|
|
|
|
| ASPEXS - South Point Ex-students' Association |
|
|
|
|
|
| | Showing 1 of 1 | | | |
|
| Thursday, July 29, 2010
5:13:15 PM | The government is planning to scrap the default retirement age in the UK from October 2011.
Under the proposal, employers would not be allowed to dismiss staff because they had reached the age of 65.
Activists, who have long campaigned against the rule, welcomed the proposal as a "victory" against ageism.
Currently, an employer can force an employee to retire at the age of 65 without paying any financial compensation.
The only obligation on an employer is to hold a meeting with the member of staff to discuss plans at least six months before their 65th birthday.
At the end of that meeting it is entirely at the discretion of the employer whether or not to terminate employment.
'Unresolved problems'
The government has launched a consultation process about scrapping the rule.
Under the plans, no forced retirement notices could be issued after 6 April 2011- six months before the October change.
The CBI business group criticised the speed of the proposed changes saying it left firms "with many unresolved problems".
The government's timetable to scrap the default retirement age would give companies little time to prepare, it added.
However, Rachel Krys of the Employers Forum on Age was delighted, saying it was "really unfair" that people had been forced out of jobs because of their age.
"We have to stop these blunt discriminators," she added.
The charity Age UK, which has led the campaign to end the default retirement age, also welcomed the government's plan.
Last year it challenged the rule in the High Court, but was unsuccessful.
"We have fought a four-year campaign to achieve this historic decision so Age UK is absolutely delighted that the government is finally setting a clear date for the abolition of this arbitrary and unfair law," said Michelle Mitchell, Age UK charity director.
"Everybody stands to win from scrapping forced retirement. People over 65 will have full employment rights for the first time. The economy will benefit from older workers' precious skills and experience and their increased buying power.
"Public finances will receive a boost from more people paying taxes for longer."
Economic benefit
Proposals to change the retirement law formed part of the government's Coalition Agreement, and was included in both parties' manifestos, but previously no deadline had been set.
The government hopes the change will encourage people to work for longer, against a background of an ageing population.
That could ease the strain on public finances as more people continue to pay tax, while at the same time claiming the state pension.
Activists have argued it could inject billions of pounds extra into the economy.
But some employers are worried it will complicate the job of managing a workforce and add to overall costs.
Graeme Leach, director of policy at the Institute of Directors, said: "We greatly regret the government's decision to abolish the default retirement age.
"We do not see how the removal of a mechanism that gives employers flexibility in managing their workforce is compatible with the government's stated desire to boost enterprise and de-regulate the employment arena." | |
| |
| | | Thursday, July 29, 2010
5:14:25 PM | | We have people from varied age groups participating on this forum. What is your take on this ? | |
| |
| | | Thursday, July 29, 2010
5:42:29 PM | irony of the fact is , today i have completed 58 and my last day in this job is 31st july.
| |
| |
| | | Thursday, July 29, 2010
6:06:17 PM | There has to be some age beyond which one should retire. Whether it should be 65 or 56, is a separate point.
However, I am not one of those who says 'new blood over everything else'..that might hold true in some areeas e.g. sports, but not everywhere.
Talking about India, we have to keep in mind that majority of the population is very young. Hence there is a gradual phasing out of the incumbents, we might have a critical situation on our hands in future. | |
| |
| | | Thursday, July 29, 2010
6:48:58 PM | Krishna..here in north america it is already there...
right or wrong? is irrelevant...its matter of choice...
Some work after retirement at a net very low hourly wage since they need to be pre occupied ...a sad case ..
Some are financially not in a good position hence will becomea burden..also a sad case
the UK govt is broke...cant pay pension perhaps... hence need to keep ageing workforce in place.
I do not see any reason for a person to work after retirement ...as most of us are not in business of creative work..it is the time to do things close to your heart..
Unfortunately most of us can't afford...
The retirement age barrier does nto auger well with youngsters..especially in Europe and AMerica where the recession will loom quite for a while...and employment numbers will be weak..What the young graduates will do after coming out of college with big debt...?? I dont have the answer...
In India.. with 8 % GDP younsters can be absorbed in workforce faster...so it will be good...
My two cents...can go on and on....
| |
| |
| | | Thursday, July 29, 2010
7:14:01 PM | | People who are able to contribute wilfully do get the opportunity to work as consultants and retainers after their retirement..retirement age is necessary but whether that should be 58 or after 60, that can be the question. | |
| |
| | | Thursday, July 29, 2010
8:28:37 PM | In the IIT's the superannuation (we never retire from learning or teaching :) ) age has been gradually increased from 60 to 62 to the present mark of 65....
we believe, that by the time we're near that age, this concept will be totally scrapped as in the US universities.....
| |
| |
| | | Thursday, July 29, 2010
8:47:37 PM | kaj korte korte morar modhyie 'tripti' else life is boring :)
ofcourse job satisfaction thaka uchit :) | |
| |
| | | Thursday, July 29, 2010
8:51:06 PM | depend korchhe ki kaaj...:)
But the question is fixed retirement is good or bad | |
| |
| | | Friday, July 30, 2010
2:26:31 AM | | personally I feel fixed retirement age should be axed as it depends on individual's health and mental state to be active or to be passive at the work place and not AGE. Fixing an age for retirement is some form of ageism.In the post industrial society eulogizing youthfulness has resulted in some form of gerentophobia like if young is good old is bad. If we are given an option many of us wll think about retirement in terms of accumulation and financial stability. When actualy one feels to retire from work place is an ambiguous question.However retring from work for some means a jolt in active life. Coping, specially with mental stress may pose difficulty for some.As many a time if we find our work quite stimulating our life revolves around our job and retirement creates a hole not easily to be filled up specially if we are in a healthy physical state.When we retire with enough accumulation in terms of material assets(though it is highly relative), we feel a sense of accomplishment and if we have a solid social tie we do not feel lonely or dejected. In countries like India fixed retirement age has some justification as positions must be vacated for younger generations.Unfortunately, in India retirement often leads to insecurity and indignity. | |
| |
| | | Friday, July 30, 2010
12:03:51 PM | | @Ranjanda - 58 is very young ! Wish you all the best for a fruitful innings post retirement from your present job. | |
| |
| | | Friday, July 30, 2010
12:23:19 PM | In my opinion, retirement age signifies end of one's contractual obligation to work with the current employer. Some retire at 65, some at 60, some at 58. There are people who retire almost every 3-5 years when their contract with their employer comes to an end. In fact, that is the way things stand in respect of the HR policies of many corporates, especially at the top rung.
From the perspective of the employer, a fixed retirement age means an opportunity to infuse fresh blood into the system, to reduce costs and in some ways, to review performances also.
From the employee's standpoint, setting aside the obvious negative connotations, it is an opportunity to break the monotony of his routine, to prepare for a major challenge in life, to devote more time to the family. | |
| |
| | | Friday, July 30, 2010
12:37:18 PM | | Somdatta-di..tomar post ta khub bhalo laglo. | |
| |
| | | Saturday, July 31, 2010
9:48:14 PM | | Somedatta tore ta pore khuub bhalo laglo... | |
| |
| | | Sunday, August 01, 2010
12:52:16 AM | When we are talking about the correct age for retirement, it depends highly on the context, i.e., the socio-economic condition of a country.
In a country like ours, it is should be a compulsory thing (may be 56 or 65, like Nilanjanda has already mentioned). Otherwise in a nation where many compete for a fewer number of resources, geriatrics may take over the control of things, unwilling to retire even when they lose their competence with age. Here the retirement is less about choice and more about compulsion, a compulsion set by law. If that compulsion is revoked, people will continue in their current positions for eternity. And that is solely because in India, the financial considerations supersede every other consideration.
Hence I am against the proposal of axing a fixed age for retirement. | |
| |
| | | Sunday, August 01, 2010
1:02:42 PM | @debraya, your argument holds good, except probably for the academia...
at the moment there is a severe crunch of well-trained and qualified teachers and researchers in our country...
on the other hand, several new institutes (the new IITs, IISERs, etc. ) with focus on teaching and research, are practically mushrooming here...
also the usual issues about health hazards, long commuting hours, etc. for the elderlies do not hold for residential campuses.... (most of these institutes are residential)
injecting new blood, etc., may actually prove catastrophic here; experienced people with a long (longer the better) and excellent teaching and research record are always welcome..
after all, building minds and building bridges are not the same thing, what say???....... :) | |
| |
| | | Sunday, August 01, 2010
2:03:56 PM | I fully agree with you Sharmishtadi. Academics is a special field where a fixed age of retirement can be done away with. I have experienced first hand how alarmingly the dearth of quality teachers, especially in the private institutes, is bringing down the standard of education imparted therefrom.
But still there has to be a quantitative standard which will determine the competence of a teacher. I think you will agree that the mental faculties of every living person gradually dims with age. For teachers it might not be at 60/65, but that age has to be determined in case we want to avoid grey areas.
If the teachers are subjected to a systematic periodic evaluation of their abilities and their tenure on the dais extended based on qualification of that test, then I think the problem can be solved.
| |
| |
| | | Monday, August 02, 2010
10:53:44 AM | | Very good topic to discuss..We all have to do one day earlier or one day later..My personal Opinion is to have a Retirement Age fixed, to help the Younger Ones to grow up..and simultaneously the Govt should extend their Support to the seniors by way of Social Security Networks..so one can retire with a Smile in face.. | |
| |
| | | Monday, August 02, 2010
12:01:45 PM | my boka boka input
have rigorous healthcheck done ....after 55
define required reflex and other health parameters required for the job ....give timebound contracts for all passing them
At 65 .... give a royal send off !!!
Agree with Debraya do away with retirement age especially in education !!
I will surely get sacked at 55
| |
| |
| | | Monday, August 02, 2010
2:18:51 PM | I agree to Kanchan's views that after attaining the age of retirement, if a person is physically and mentally fit to work, he/ she can be utilized as a Consultant or retainer. This should be purely need-based i.e. the person should be appointed for a particular assignment and should be asked to continue as long he is needed for the work and may be recalled as and when needed.
However I feel retirement age should be fixed at an age, not less than 60 | |
| |
|
| | Showing 1 of 1 | | | |
|
|
In Order To Post A New Message, You Must Be Logged In. |
|
|
| Fields marked with * are mandatory |
| Topic |
Fixed retirement age to be axed |
| Post Your Reply Here * |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
|
|
| | | | | | |