 |
EnMasse
This place is all that is left.
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Tehanu
More or less, more or less
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 17640
Location: Seceded from the Ford Nation
|
 Posted: Mon Dec 11, 2006 6:15 am Post subject: Ontario ends mandatory retirement |
 |
|
The one-year grace period is up on Tuesday.
| Quote: | TORONTO -- Workers in Ontario will no longer be forced to retire from their jobs at age 65 and will have the right to continue working if they want under a law that takes effect Tuesday.
The legislature passed the bill last December to scrap mandatory retirement, but gave employers a one-year grace period to prepare for the change.
... Peters said the Ontario Human Rights Code was also amended to protect people aged 65 and over from age discrimination for most employment purposes, but noted no one would be forced to work longer than they want to.
... The Ontario Federation of Labour said it's worried the government is preparing to increase the age at which people can access the Canada Pension Plan, noting that's what happened in Great Britain and the United States after those jurisdictions abolished mandatory retirement at age 65.
... NDP labour critic Peter Kormos said employers won't be as willing to make allowances for older workers who aren't as physically capable as they once were if there's no fixed date for their retirement.
... Kormos said while many professionals like doctors and lawyers already work past age 65, most labourers want to retire as early as possible with a good pension. |
Canada.com
Well, I wasn't expecting CPP to last until I turn 65, anyway.
What's not mentioned here is an equity argument. For marginalised groups like women, people of colour and the disabled, it's an ongoing struggle to be promoted into senior positions. Ending mandatory retirement means that one way of funneling out the people (white men, mostly) who have attained those positions in order to make room for others has been taken away. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
obscurantist
wonk, snark, pedant
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 739
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 11, 2006 8:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
Tehanu, you've jogged my memory about a story that I'd been planning to post but had forgotten to. The BC government is planning to introduce similar legislation next spring:
Gordon Campbell ... made the announcement in response to the release of the Premier's Council on Aging and Senior's Issues report, entitled Aging Well in British Columbia. Eliminating mandatory retirement is one of report's 16 key recommendations.
| Quote: | Campbell described the report as a "pathway" for the province to follow as it develops policies and procedures to address the "silver tsunami" that will sweep across B.C. in the next 25 years.
The number of seniors in B.C. is expected to double to 1.3 million in that time. By 2031, seniors will make up 23 per cent of the population, compared to 14 per cent today. ...
"(Mandatory retirement) is fundamentally unfair and it's a symbol of ageist attitudes that dismiss older people as no longer able to contribute," said council chair Dr. Patricia Baird.
Asked how long she felt the province had to act effectively on the recommendations, Baird said "we should be starting today." ...
Some business groups have countered that keeping seniors on the payroll is more expensive because of their comparatively higher wages, tendency towards taking more sick days and, in some cases, reduced productivity.
But in an interview with The Vancouver Province, Baird noted there is no evidence that older workers are any less productive than their younger colleagues. In fact, she said, older workers are typically more motivated.
"People in their 70s," said Baird, "are not what they used to be."
"One of the issues is there aren't younger people coming behind the older people," she noted. "The concern about older people blocking younger people is not valid." |
My concern is the same as yours, Tehanu -- it's the specific senior positions that people hold onto that are the problem, not the general crowding out of young people from the work force. This lack of ability to rise to a more senior position in an organization will affect all young workers, including white more-or-less-able-bodied men such as myself, but as you say, it will affect marginalized groups inordinately.
And it's not likely to lead to a "brain drain" of any significance either, because other jurisdictions within and outside of Canada have recently jumped on this bandwagon, or are about to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
radiorahim
Free Software Fanatic
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 1557
Location: on the other end of a keyboard
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 12, 2006 5:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'd say that most workers who stay past 65 or would want to, do so for economic reasons...not because they love working.
So, rather than make sure that folks have enough money to live in dignity in their senior years, (after all they deserve it), allow them to work till they drop dead on the job.
| Quote: | | Well, I wasn't expecting CPP to last until I turn 65, anyway. |
I understand the CPP is actually not in all that bad a shape. They bumped the contributions you're required to make back in 1998. I understand that it's in better shape than the U.S. public pension system...which Shrub tried to partially privatize.
_________________
Free software, Free society |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Norse of 60
Kokanee Kid
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 3711
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 12, 2006 6:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
Last edited by Norse of 60 on Wed Aug 26, 2009 5:30 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DSquared
aka Aristotleded24
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 5570
Location: Winnipeg
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 12, 2006 8:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Norse of 60 wrote: | | In the 2021 graph above, you can see the small (13%) group of 15-24 year olds just entering the work force who will have an enormous burden on them as they try to have a tax base large enough to pay for the preceding generations. |
But what will happen as the population ages is that while initially the pension will pay out more than it takes in, the number of pensioners will peak, and then as they begin to die off and the population shrinks, decline. In other words, this means more pensioners will die than are new pensioners claiming pensions, which means more money will go into the pensions than will come out. Not only that, but 15-24 year olds also have "burdens" on society as well in terms of needing services, and money pensioners spend is funneled back into the economy.
_________________
This is pre-eminently the time, to speak the truth, the whole truth, frankly and boldly. Let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself-Franklin Delano Roosevelt |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
m0nkyman
you need arms on the left too
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 1141
Location: Ottawa
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 12:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
Something to bear in mind is that when mandatory retirement at 65 was introduced, the average age of death was hovering around 65...
_________________
"If I can not dance, I want no part in your revolution."
Emma Goldman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
obscurantist
wonk, snark, pedant
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 739
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 1:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
Which makes me wonder: are there any jurisdictions that have enacted compromise measures? Like, extending the mandatory retirement age rather than abolishing it?
Maybe do in reverse what the Canadian government did for judges and senators -- they used to have no mandatory retirement age (as is still the case for U.S. courts), but for the last few decades (?) it's been 75. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
radiorahim
Free Software Fanatic
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 1557
Location: on the other end of a keyboard
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 6:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
What concerns me is the potential for government to raise the age at which you are entitled to pensions. That's happened in the UK.
In the UK in the year 2024 you will need to be 66 to qualify for a government pension, rising to 67 in 2034 and 68 in 2044. So, if you were born after 1959 you're going to have to work an extra year to get a government pension. If you were born after 1969 you'll have to work an extra two years and if you were born after 1979 you're going to have to work an extra three years.
Germany has announced plans to raise the pension age to 67. It's to be phased in between 2012 and 2029.
_________________
Free software, Free society |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
obscurantist
wonk, snark, pedant
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 739
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2006 4:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
What I find more strange about this than anything is the way governments seem to treat it as a matter of principle rather than as a matter of policy. As far as I'm aware, Canadian courts have upheld mandatory retirement in the face of Charter challenges, so it's not like governments have to do away with it.
Sure, the BC and Ontario governments say that they have sound policy reasons for abolishing mandatory retirement, but you'd think that if it was a matter of what makes the most sense, they'd choose some compromise between keeping the age of mandatory retirement at 65 (when most people are living much longer, and are also able to work well past that age as well) and abolishing mandatory retirement completely.
The argument in favour of abolishing it seems to be, "Why shouldn't we?" I can think of a few reasons why not, and besides, the standard ought to be, "Why should we?" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sineed
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 171
Location: still waiting for the bus
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 17, 2006 1:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | What concerns me is the potential for government to raise the age at which you are entitled to pensions. That's happened in the UK. |
That was my concern as soon as I heard about this ruling.
Some folks find retirement hard to face, psychologically speaking. Mandatory retirement gives them a graceful "out," and they find, as my parents and most of their friends did, that retirement is an opportunity to pursue hobbies, socialize, etc. I'm concerned that the loss of mandatory retirement will mean more older people, their health failing, working themselves to death. And I'd rather pay more taxes supporting the elderly in their retirement than shoulder the burden in the workplace of having to work harder because an elderly workmate can't do the job any more and won't admit it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lagatta
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 1042
Location: Montréal
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 17, 2006 2:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
All well and good, but I won't have anything to retire on at 65, unless a miracle occurs... I'd just as soon work, yes, to death, rather than have to off myself out of destitution.
Think that is the case for a lot of people who have been unable to build up a pension fund. The rightwing shitheads on the Globe website accuse us of being lazy spendthrifts, but most of them have paid more in taxes and socked away more in RRSPs than I've ever earned as pay. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
radiorahim
Free Software Fanatic
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 1557
Location: on the other end of a keyboard
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 18, 2006 1:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | All well and good, but I won't have anything to retire on at 65, unless a miracle occurs... I'd just as soon work, yes, to death, rather than have to off myself out of destitution.
Think that is the case for a lot of people who have been unable to build up a pension fund. The rightwing shitheads on the Globe website accuse us of being lazy spendthrifts, but most of them have paid more in taxes and socked away more in RRSPs than I've ever earned as pay. |
I listened to Ontario Federation of Labour executive Irene Harris in a panel on TV Ontario that was discussing this issue.
Irene Harris said that we should be focusing on the issue of mandatory pensions and portability of pensions so that folks can make a genuine choice on the issue of when they're going to retire rather than focus on the retirement age.
Why aren't there say "small employer pension funds" and then provisions to allow someone to carry their pension from one employer to the next so that the "nest egg" builds up. And also some special provisions for women workers who often are forced to leave the workforce to look after children for periods of time...who then never get a chance to build up that "nest egg" for retirement. It's more often women who end up living in poverty in their senior years.
_________________
Free software, Free society |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tehanu
More or less, more or less
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 17640
Location: Seceded from the Ford Nation
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 30, 2011 11:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I don't know why this is news, given that Radiorahim pointed it out upthread over four years ago ... but the CBC is reporting on Britain raising the retirement age.
| Quote: | The British government on Thursday released a plan to gradually raise the retirement age to 68 and link benefits with earnings.
Under the plan, the retirement age will be raised from 65 to 66 in 2024; to 67 in 2034 and 68 in 2044.
The government also plans to restore the link between state pensions and people's earnings by 2012, if financial conditions permit, it said.
... The changes are based on recommendations set out by a panel appointed by Prime Minister Tony Blair in 2002.
... A number of European countries have already raised or plan to raise the retirement. Italy raised it to 60 from 57, Belgium will boost it to 60 from 58, while Germany plans to hike it two years to 67.
The United States is gradually raising the age to 67. |
Any bets on how soon it's going to happen here? I suspect by the time I'm 65, the pensionable age will be at least 70. Sigh. Sometimes I really envy baby boomers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DSquared
aka Aristotleded24
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 5570
Location: Winnipeg
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 01, 2011 1:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Tehanu wrote: | | I suspect by the time I'm 65, the pensionable age will be at least 70. Sigh. Sometimes I really envy baby boomers. |
I can only imagine the toll that some kinds of work would take on the human body at that age.
_________________
This is pre-eminently the time, to speak the truth, the whole truth, frankly and boldly. Let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself-Franklin Delano Roosevelt |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
abnormal
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 03 Jun 2006
Posts: 445
Location: somewhere over the rainbow
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 02, 2011 1:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| radiorahim wrote: | What concerns me is the potential for government to raise the age at which you are entitled to pensions. That's happened in the UK.
In the UK in the year 2024 you will need to be 66 to qualify for a government pension, rising to 67 in 2034 and 68 in 2044. So, if you were born after 1959 you're going to have to work an extra year to get a government pension. If you were born after 1969 you'll have to work an extra two years and if you were born after 1979 you're going to have to work an extra three years.
Germany has announced plans to raise the pension age to 67. It's to be phased in between 2012 and 2029. |
The US has already increased retirement ages for Social Security and there is discussion about increasing the age again in order to partially offset the existing funding shortfall:
| Quote: |
The Social Security Administration website (www.ssa.gov) calculates full retirement age or normal retirement age as follows:
Born 1937 or earlier, full retirement age 65
Born 1938, full retirement age 65 and 2 months
Born 1939, full retirement age 65 and 4 months
Born 1940, full retirement age 65 and 6 months
Born 1941, full retirement age 65 and 8 months
Born 1942, full retirement age 65 and 10 months
Born 1943-1954, full retirement age 66
Born 1955, full retirement age 66 and 2 months
Born 1956, full retirement age 66 and 4 months
Born 1957, full retirement age 66 and 6 months
Born 1958, full retirement age 66 and 8 months
Born 1959, full retirement age 66 and 10 months
Born 1960 and later, full retirement age 67
|
http://www.drdaveanddee.com/socialsecurity.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Voting Centre
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Front Page
Links
Acceptable Use Policy
Donate
Today's Active Topics