Should employers be allowed to legally sack employees at age 65?

I was good at my job but my firm gave me the push at 65. A younger male ((22) took over , he was given a considerable period of time to learn the job but he cannot do it.

If you are good enough and fit enough they have the experience so leave them alone.

I was good at my job but my firm gave me the push at 65. A younger male ((22) took over , he was given a considerable period of time to learn the job but he cannot do it.

If you are good enough and fit enough they have the experience so leave them alone.

Seems crazy for us all as taxpayers to allow companies to wind down their pension commitments while there's a £200bn pensions deficit, and still allow them to force employees out the door at 65, especially while we're living longer. Unless everyone can set up the next day as a consultant and still maintain earnings, an enforced DRA only seems to ensure that the tax burden can only increase to ensure welfare for retirees.

Both my wife and I negotiated with our employers andare now in our second year after 65 of work. I think we have loads of advantages over inexperienced staff in times of economic hardship for our employers:

Less time off sick

Can do the job more quickly because we dont constantly have to look stuff up on the internet

dont use mobile phone at work for private calls (major timewaster in some firms) and thtas just the littlethings!

It seems to me that its pretty obvious that the retirement age will increase in the near future (unless you are a public sector employee / parasite, who's pensions are subsidised by the rest of us)

When the retirement age does rise, employers wont be able to force employees to leave - work us till we drop - it saves paying pensions

Every one should retire at the same age if they want to. For those who who can afford to retire early, their state pension should be reduced on a percentage basis for each early year of retirement.

For those who want to carry on in employment, they should receive generous tax reductions and an increase in pension when they decide to retire.

I think there should be a compulsory retirement age of 65. By the time people reach this age they will have had up to 50 years in the labour market and that is more than enough. By keeping the retirement age of 65 we are making way for young people to be employed, and that to me is an equitable way to share the diminishing supply of jobs. I know people are living longer, but pension contributions should have been increased to take account of this - the increase in longevity hasn't just arrived, it's been happening for centuries! If you haven't put enough aside by the age of 65, then it's just tough!

I hope that whatever age is decided upon, that the MPs and Lords have the same retirement age. That way they can better understand how people in the real world manage.

yes you should retire people at 65 but the rule has to be every one and that includes

mps ,judges, .How can the young or even middle aged climb the pay ladder in companys if sad old people dont want to retire because there jobs are there lives .a company should not be able to force a man out a there is a boss in charge older than 65.

dont call all public sector workers parasites because of there pension schemes.the workers on low pay or average wage have no controlover there pensions its the top paid people who will get bigger pensions than the average wage who should be capped. but when in power they become the dictaters of the system.

Forced retirement at 65 is a total nonsense. Germany became the first nation in the world to adopt an old-age social insurance program in 1889. One persistent myth about the German program is that it adopted age 65 as the standard retirement age because that was Bismarck's age. In fact, Germany initially set age 70 as the retirement age (and Bismarck himself was 74 at the time) and it was not until 27 years later (in 1916) that the age was lowered to 65. By that time, Bismarck had been dead for 18 years.

Let people work as long as they want, need to and are able to. And let no one forget the importance of experience and the balanced thinking of older people.

Some good comments but Politic-Al has got it wrong- probably by reading the Daily Mail again.

He says

It seems to me that its pretty obvious that the retirement age will increase in the near future (unless you are a public sector employee / parasite, who's pensions are subsidised by the rest of us)

note; its not all roses!

I actually am a civil servant and will be forced , yes forced to retire at 60, yes 60.

That will not give me a chance to get a good pension as I am paid the average of 20K a year. ( Note not a Mp's superwage)

Of that figure I will have earned , yes earned 15 years of pension at an eightieth every year.

That is £3750 per year before tax, or £75 a week- after tax - not a kings ransom,

He would do better to aim his bile at senior civil servants , less than 10% and private pension people who as directors and executives have shafted the rest of our private pensions, So the city, insurance and bank sectors would be a good place to start and put there house in order.

My other problem is because of my age I can not claim normal pensions until I am 68 .75 years old - can he suggest what I should be doing for next nearly nine years?

If the ruling had gone the other way it would have really helped me, but any subsequent governmment will have to change the 65 year old rule limit for no other reason than they are the ones now raising the payment date on state pensions!

New kids today will have to work to 70!

At 65 its time we pushed off and give the kids a chance. Why a load of silly old duffers want to hang on and make a nuisance of themselves beats me. Perhaps they have no life outside work? If so god help them. I am 61, roll on retirement.

All this fussabout raising the retirement age to66 by 2015!!!

There are people age 65+ who can, and want to work.

Instead of waiting till 2015 and raising the retirement age to 66, we should immediately allow anyone over 65, who can and wanst to work to carry on as long as they can. This would raise the governent's tax revenue, now when it's needed, and maintain older people's self respect.

If you want to raise women's retirement age to the same as men's increase it by 1 year every 2 years for the next 10 years, but start now. This means that no woman will be faced with, all of a sudden, working 5 years longer than she expected. Then make it the same as for men, so she gets the opportunity to carry on working if she wants to.

This would solve all retirement problems with the minimum of fuss and the maximum benefit both to working people and the government.

In 2003 age 60 I was forced to retire from the Ministry of Defence as I had reached the normal retirement age. I didn't want to leave and my union took the case to employment tribunal. We lost. When I joined the Ministry I was assured that as a late entrant I could work for 20 years or until I reached the age of 65. These terms were removed from the conditions of service a couple of years later. So I was forced to leave. At 60 finding a job to suite my employment background was impossible. Who wants to retrain a 60 year old when they might keel over at any minute. So the outcome of my forced retirement was 5 years loss of salary, no old age pension until I reached 65 (my female colleagues got their pension at 60) , 5 years of lost pension rights. I am now 67 I still regret the 5 lost years, not for the money but for the loss of contact with my work colleagues. I think that if you are still willing and able to do your work to an agreed standard at any age, you should have the right to remain. By the way my gold plated Ministry pension is worth £3,500 per annum, not a lot more than I would have received under the SERPs additional state pension scheme.