Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
A SINN FÉIN bill debated this week would abolish the mandatory retirement age.
The bill, the Employment Equality (Abolition of Mandatory Retirement Age) Bill 2016 is being brought forward by deputies John Brady and Denise Mitchell and was debated on Thursday night in the Dáil.
It has received widespread welcome from older people’s groups.
Age Action pointed out that similar legislation proposed by former TD Anne Ferris received cross-party backing in 2015 and urged all parties to support older workers.
Justin Moran, Head of Advocacy and Communications at Age Action, said: “Mandatory retirement is simply age discrimination, forcing someone out of a job because they’ve reached some arbitrary age set by their employer.
“People retiring today are expected, on average, to live 20 years or more. The number of people aged over 65 is going to almost treble in the next thirty years.
“If someone wants to work and can do the job, why should they be forced out because they turn 65?”
A briefing paper published by Age Action late last year explains EU employment law forbids discrimination on the basis of age but a loophole allows Member States to treat workers differently if justified by a ‘legitimate aim’.
Peter Kavanagh of Active Retirement called the loophole “glaring”.
Retirement should be all about choice, and no employer should have the right to tell a worker they are less able to do their job because they have reached a certain birthday. Some people want to retire at 65, or earlier, and that’s really positive. They should be supported to do so. For those who feel able to stay on in work and who want to for financial or social reasons, they should equally be supported to stay in the work force at least until pensionable age, if not beyond.
Brady said the bill “seeks to put an end to this discrimination and give workers choice when it comes to their retirement” and says it will address a major pensions issue.
“This bill will also address two major pension issues. It will end the current practice of those forced to sign on for jobseekers payments at 65 for one year until they are eligible for the State Pension at 66. It will give people who have insufficient contributions for the State Pension an opportunity to continue at work to make up the additional contributions to avoid a reduced pension if they so wish.”
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
I bet it’s a man sitting behind a nice warm desk arguing that you can work past 65/67. They are not in construction or any manual labouring jobs.
@David Byrne:
My father was laying blocks at 79
Yes so if they are in construction let them retire when they want. It is a choice its not about pitting one job against another.
Or in SF case not working
It will provide options. There will be some people who will retire as soon as they are eligible and some who will stay on. I have seen people retire from full time work and then pick up a part-time position elsewhere or as a self employed person. Let’s not force people into poverty for a year or years after they worked throughout their adult lives.
@Rathminder: This is a trap, you will have people working until they drop and not around to draw down their pension. Their unused pension contributions can then be used to pay down the state debts inherited from the bankers and bondholders. Inslaved and servile to the end even after death. Now if someone were to draw down their pension and continue to work part time to supplement their pension that would be different situation.
@Charles Williams:
Please point out where it says people would be prevented from drawing there pension.
@P.J. Nolan: If you continue to work at the same job you cannot draw down you pension. You would have to retire from your job to draw down your pension, and return as a part time worker or find another part time job.
This is not good for young people ! The civil servants won’t give up there jobs to make way for young blood.
A civil servant with a big fat pension will!
The idea that forcing more people to stop working is better for society is obviously absurd.
@Martin Sinnott:
Not exactly correct. In my wife’s section a lot of frontline civil servants are taking early retirement due to burnout after years of abuse (from the public) and running skeleton staffs due to budget cuts and hire freezes.
Huge recruitment drive in the civil service at the moment. Silly comment @Martin Sinnot.
Interesting that Judges and Politicians (law makers) don’t have to retire at 65
What pension?
There won’t be any!
@Peter Hargan: Correct. Another step towards removing the state pension.
Not a terrible idea but it’s not consequence free.
No fan SF but credit where its due, this is a good idea.
My own father, a very active man, worked, in a reduced capacity, almost into his eighties.
First compulsory, then an option, then no option, work ’till you drop and state pension will practically disappear.
Well done Sine Féin.
Retirement should come earlier so that it makes room for younger families get a chance to get of the ground .Then someone that’s in early retirement can get a top up in caring capacity looking after the infirm elderly in a moderate capacity and so on. So you can get your pension and modest top up on top of your pension.ps health and safety and insurance cost will make a lot elder people redundant early any way .
Gerard the elderly are already looking after the elderly because all the nurses have fled the country.Some of these people need hoists to get out of bed.It is hard physical work and not something you would redeploy to .
My mom is 72 this year still works part time and runs a small b and b. She would be bored if she retired. Highly active and more capable than most when it comes to computers etc. She went back to college in late 50s and got her masters. Some people might l8me to retire and some would hate it. Its a great idea
Every person is different and every job is different. While unfair to boot somebody out the door at 60 or 65, there are others of the same age who are no longer fit to do their job and employers (and their colleagues) may be forced to “carry” them.
A system would need to be in place where, for example , older employees must submit to and pass some basic test. This test may vary according to the job – it may be a written aptitude test in some jobs, a basic physical fitness test or a medical test by a doctor in others.
This is not dissimilar to older car drivers having to get eye tests and medical certs before renewal of licence.
I “retired” two years ago. But I still take temporary work where I can find it. People need choice. This bill needs to be cautiously moved forward.
It was in yesterday’s Daily Mail, pensions in Britain will be much less than to day. This is all about the public service, what about the private worker. I am paying into a pension fund for 27 years and I will be luck to get anything out when I retire at 66. All pension fund money is going into industries backed by government subsidies like wind farms. It means electricity consumers must pay my pension. Not going to work that way.
have your say