KENT NEWS: The county’s workforce is celebrating the Government’s decision to axe rules which give employers the right to force staff to retire at 65.
The changes, which are currently under consultation, will be introduced in October, 2011, but the effects could be felt as early as April, where bosses have to give six months’ notice before making somebody retire.
Ministers argued that forcing someone to leave because of age is discriminatory and the new rules will allow staff to decide whether they wish to carry on working past 65.
Pressure groups and MPs have welcomed the move.
Paul Coles, chief executive of Age Concern in Maidstone, said being forced to retire can be a traumatic experience.
“Work provides a purpose in people’s lives, not only for money, but for social contact and feeling valued,” he said.
“I’m welcoming this decision as it gives people more choice in what they want to do. It doesn’t mean they can’t retire before 65, but it allows them to make their own choices.
“It also means less financial pressure. If someone doesn’t have much in the pension pot it can be very daunting to leave work, but this will let them work longer so their money is not so limited.”
Mr Cole said companies will also reap benefits from the changes.
He added: “Experience is absolutely vital and to lose this can actually have a negative affect on business.
“These changes will allow employers and older staff to work flexibly to see how they can benefit each other.”
Charlie Elphicke, MP for Dover and Deal – a constituency with a large over-50s population – said it is right the over-65 are being given these rights.
“Why should they be left on the scrap heap when they have years of experience to offer,” he said.
“People are living 10 years longer and have healthier lifestyles so it makes sense for them to be able to work longer.”
While the rule change is being welcomed, for some it has come too late.
Lawyer Leslie Seldon, 69, from Bidborough in Tunbridge Wells, was forced to leave his job at solicitors Clarkson Wright and Jakes in Orpington when he reached 65.
He had been a senior civil litigation partner with the firm for 35 years.
“It wasn’t what I wanted, I would have liked to have continued working, but I was made to retire,” he said.
“In my case it was slightly different as it was a partnership agreement.
“There is a law from October, 2006, that says it is unlawful for partners to force another partner to retire.
“But they did, and justified it by saying it gave young employees the chance to move up.
“They assume that when someone gets to 65 they are less able, which is a stereotypical assumption and not right.”
Mr Seldon sued his firm and legal action was launched against the Government on the lawfulness of the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations, which allows employers to make staff retire at 65.
It was ruled in September, 2009, that the age regulations were a lawful way of achieving the Government’s employment policy, but Mr Seldon took the matter further, launching an appeal case against his firm – which he lost this week.
“My case is different to this retirement age change, but I think in the end the legislation will apply in both cases,” he said.
The change in what is known as the ‘default retirement age’ has been met with criticism by businesses who claim it will make it harder for big companies to plan future staffing.
But Andrew Aves, regional organiser for the Federation of Small Businesses, said employees must be given choice in the workplace.
“This change may affect the bigger companies, but actually, we have a small business economy – 99 per cent of companies employ 50 people or less,” he said.
“This change will give people choice and with good communication between staff and employer they can find a mutually beneficial way of working.”
Under Labour’s 2006 Employment Equality (Age) Regulations, employers have been able to force staff to retire at 65 without having to justify their decision.
POSTED: 31/07/2010 09:00:00
Bookmark with:
Email to a friend: