work and life after

Should compulsory retirement be abolished, my ex husband is coming up to retirement and feels he should not be made retired. He had various hobbies and a large house and garden but he thinks he will go mental not having anything he has to do every day especially in the short day of the winter plus his pension is not huge.

I can see both sides of the argument about retirement.

jd83

I think it should be abolished. If your able to carry out your job to the standard expected of everyone in the company, why should you be forced to retire.

Saying that I cant wait to retire only 39 years, 4 months, 2 weeks, 4 days and 34 minutes to go!

Jellybaby1

Compulsory retirement should be abolished as long as the person can do the job they are paid to do. Those who feel they would like to retire earlier should have the choice to do so. I do not think anyone should be working up to 80 though. I don't know how up to date this is but politicians don't seem to retire at all so why should we go at 65.

http://www.irishpoliticians.com/newdailtenoldest.php

Rubecula

I agree with Jellybaby, if a person can do a job well and is in fact doing that job well, age should have no bearing on it.

On the other hand should the person become incapable of doing the job because of age, then unfortunately retirement may be the only option.

Stained Class

I've got about 20 years to go & I'm counting down the minutes.

When the day comes, folk better watch out for the draught when I fly through the exit door!

Rubecula

The closer I get to retirement, the more my feelings are becoming confused.

yes, to not have to get out of bed at a set time each day, to have the time to devote to having a dog as a companion, to be able to plan on day trips without problems and such like are good. However, the loss of interesting days, the cutting back on socialising with workmates, the loss of income, these are not so good.

I feel sort of sad that this day is approaching, but happy that the future is likely to be happier.

JuliusCaesar

Rubecula wrote: »

to not have to get out of bed at a set time each day, to have the time to devote to having a dog as a companion, to be able to plan on day trips without problems and such like are good. However, the loss of interesting days, the cutting back on socialising with workmates, the loss of income, these are not so good.

Well, most of my friends turned out to be older than me, and so have already taken early retirement. Most are in a happier financial situation too, so don't have the worries I have. But some aren't.

I can't wait!! I've got 11 years to go. But: I've started withdrawing from work, getting less involved and trying to encourage younger colleagues to take over from me. I've started developing my outside interests, and I'm looking to see if there's any way I can realistically reduce my working time - either by having an extra day off a week or taking longer holidays. I'd love a dog, but that'll have to wait till I retire, as I don't think it's right to leave a dog alone all day.

I've taken up water sports - learning sailing and kayaking, before anyone gets the wrong idea! - and there are rakes of people in their 50s and 60s doing this now.

I was going to take up dancing (ballroom dancing - always did want to know how to foxtrot and waltz!) but alas, the classes are full of women as men just don't go. I don't know if they're dead or down the pub or too shy or what. But I don't really want to dance with another woman. (This is probably what got me down to the Burlesque! Great fun!)

My more intellectual/evening class type interests will have to wait for when I have more time and less work, but boards keeps me informed and stimulated as I hop around some of the other forums.

So:
Advantage: I'll be able to do what I really want.
Disadvantage: I won't be somewhere that somebody else pays for the heating 8 hours a day!

Jellybaby1

Although I am doing what I want, I also am still looking after my family so there are still meals to be cooked, toilet to be cleaned, sheets to be changed, shirts to be ironed, people to taxi around. So for me, being at home all day doesn't really mean I have nothing to do, and it also doesn't really mean I can do what I want as I have to consider others also. Mammies never retire. I'm told Daddies do though! :rolleyes:

Milk & Honey

mariaalice wrote: »

Should compulsory retirement be abolished, my ex husband is coming up to retirement and feels he should not be made retired. He had various hobbies and a large house and garden but he thinks he will go mental not having anything he has to do every day especially in the short day of the winter plus his pension is not huge.

He can always start a business for himself. Why should an employer be forced to keep him employed?

Jellybaby1

Milk & Honey wrote: »

He can always start a business for himself. Why should an employer be forced to keep him employed?

Why should someone be forced into retirement before he is ready?

Grandad Himself

I was given voluntary redundancy [voluntary? Hah! You should have seen the alternative!] back in 2001. I started a small business just to keep myself occupied, but the damn thing became too successful so I had to wind it down as I hadn't a minute to myself.

I am now quietly living on the old pension and I still don't have a minute to myself! Anyone who is worried about being bored or whatever after retirement - I haven't met a bored pensioner yet.

Jellybaby1

After I was made redundant I also wanted to start a small business up from home, just to make a little pin-money (remember pin-money, ladies!). But I started a couple of courses over the last few years and just didn't have the time on top of hobbies, family etc. I keep saying 'next year', but will I have time then? Doubt it.

Milk & Honey

Jellybaby1 wrote: »

Why should someone be forced into retirement before he is ready?

He is not forced into retirement. His employer no longer has need of him. He can always do something else. There is no law of compulsory retirement.

Thats not true he will have to be replaced the actual job has not disappeared, the employment contracts say employees have to retire when they become of pensionable age.

Jellybaby1

mariaalice is right. Contracts stipulate that employees retire at 65. They are put under the nose of employees and they are asked to sign and return them. Everyone I know has had to do this, as was I. And still I believe that employees are forced to retire because they are not asked for their 'decision' when they reach 65. When an employee reaches 65, how come the employer suddenly 'has no need of them', how does that happen at 65 but not at 64¼ or 64½? If you are still working Milk & Honey, just take a quick look over your contract. If it does not say employees retire at 65 then you are in a very extraordinary position, and I would say count your blessings.

JuliusCaesar

I think the key is CHOICE.

If you want to work, if you can work, if you need the work income, if you have to work - these are all different things. And as JB pointed out, many women have in effect been working two jobs for most of their adult lives. I wouldn't mind a break from one of them!

Milk & Honey

Jellybaby1 wrote: »

mariaalice is right. Contracts stipulate that employees retire at 65. They are put under the nose of employees and they are asked to sign and return them. Everyone I know has had to do this, as was I. And still I believe that employees are forced to retire because they are not asked for their 'decision' when they reach 65. When an employee reaches 65, how come the employer suddenly 'has no need of them', how does that happen at 65 but not at 64¼ or 64½? If you are still working Milk & Honey, just take a quick look over your contract. If it does not say employees retire at 65 then you are in a very extraordinary position, and I would say count your blessings.

He cant work for that particular employer. He can work for another employer or for himself . I never had a contract of employment that wasn't fixed term and haven't had one at all in 32 years.

Jellybaby1

"He can't work for that particular employer".
Why not, if he can do the work and is willing to do the work?

"He can work for another employer"
You can't be living in the same world as me. There is hardly any employment right now for anyone. I have had very few interviews in the last three years having applied for hundreds of jobs as well as several of my friends.

"I never had a contract of employment that wasn't fixed term and haven't had one at all in 32 years"Well, the contracts are fixed term, fixed by the employer that is because even if you are 20 yrs old, they still want to be rid of you at 65 whether you like it or not.

It doesn't sound like you understand how some of us O & O's might feel about this. Granted some can't wait to be retired, while others didn't want to retire. We have to agree to disagree.

Milk & Honey

Jellybaby1 wrote: »

"He can't work for that particular employer".
Why not, if he can do the work and is willing to do the work?

Because that employer doesn't want him. There are two parties in an employment relationship an employer and an employee. Both must want the relationship or it doesn't happen.

Milk & Honey

Jellybaby1 wrote: »

]Well, the contracts are fixed term, fixed by the employer that is because even if you are 20 yrs old, they still want to be rid of you at 65 whether you like it or not.

That what you sign up to. The employer is perfectly entitled to decide he wants you to retire at 65, if you don't like it don't take the job in the first place. Employers insist on people retiring at 65 because if they didn't they would be getting themselves into actions for unfair dismissal in trying to remove workers who are past it. I have a neighbour who is 78 years old and still working; for himself!

poppyvally

I retired 4 yrs ago & there has'nt been a dull moment what with minding grandchildren..20 hrs a week, ferrying them here & there. My son lost his job in the public/s so cannot afford a b/sitter. I'm heading for 70 soon. I suppose in another few years I'll not be good for much as I have health issues now. Meantime , I'm glad to be able to help out when I can, while I can

franc 91

Well sad to say, this month I've found myself pushed out of a job, so today I finally had to make the decision and took my retirement dossier along to the relevant office (I'm 62). I didn't have much choice as the association I was working for suddenly decided that they weren't going to give me a salary anymore. It's illegal and not according to the contract that I had with them - and taking the time to look a bit closer at their set-up, I realise just how much they've been fleecing me over the last ten years. I sent in a letter of resignation when they told me that at the beginning of September. There are those who put everthing they've got into their work and invest in what they're doing and the others who just rake in the money. Well at least the alarm clock won't ringing a five o'clock on a Wednesday morning and won't carrying in another rucksack of teaching materials paid for by yours truely and I might try and sort out all those little health problems that I wasn't supposed to have up till now. But I still feel cheated. :mad:

Equality

Some of the public service contracts (post 2004) have no retirement age in them. I expect them to be great fun in 30/40 years time - they will have to create a geriatric care facility in our office, cos a lot of the people on those contracts will not retire. In theory it sounds great, but in practice people who are unable to work will stay in the job, so it will be no fun for anyone.

professore

Jellybaby1 wrote: »

mariaalice is right. Contracts stipulate that employees retire at 65. They are put under the nose of employees and they are asked to sign and return them. Everyone I know has had to do this, as was I. And still I believe that employees are forced to retire because they are not asked for their 'decision' when they reach 65. When an employee reaches 65, how come the employer suddenly 'has no need of them', how does that happen at 65 but not at 64¼ or 64½? If you are still working Milk & Honey, just take a quick look over your contract. If it does not say employees retire at 65 then you are in a very extraordinary position, and I would say count your blessings.

Isn't it obvious? At 64¼ or 64½ the employer has no legal basis to make the employee retire, whereas at 65 they do. If the employer really needed the employee after 65, they would make some sort of alternative contract.