Compulsory retirement and the rise in the State pension age.

political analyst

This article can be read by registering but it's free of charge.



https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/more-than-5200-65-year-olds-are-now-on-dole-after-rise-in-pension-age-38815085.html?fbclid=IwAR0vkRFX_ULS9o-KXCndmMIDTja3sXpFWYrTmfv4zR32rUgWp1gaJwdS--s#

The number of 65-year-olds on the dole has trebled since the Government made them wait an extra year for a pension.

There are now 5,263 of them on jobseeker's payments that are €45 a week lower than the State pension.
This compares with 1,715 who were on the dole six years ago before State-funded pension payments were axed for those aged 65 to 66.
Many may have been forced to leave their jobs because of compulsory retirement clauses in their employment contracts. Others may not have been physically capable of continuing to work and some may be working part-time.

Some 65-year-old retirees are in an appalling situation because of the rise in the age to qualify for a State pension.



What is the reason for compulsory retirement in the public sector and some parts of the private sector? Surely, people who are in jobs such as teaching and the civil service and who are willing to work into their late 60s should be applauded, not compelled to retire in their mid-60s.

elperello

Worth noting that TD's and Senators can happily work away over 65.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Not many public sector workers currently 65 will be claiming the state old age pension. Most will have full public sector pensions at that stage.

political analyst

elperello wrote: »

Worth noting that TD's and Senators can happily work away over 65.

The difference is that they are not employed by government departments or statutory organisations directly under the auspices of government departments.


Although they work in the same building and sit in the same chambers before and after general elections (if they're re-elected!), their technical employer before the 2016 election, the 31st Dáil, ceased to exist because it had been dissolved and those who are still in office have a different technical employer, the 32nd Dáil.



On that note, the marriage bar never applied to women who were - or running as candidates to be - members of the Oireachtas.

elperello

political analyst wrote: »

The difference is that they are not employed by government departments or statutory organisations directly under the auspices of government departments.


Although they work in the same building and sit in the same chambers before and after general elections (if they're re-elected!), their technical employer before the 2016 election, the 31st Dáil, ceased to exist because it had been dissolved and those who are still in office have a different technical employer, the 32nd Dáil.



On that note, the marriage bar never applied to women who were - or running as candidates to be - members of the Oireachtas.

Thanks for the clarification.

Just a case of do as I say etc.

political analyst

elperello wrote: »

Thanks for the clarification.

Just a case of do as I say etc.

No. It's a case of constitutional classification - Oireachtas members are not government employees. The fact that the public can elect different candidates in each general election means that, unlike civil servants and other public-sector workers, they don't have job security.

elperello

political analyst wrote: »

No. It's a case of constitutional classification - Oireachtas members are not government employees. The fact that the public can elect different candidates in each general election means that, unlike civil servants and other public-sector workers, they don't have job security.

Most of us understand that.
No reason they couldn't use their position to legislate and make rules that are fair to ordinary employees instead of hanging them out to dry after years of service.

august12

Just to note, when the 68 pension age comes into effect in 2028, we will have the highest pension qualification age in the world I think, how we have allowed this to happen, I will never understand, and the entitlement to free travel, esb allowance and probably medical card will increase to 68 as well.

punisher5112

They want everyone to work till they die.

Many jobs one shouldnt go past 60 such as driving trucks or buses as they are extremely unhealthy as it is.

One of my sisters thinks we will eventually all be working till we die not sure about that but the world of work has not caught up with the fact that retirement is going up to 70 in the not too distant future.

Its not just a health issue im sure most will be health till 70 but its deteriorating eye site and hand to eye cordination for the average person.

The Rape of Lucretia

august12 wrote: »

Just to note, when the 68 pension age comes into effect in 2028, we will have the highest pension qualification age in the world I think

There is nothing really wrong with this. The real problem is the lack of alignment with many employment contracts which people have, lasting until they turn 65.

Pushing out pension age should have been linked to an automatic extension of any contracts to match it, but it was a legal minefield that was too big to take on without harming the chances of passing the pension age extension with such little fuss(as it was, it slipped through without any public outrage or scrutiny, as it was not understood and too far into the future for people to appreciate its consequences for them).

And so the widening hole between 65 and 68 is now appearing and affecting people.

Expect plenty of legal cases....

anewme

I know of someone recently told they would not be extended past 65.

After over 45 years loyal service to the Company , they are gutted.

Expecting a staff member to sign in the dole at 65 is poor.

Phoebas

Aren't they basically pensioned?

I can't imagine that the DSP are seriously hastling them to search for work.

anewme

Phoebas wrote: »

Aren't they basically pensioned?

I can't imagine that the DSP are seriously hastling them to search for work.

People will take a serious drop in income and any savings/ pension lump sum will be eaten away in the three years.

It's a poor return after a lifetime of work.

The reality is that anyone with a private pension will not qualify for jobseekers benefit/allowance, whichever is means tested.

This pensions gap is a huge issue that no one has copped.

Tony EH

elperello wrote: »

Worth noting that TD's and Senators can happily work away over 65.

That's alright for them and for the people who are for pushing out the retirement age.

However, in the real world, companies don't hire people who are 65. They don't even hire many people who are 55.

Finding a job in your 50's is an extremely difficult prospect.

Tony EH

august12 wrote: »

Just to note, when the 68 pension age comes into effect in 2028, we will have the highest pension qualification age in the world I think, how we have allowed this to happen, I will never understand, and the entitlement to free travel, esb allowance and probably medical card will increase to 68 as well.

"We" didn't get a choice in the matter.

Phoebas

Is Jobseekers Benefit means tested? I thought that was based on contributions.

Anyway - I'm not sure I see the major issue here. A person who used to qualify for the state pension of 200 something euro p/w at age 66 now has to wait for an extra couple of years. In the meantime, they get Jobseekers at around about the same rate.

Mad_maxx

august12 wrote: »

Just to note, when the 68 pension age comes into effect in 2028, we will have the highest pension qualification age in the world I think, how we have allowed this to happen, I will never understand, and the entitlement to free travel, esb allowance and probably medical card will increase to 68 as well.

It's either that or cut it, the rate is also amongst the highest in the world

AulWan

Edison Lazy Pavilion wrote: »

Not many public sector workers currently 65 will be claiming the state old age pension. Most will have full public sector pensions at that stage.

You'd be surprised how many don't qualify for full pensions. To qualify for a full pension requires 40 years service. Women, in particular, don't tend to have this as during their working lives they take time off for childcare reasons, or workshare. Service is calculated pro-rata - e.g. if you work mornings only, 12 months on mornings only is only equivalent to 6 months service, and so on.

elperello

Phoebas wrote: »

Is Jobseekers Benefit means tested? I thought that was based on contributions.

Anyway - I'm not sure I see the major issue here. A person who used to qualify for the state pension of 200 something euro p/w at age 66 now has to wait for an extra couple of years. In the meantime, they get Jobseekers at around about the same rate.

JSA €203
Contributary Pension €248

anewme

Phoebas wrote: »

Is Jobseekers Benefit means tested? I thought that was based on contributions.

Anyway - I'm not sure I see the major issue here. A person who used to qualify for the state pension of 200 something euro p/w at age 66 now has to wait for an extra couple of years. In the meantime, they get Jobseekers at around about the same rate.

There is a major issue.

Jobseekers Benefit you get from your stamps in (old terminology)

That's probably for about a year.

After that, you move to jobseekers allowance, which is means tested.

Anyone with a private pension or even a few bob saved, will not get the full amount so will be surviving on your own private pension. Does anyone know the limits for the means test

If your private pension is poor you will use your life savings to survive. Workers working their whole life are using up whatever bit they've saved for a bit of comfort and enjoyment in retirement are using this money to survive.

The working retirement age should match the pension age. It's also about respect. Expecting people to sign in the dole in old age after a lifetime of working and contributing is poor.

Example of means test from citizens advice:

If you have €55,000 savings:

The first €20,000 is assessed as nil, €20,000 to €30,000 is assessed as €10, €30,000 to €40,000 is assessed as €20, €40,000 and €55,000 is assessed as €60.

€10 + €20 + €60 = €90

Savings of €55,000 gives a means of €90 per week.

No incentive for anyone to pay into a private pension as it's taken from you at the end.

Sheep Shagger

Have heard some companies in the private sector (often European owned) having a retirement age of 60 in employment contracts.

I don't know many people who can afford to retire at 60, so at best they need to find a new employer before then - not easy or nice at that age, especially of the state pension won't kick in till you turn 66.

Also means personal pensions have to last a good bit longer.

anewme

Sheep Shagger wrote: »

Have heard some companies in the private sector (often European owned) having a retirement age of 60 in employment contracts.

I don't know many people who can afford to retire at 60, so at best they need to find a new employer before then - not easy or nice at that age, especially of the state pension won't kick in till you turn 66.

Also means personal pensions have to last a good bit longer.

Pension age now 68.

Phoebas

The difference amounts to a maximum of €45 p/w until JSB runs out - that's not a major problem.

A problem does arise after that and I wouldn't mind if they made changes to the JSA means test limits for people stuck in the transition period.

I don't see how they can change the working retirement age for people currently in employment. My contract, for example, terminates my employment at age 60. I don't think it's the business of the state to be getting in the middle of that contract.

Tony EH

Phoebas wrote: »

Is Jobseekers Benefit means tested? I thought that was based on contributions.

Anyway - I'm not sure I see the major issue here. A person who used to qualify for the state pension of 200 something euro p/w at age 66 now has to wait for an extra couple of years. In the meantime, they get Jobseekers at around about the same rate.

Benefit no. Allowance yes. Plus Benefit lasts for only 9 months and then you're dumped if your savings are over a particular threshold or you have a spouse working.

And yes, there is a major, MAJOR, issue here.

punisher5112

Supposedly now some are been told they will only get 9 months instead of 12 months.

Happened father in law but they then changed it after telling him otherwise.

Phoebas

Tony EH wrote: »

Benefit no. Allowance yes. Plus Benefit lasts for only 9 months and then you're dumped if your savings are over a particular threshold or you have a spouse working.

And yes, there is a major, MAJOR, issue here.

I didn't take into account the fact that JSB only lasts for nine months.
I agree that there's a problem after that that needs a solution.

Tony EH

punisher5112 wrote: »

Supposedly now some are been told they will only get 9 months instead of 12 months.

Happened father in law but they then changed it after telling him otherwise.

It's been 9 months since 2012, thanks to Fine Gael, who knocked off 3 months from the previous length that benefit ran for.

punisher5112

Tony EH wrote: »

It's been 9 months since 2012, thanks to Fine Gael, who knocked off 3 months from the previous length that benefit ran for.

Ok but there must be some leeway or something as they put his payment back through.

He has worked all his life.

anewme

punisher5112 wrote: »

Ok but there must be some leeway or something as they put his payment back through.

He has worked all his life.

Might be date or timing related as its changed fairly recently. The rest of us will get 9 months.

Even if they did, thats really only 3 months, people have 2 years of getting nothing after working their whole life.

Very poor.

punisher5112

anewme wrote: »

Might be date or timing related. The rest of us will get 9 months.

Even if they did, thats really only 3 months, people have 2 years of getting nothing after working their whole life.

I know it's mad....

So many in my job haven't even made it to retirement or just out few months and they die.

JRant

I wouldn't put it past them to push the state pension age out even further being honest.

anewme

punisher5112 wrote: »

I know it's mad....

So many in my job haven't even made it to retirement or just out few months and they die.

Very sad for those people and it's happened to many.

AulWan

JRant wrote: »

I wouldn't put it past them to push the state pension age out even further being honest.

I've read speculation of pushing pension age to 70.

JRant

Happened to a lad I worked with. Was told he could work until 67 but as soon as he hit his 65th birthday he was marched out the door. Company blamed insurance reasons and his contract did say 65 but he was told not to worry about that.

It's a shameful way to treat people really.

titan18

My contract says 60 is compulsory retirement. I work in IT so there's no physical reason I can't do my job as I get older.

JRant

AulWan wrote: »

I've read speculation of pushing pension age to 70.

I'll be leaving here if that comes to pass. Not a hope could you survive in this expensive kip without a pension.

Phoebas

JRant wrote: »

I wouldn't put it past them to push the state pension age put even further being honest.

Will have to happen.
Demographic changes to the ratio of working to retired people are inevitably going to lead to increasing retirement age or cuts in payment rates.

Cuts in rates are politically difficult, so expect the age to creep up.

titan18

Phoebas wrote:

I don't see how they can change the working retirement age for people currently in employment. My contract, for example, terminates my employment at age 60. I don't think it's the business of the state to be getting in the middle of that contract.

They could tbf. Could deem all those clauses invalid and if physical reasons are used, make them be moved into an admin role.

anewme

Plus, people are getting younger, physically and mentally.

There are 3 people due to retire where I work and all 3 are well fit to keep doing their jobs, should they wish or need to.

Personally, I feel that at 65, you've paid your dues and the Govt is just taking the piss with the retirement age of workers, while non workers carry on regardless.

anewme

titan18 wrote: »

They could tbf. Could deem all those clauses invalid and if physical reasons are used, make them be moved into an admin role.

I know of one Company who sent all staff a letter saying due to the changes in Pension Legislation, all staff can now opt to stay until 67, should they wish.

It should be said it's a Company with many staff of 40 years plus and a company with integrity and respect for staff.

It's as simple as that really.

Arthur Daley

JRant wrote: »

I'll be leaving here if that comes to pass. Not a hope could you survive in this expensive kip without a pension.

That's kind of what they want. Export old problems, import young workers.
Look at the French they at least try to take on Macron.

Varadkar could push the pension age to 80 and Irishmen wouldn't take to the streets.

Phoebas

titan18 wrote: »

They could tbf. Could deem all those clauses invalid and if physical reasons are used, make them be moved into an admin role.

In theory they could but I don't think anyone would want to see the state getting that involved in private contracts freely entered into.

anewme

Phoebas wrote: »

In theory they could but I don't think anyone would want to see the state getting that involved in private contracts freely entered into.

This is a State problem as lifelong tax payers are getting left high and dry.

The Govt. are answerable to these life long tax payers who have paid into the pot and saying otherwise is a cop out.

Phoebas

anewme wrote: »

This is a State problem as lifelong tax payers are getting left high and dry.

The Govt. are answerable to these life long tax payers and saying otherwise is a cop out.

Exactly - the state need to act, not just shove the problem onto employers.

anewme

Phoebas wrote: »

Exactly - the state need to act, not just shove the problem onto employers.

Private sector workers need to be treated the same as public sector workers and not discriminated against.

JRant

Phoebas wrote: »

Will have to happen.
Demographic changes to the ratio of working to retired people are inevitably going to lead to increasing retirement age or cuts in payment rates.

Cuts in rates are politically difficult, so expect the age to creep up.

If it needs to be cut then so be it. Expecting people to cope with 3-5 years with nothing coming in after working for 40+ years is disgraceful. We can't keep pushing the age limit out. As it is most people only get a few years to enjoy it.

Tony EH

punisher5112 wrote: »

Ok but there must be some leeway or something as they put his payment back through.

He has worked all his life.

I don't know P. Can't help you there.

JRant

Arthur Daley wrote: »

That's kind of what they want. Export old problems, import young workers.
Look at the French they at least try to take on Macron.

Varadkar could push the pension age to 80 and Irishmen wouldn't take to the streets.

Indeed, that's a fair point you raise.

Mrs OBumble

Public sector have now been changed so they can work until 68 (or is it 70?) if they want to.

But many private sector companies haven't caught up. I worked for one a couple of years ago who wanted me to go permanent. They were very surprised when i said that the compulsory retirement age of 60 was a major factor against it for me - but they wouldn't consider changing the age.

anewme

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Public sector have now been changed so they can work until 68 (or is it 70?) if they want to.

But many private sector companies haven't caught up. I worked for one a couple of years ago who wanted me to go permanent. They were very surprised when i said that the compulsory retirement age of 60 was a major factor against it for me - but they wouldn't consider changing the age.

Its 70.