The default age of retirement in the UK has been questioned amid claims that it could lead to a loss of talent on the workplace.
Research by The Age and Employment Network (TAEN) and the Employers Forum on Age has revealed that 64 per cent of HR managers are in agreement that making staff take retirement at a specific age can lead to a loss of valuable talent and knowledge.
Furthermore, three-quarters of respondents who have taken steps to remove this age limit believe that this has resulted in them being able to boost their reputation while retaining important skills.
Chris Ball, TAEN chief executive, said: “Most employers, even those with mandatory retirement ages, say it is of no help in dealing with under-performing employees.”
However, he added that this was the major justification given when the national default retirement age was first introduced.
Recent research by Mercer revealed that older workers were more likely to participate in flexible benefit schemes than their younger counterparts.
ÂÂ
I was forced to retie from the MOD who had a retire at 60 policy for my grade (HPTO). Bearing in mind that I was a Health & Safety Officer with no physical work requirement, this was quite ridiculous. In fact I am now working as an independent H&S consultant and I beleive I am respected amongst my peers. in fact the hSE/WWT recently asked me to give a presentation on construction site transport to around 600 persons from small and medium sized companies.
For those who are able and wish to continue to work beyond 65 this is a good option. Particularly those employees who are administratively driven. But for those employees, particularly in Manufacturing/Engineering organisations who have demanding physical roles and may wish to stay working indefinitely for financial reasons,will potentially force employers to effectively dismiss through capablility, these (often long serving employees) when they struggle with the demands of their job.Consequently,I believe the current arrangements are appropriate.
I agree with both Chas and Phil – up to a point. Chas, it is ridiculous that you were obliged to retire when you were only 60 and doing a good job. Phil, you are right, we have to look at the “work ability,” or work capacity of individuals particularly in arduous work which wears out the human body. One thing you are perhaps misguided on however, is your suggestion that the worker who is incapacited somehow needs to be told to quit. All my research suggests that this is not the case. Moreover, TAEN’s survey showed that even in organisations where there was no mandatory retirement, relatively small numbers actually decide to stay on beyond 65. On the other hand, cutting people off at any fixed age denies the physically capable worker from continuing to work. And there is good evidence too that forcing people to retire when they are not ready is bad for their health, so who are we kidding about being “kind” and not singling out workers who don’t perform well?
What many observers on this subject fail to realise is the additional costs Employers face when continuing to employ workers past age 65 where Employee Benefits exist. The Law requires an Employer to maintain the full benefit package pertaining to that employee yet the irrefutable facts are that the older people are, the higher the risk they represent in terms of Life cover (DIS), Income Protection Insurance and Private Medical Insurance and these additional premium costs can be considerable.
Greater potential premium costs will undoubtedly result in a reduction in benefits within the Plans for ALL employees to achieve premium sustainability – there is already strong evidence of this where employers now have to reflect age 65 where previously their company retirement age was 60 or 62.