Citywire printed articles sponsored by:
View the article online at http://citywire.co.uk/money/article/a331694
UK retirement age found not to breach EU rules
The UK’s default retirement age of 65 does not breach EU rules, the European Court of Justice ruled today, in a defeat for campaigns for an end to the ‘ageist rules’ faced by millions of older workers.
Markets
The UK’s default retirement age of 65 does not breach EU rules, the European Court of Justice ruled today, defeating campaigns for an end to the ‘ageist rules’ faced by millions of older workers.
Campaigners for the government to change its stance on the default retirement age claim the culture of early retirement is becoming increasingly problematic given the recession and people’s increasing longevity.
The case will now return to the High Court, raising concerns that any government reversal would take too long as the government has already agreed to review the default retirement age in 2011.
Charity Age Concern accused the government of double standards as it scrapped mandatory retirement ages for civil servants in October‚ but failed to do the same for other UK employees. It says that one in eight MPs would be out of a job immediately if they were subjected to the same rules, including 66 year old housing minister Margaret Beckett and shadow business secretary Kenneth Clarke‚ who is 68.
Commenting on today’s decision, Catharine Pusey, director of the Employers Forum on Age, was not surprised by the decision. ‘This further proves that both the ECJ and Government regulations are completely behind the times.
‘Many employers are expecting the number of requests to work beyond 65 to keep rising. In an ageing society and as recession begins to bite, we can no longer afford a culture of early retirement.
The judicial review against the national default retirement age was brought by the National Council on Ageing‚ a charity which operates under the name Age Concern. It argues that the UK Government has improperly implemented the EU directive upon which the Age Regulations were based‚ both by allowing forced retirement and by giving employers too much scope for age-based rules in the workplace.
Tools from Citywire Money
Today's articles
- Market blog: FTSE, European indices drop as political hopes fade
- Diary of a Top Stocker: can I invest my way out of trouble?
- How to arrange your finances after... divorce
- LTRO is biggest 'cash for trash' scheme in the world
- Parents stumping up £39,000 for children flying the nest
- Evy Hambro 'thoroughly disappointed' by gold mining stocks
- Chart of the Day: life is good, maybe not great, in the UK
- Nationwide's home lending leaps 44% as profits rise





1 comment so far. Why not have your say?
Grapevine
Mar 05, 2009 at 14:41
How many of you have observed the situation where long serving Joe or Flo are frankly passed it, but are tolerated by an employer because they are approaching retirement age anyway ?
If retirement ages were abolished I think it highly likely that Human Resources depts would instigate "Performance Management Procedures" to get shot of Old Joe or Flo at the first sign of their failing to earn their salt. The result for many would be their getting brutally fired for underperformance rather than being allowed a "glidepath" to retirement. Do Gooders should think more carefully about the real world implications of their demands being superficially met.
report thisleave a comment
Please sign in here or register here to comment. It is free to register and only takes a minute or two.