’s the people who, hilariously, cannot get a job. If we want to get this country going again and dig ourselves out of this hole then we should be doing everything we can to get the young people into jobs. If that means the older generation have to step aside – so be it. They’re one of th few generations that have the honour of leaving their children a ruined economy so they should certainly fall on their own sword. If they won’t – then put them to the sword.

      You’ve also made the same mistake as the author of putting words in people’s mouths – who says its a “like for like” replacement system? Again – no one. There Would be a knock on effect if there were to be large scale change of that kind. It would free up a LOT of space for youth employment.

      The same people are stil running the State as before the meltdown. Nothing has changed. that’s the sad reality. The older generaton with their devotion to the likes of Haughey, Bertie, Cowan and nowKenny – they’d old their children and their grandchildren up the river.

      You must be so proud.

      Reply
    • Felix,

      I was in fact responding to the opening post of Richard. First of all saying ‘the economy must grow’ is not the same as saying the ‘economy is growing’ so your comments is misplaced, it is clear the economy is shafted but I did not suggest otherwise. The economy must grow to provide employment for people coming into workforce and to ensure the standard of living goes up.

      Secondly, those running the country are not those whose retirement is required to free up employment for the youth. I would not count their jobs as being significant in numbers to provide employment and secondly these are democratically elected representatives so suggesting that they should retire is misplaced. The solution is to vote for the younger crowd but judging by performance it seems that the younger crowd is no better.

      Thirdly, empirical experience from countries that have taken such a step (e.g. France) suggests that there was no improvement in youth unemployment. Growth is the only engine for providing jobs for workforce entering the market.

      Reply
  • Who paid for this to be written, IMF?

    Reply
    • Good question, Michael.

      Definite whiff of Troika diversionary concern for the comfortable voter, and never mind those truly ditched by a system in serious need of ‘structural adjustment’; but not as being currently engineered to buttress the already home and dry.

      Coming Soon: Is it a Human Right die in harness?

      Reply
    • Actually lads. I wasn’t paid a cent to write this. If you actually read the article you’ll see I’m arguing against forcing people to stay in work or to retire. The point is not to force people to act against their wishes.

      But hey, why read when you can comment first?

      Reply
  • Which greedy generation destroyed this country? And like Gayo etc they are being bailed out for their gambling on property, bank shares etc. give the young people a chance – they can’t do any worse. All the retired politicians working in the media and still looking for more money is a disgrace. Advertisers should look for a more ethical practice of employment.

    Reply
  • Absolutely not – in the Public Sector.

    Private sector companies should be able to keep employees on for however long they feel they want. They are private entities – thats their prerogative. If the employee can still work then let him.

    In the Public Sector though – absolutely not. The retirement age should be reduced immediately to 55 at least. Why?

    Simple – the people who broke this country are still running this country. We have massive MASSIVE youth unemployment – our best and our brightest leaving the country every single day. Every generation has a responsibility to those that would come after them – the parents should be striving to leave a better country for their children. Well this generation hasn’t. This generation has failed to do so. They have this country broken and burdened with a debt that their children will have to pay for the rest of their lives. That is their legacy.

    Rather than handing over the reigns to the younger generation to allow them to build a future for themselves they are holding on to their positions with all their might. At whose expense? Yes thats right – the next generation.

    Australia, the US, the UK – these countries are rebuilding economies or strengthening them on the backs of Irish workers – our well educated, hard working youth who have been forced to emigrate. What is Ireland doing? Nothing. The same old, same old.

    Forced retirement throughout the public sector at age 55. To those (including the author) who think this will have no effect on youth employment – that is ridiculous. Retirements will lead to promotions from top to bottom. Openings will appear at the lower levels giving our new graduates an opportunity to get their foot in the door. We will have a younger, energetic voice in our public sector – one that is untainted by the frankly criminal incompetence of their predecessors.

    Its simple outrageous that their is a hiring freeze across the public sector, the single biggest employer in the country, when our youth are fleeing the country in droves because they cant get jobs.

    YOU broke this country – your children now have to clean up your mess and will have to spend their lives doing it. So let the get on with it. Exit stage left and let the new players take over.

    Reply
  • Is the age if retirement not 68?

    Reply
  • As a public service employee, full pension after 40 years , (half salary), would still pay into the system after that with no personal benefit , I guess you can see the saving from government point of view,

    Reply

Add New Comment