Retirements

wully farquhar
10th December 2006, 14:45
What is happening now with the retirement ages,foggies like me were forced to retire at the age of fifty five,but now i hear that the men can stay on until they are sixty.It is not that i am complaining about going at fifty five as i got a good enough deal but have the RNLI now realised that they were getting rid of experienced men to young or what.(Frogger)

nhp651
10th December 2006, 18:18
I think from what I've heard willy is that the E.C have stepped in with the government raising retirement ages and told the RNLI as they have with the police forces and said that it is illegal to finish people at this age.not sure but that's what I've heard.usual meddling of the ******** in Brussels.

benjidog
11th December 2006, 10:43
I can't speak for the MN but this is the score in my UK IT company:

The company raised the compulsory retirement age from 63 to 65 as a result of new government legislation which came into force in October 2006. They have allowed people who were already in the company when the rule changed to retire at 63 if they want to. Apart from the legal side of things many companies are finding that they need to keep old farts like me on because there are not enough younger people with the required skills.

The new legislation is supposed to outlaw "age prejudice" in recruitment polcies - so you can't put anything in a job advert that suggests that people will be ruled out if they are too old or too young. You can't even put something like "must have 10 years experience at ....". On the whole I think this is an improvement as people should be judged on their ability and not their age. However I am sure that many companies will just pay lip service to the new rules.

Regards,

Brian

skymaster
11th December 2006, 15:14
I can't speak for the MN but this is the score in my UK IT company:

The company raised the compulsory retirement age from 63 to 65 as a result of new government legislation which came into force in October 2006. They have allowed people who were already in the company when the rule changed to retire at 63 if they want to. Apart from the legal side of things many companies are finding that they need to keep old farts like me on because there are not enough younger people with the required skills.

The new legislation is supposed to outlaw "age prejudice" in recruitment polcies - so you can't put anything in a job advert that suggests that people will be ruled out if they are too old or too young. You can't even put something like "must have 10 years experience at ....". On the whole I think this is an improvement as people should be judged on their ability and not their age. However I am sure that many companies will just pay lip service to the new rules.

Regards,

Brian
Brian ,you are correct.Here in Canada the law just changed this week,no manadatory retirement.To late for me, I was let go on my 65th birthday no reason given only my age.Since that date I have been self employed in the same industry.The company who let me go are now in receivership!There is lots for us old codgers to do and we are very experienced and good at it.


Mike