The government’s age-related recruitment messages are contradictory

Is it discriminatory to insist that someone retire at 65? For some people who feel good, young-at-heart and want to keep working, the answer is a resounding yes. However, for others, reaching the holy grail of retirement at 65 is a well-earned gift.

But like it or not, it seems that the days of compulsory retirement at 65 are about to become a thing of the past. Of course, that does not mean that the British people are going to go quietly into the night. The government, for example, is facing growing anger from business groups over plans to phase out the default retirement age by October next year.

According to leading business groups, this doesn’t give companies much time to prepare. It also leaves them with many unresolved issues. For example: how to address an employee’s future after 65? While companies may have senior employees with a lot of valuable experience, they want to maintain control of managing their workforces as suits them.

As people reach 65 they will begin to worry about where they stand in the employment mix. Is a young inexperienced employee more valuable than an older, experienced one? And unfortunately, employers may not have the answers. And what if the older employee feels forced to leave their job? Will that constitute age discrimination?

It surely won’t be simple.

There will need to be more than a code of practice to address these practical issues; we will need changes in the law to deal more effectively with difficult employment situations."

At this point employers are feeling squeezed at both ends. On one hand they feel compelled to hire younger, less experienced people to help reduce youth unemployment. And now, on the other hand, the government is making retirement an outdated concept.

Something is going to have to give.