Compulsory retirement and the rise in the State pension age.

anewme · 29-12-2019 8:01pm

Nermal wrote: »

A lot of complete dopes posting here that are polishing off the last of the sherry rather early in the day.

JSB claimed at 65 bridges the gap to claiming your pension. It is not means-tested.

https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/social_welfare/social_welfare_payments/unemployed_people/older_jobseekers.html

https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/question/2019-06-11/869/

The Govt. and communications on this topic are all over the place and they seem to ge changing things as and when a query comes up.

The Oireachtas debate is fairly vague and all other references say 66. Even so, expecting people to sign on as jobseekers at 65 after working since 16 is not how people who built this country should be treated. The job seekers is considerably less than the pension they worked for and paid into.

The reality is, they are not jobseekers. They are retired. The Govt is constantly changing the goalposts and by the time we come to retire, I'd not bet either on the pension lump sum being tax free.

iamwhoiam · 29-12-2019 8:07pm

Nermal wrote: »

A lot of complete dopes posting here that are polishing off the last of the sherry rather early in the day.

JSB claimed at 65 bridges the gap to claiming your pension. It is not means-tested.

https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/social_welfare/social_welfare_payments/unemployed_people/older_jobseekers.html

https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/question/2019-06-11/869/

My husband had to retire at 65 and sign on for a year . It broke his heart after paying Tax since he was 16 . Raised 3 kids during a visous recession in the 80’s and worked his back off to send them to Uni
It killed him to walk into SW to sign on at 65 . Means tested or not its a bloody awful way to end a working life

Ps he was luckier than many and due a private pension at 66 . But that year had to be covered and we were damned if we were not taking what we were entitled to

Neilw · 29-12-2019 9:04pm

Tony EH wrote: »

There are those on the right that believe there shouldn't be any state pension at all.

That’s the question, by my retirement age in twenty odd years will there even be a state pension for my generation?

Even if there is I can see it being means tested and if you have a private pension you don’t qualify for the state pension.

DrPhilG · 29-12-2019 9:29pm

I work in the North, in the NHS.

I have an NHS pension. AFAIK you used to be able to draw full pension at 60 provided you had 30 years service.

Now the NHS pension age is tied to state pension age meaning that I can't draw my work pension until 67.

I'll be lining up various investments and savings so that I can pack up at 60 and bridge the gap til pension age. Once it arrives I'll be minted (assuming the NHS hasn't collapsed and killed my pension, and the government haven't removed the state pension). I'll get the state pension plus NHS pension and be a comfortable old fart.

But unless I want to work til I'm almost 70 (who knows what the state pension age will be by then) I have to figure out other arrangements to bridge that gap.

iamwhoiam · 29-12-2019 9:31pm

Neilw wrote: »

That’s the question, by my retirement age in twenty odd years will there even be a state pension for my generation?

Even if there is I can see it being means tested and if you have a private pension you don’t qualify for the state pension.

And dare not have any hard earned savings ( which we paid tax on ) or it will be also means tested

elperello · 29-12-2019 9:35pm

iamwhoiam wrote: »

And dare not have any RECKONABLE hard earned savings ( which we paid tax on ) or it will be also means tested

I hope you don't mind me inserting one important word in your post.

L1011 · 29-12-2019 9:37pm

I had a former employment contract that had you out on to the DC - so not guaranteed at all pension - at max 40 years service. I started just before my 20th birthday so would have been forced to retire at 59!

Suspect there'll be some significant legislative changes to force those clauses out soon

Nermal · 30-12-2019 4:53pm

iamwhoiam wrote: »

It killed him to walk into SW to sign on at 65 . Means tested or not its a bloody awful way to end a working life

Get a grip. Don't kick up because I've torpedoed half the witless rambling in this thread. If it was called a 'transition to retirement benefit' instead would his pride have been saved?

iamwhoiam · 30-12-2019 4:57pm

Nermal wrote: »

Get a grip. Don't kick up because I've torpedoed half the witless rambling in this thread. If it was called a 'transition to retirement benefit' instead would his pride have been saved?

Dont you dare speak to me like that . Mind your own business how he felt or didn’t feel .

noodler · 30-12-2019 4:59pm

Pretty sure they did away with the compulsory 65 retirement age last year.

Maybe it was just the CS but think it was entire PS

Thespoofer · 30-12-2019 4:59pm

punisher5112 wrote: »

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.

I'd add another one to that, Construction. A lot of roles in this sector its ridiculous to expect people to keep going up to 65+. I know only too well now I'm a year or two from hitting 50.

I honestly believe if you have a certain amount of years done in construction you should be aloud to partly retire a bit earlier.

Nigel Fairservice · 30-12-2019 5:06pm

JRant wrote: »

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

I'm in my mid 30s now and there are already plans in place to push out the state pension age to 68. God only knows what the pension age will be when I'm 68!

The chan chan man · 30-12-2019 5:07pm

This, coupled with the huge number of renters who won’t be able to afford rent upon retirement, will lead to a significant portion of the population working until they die.

Arbeit macht frei.

anewme · 30-12-2019 5:07pm

Nermal wrote: »

Get a grip. Don't kick up because I've torpedoed half the witless rambling in this thread. If it was called a 'transition to retirement benefit' instead would his pride have been saved?

You get a grip.

And perhaps some manners as you clearly can’t address people in a civil respectful manner.

There’s a great place where you can “transition” your torpedo.

Touchee · 30-12-2019 5:15pm

There should definitely be a protest or even a number of protests about pushing the retirement age. There is no way people can keep working until 68: just picture having to commute 1 hour each way at the age of 68, waking up at 6-7 am, keeping up with new technology and competing with 25 - 40 year old colleagues.

There are a lot of companies who take pride that they have a young workforce, which is also being advertised to potential recruits. You never hear about companies advertising to recruits as having an old, pensionable workforce.

I would organise a protest myself, but wouldn’t even know where to start

iamwhoiam · 30-12-2019 5:19pm

Touchee wrote: »

There should definitely be a protest or even a number of protests about pushing the retirement age. There is no way people can keep working until 68: just picture having to commute 1 hour each way at the age of 68, waking up at 6-7 am, keeping up with new technology and competing with 25 - 40 year old colleagues.

There are a lot of companies who take pride that they have a young workforce, which is also being advertised to potential recruits. You never hear about companies advertising to recruits as having an old, pensionable workforce.

I would organise a protest myself, but wouldn’t even know where to start

I would join you . We retired at 65 and 60 ( i was lucky to have my years done by 60) . No way could we have a worked another day . We were weary by then and our health would have deteriorated by 68

The chan chan man · 30-12-2019 5:19pm

I don’t believe i’ll be sharp enough at 68 to do what I do. Who would want me?!

noodler · 30-12-2019 5:30pm

Not hearing alot of potential solutions to the State finances part of this.

There's roughly 4 ppl working for every pensioner now

In 30-40 years that'll be 2 ppl working for every pensioner.

Those people working will likely be on worse terms and conditions than those already retired and , as others have alluded, will likely have lower rate ofnhome ownership.

The Tetrarch · 30-12-2019 5:31pm

The problem for private sector workers is not that they will have to work until they are 68.
I worked in a private sector company with 1,500 employees. The oldest employee in that company was 61 years old.
In the private sector older workers are forced out, or allowed retire early on short-service pensions.
I took early retirement at age 56, and obviously could not find work in the ten years before I received the state pension at 66.

Public service workers are immune to that.

noodler · 30-12-2019 5:38pm

The Tetrarch wrote: »

The problem for private sector workers is not that they will have to work until they are 68.
I worked in a private sector company with 1,500 employees. The oldest employee in that company was 61 years old.
In the private sector older workers are forced out, or allowed retire early on short-service pensions.
I took early retirement at age 56, and obviously could not find work in the ten years before I received the state pension at 66.

Public service workers are immune to that.

Not true.

Vast majority of PS workers working now can't get their pension until 65+ even if they have clicked 40 years before.

The Tetrarch · 30-12-2019 5:39pm

And I was lucky.
I got a company pension.
The pension scheme was about 10% funded and those who remained got shafted.

The Tetrarch · 30-12-2019 5:42pm

noodler wrote: »

Not true.

Vast majority of PS workers working now can't get their pension until 65+ even if they have clicked 40 years before.

They are immune to not having a job, pressurised by management who want to downsize, cut costs, reduce numbers.
I had about 20 years service so my pension was 20/60, and there is no annual increase for inflation.

Tony EH · 30-12-2019 5:43pm

The Tetrarch wrote: »

The problem for private sector workers is not that they will have to work until they are 68.
I worked in a private sector company with 1,500 employees. The oldest employee in that company was 61 years old.
In the private sector older workers are forced out, or allowed retire early on short-service pensions.
I took early retirement at age 56, and obviously could not find work in the ten years before I received the state pension at 66.

This seems to be something that a lot of people are completely unaware of and it's going to be something that nearly everyone will have to deal with.

I've said it many times on these boards over the last decade or so. Take a look around your current workplace and count the number of people who are in their mid 50's. You probably won't see too many. You'll see even less people in their 60's.

Companies just don't hire people of that age in general, regardless of experience or qualification. They'd much rather hire a 20 or 30 something so they can pay them less and treat like shit, while claiming that it's normal.

Christ, I know professionals in their 40's, with 20+ years of work behind them, that find it hard to get work.

Ireland's workplaces are absolutely rife with ageism and that needs to be tackled in a very serious way, because there is a real fat disaster in the near future if it isn't, especially when all of those people who bought overpriced houses find out they can't get a job to pay the mortgage, or they find out that the dole they have to sign onto won't cover the rent, which will be far in excess of what we have now if things continue going the way they are.

Mr. teddywinkles · 30-12-2019 8:06pm

Touchee wrote: »

There should definitely be a protest or even a number of protests about pushing the retirement age. There is no way people can keep working until 68: just picture having to commute 1 hour each way at the age of 68, waking up at 6-7 am, keeping up with new technology and competing with 25 - 40 year old colleagues.

There are a lot of companies who take pride that they have a young workforce, which is also being advertised to potential recruits. You never hear about companies advertising to recruits as having an old, pensionable workforce.

I would organise a protest myself, but wouldn’t even know where to start

An hour commute by then with the way infrastructure is going here. Your having a laugh.

Touchee · 30-12-2019 8:16pm

Mr. teddywinkles wrote: »

An hour commute by then with the way infrastructure is going here. Your having a laugh.

I was trying to be positive

mariaalice · 30-12-2019 8:25pm

Before paranoia sets in my husband in his 60s is working in private industry and is working with similarly aged colleagues and colleagues of all ages. He got this job when he was 59 although he had worked for the company before.

AulWan · 30-12-2019 8:38pm

The Tetrarch wrote: »

They are immune to not having a job, pressurised by management who want to downsize, cut costs, reduce numbers.
I had about 20 years service so my pension was 20/60, and there is no annual increase for inflation.

I'm sorry, but did you totally ignore the last recession?

When the public sector was drained - the number of retirements of staff that left but were never replaced, the recruitment freeze, the wage cuts that still haven't been restored?

Far from immune to it, the pressure on PS workers was immense.

The Tetrarch · 30-12-2019 9:42pm

AulWan wrote: »

I'm sorry, but did you totally ignore the last recession?

When the public sector was drained - the number of retirements of staff that left but were never replaced, the recruitment freeze, the wage cuts that still haven't been restored?

Far from immune to it, the pressure on PS workers was immense.

In the private sector the equivalent is business closure, not retirement.
In the private sector "recruitment freeze" meant jobs not available for the unemployed.

AulWan · 30-12-2019 9:54pm

The Tetrarch wrote: »

In the private sector the equivalent is business closure, not retirement.
In the private sector "recruitment freeze" meant jobs not available for the unemployed.

That does not mean that public sector workers were immune to pressures like downsizing or cost cutting.

Your dismissive attitude towards those working in the public sector is misplaced and unwarranted.

AndrewJRenko · 30-12-2019 10:15pm

Tony EH wrote: »

This seems to be something that a lot of people are completely unaware of and it's going to be something that nearly everyone will have to deal with.

I've said it many times on these boards over the last decade or so. Take a look around your current workplace and count the number of people who are in their mid 50's. You probably won't see too many. You'll see even less people in their 60's.

Companies just don't hire people of that age in general, regardless of experience or qualification. They'd much rather hire a 20 or 30 something so they can pay them less and treat like shit, while claiming that it's normal.

Christ, I know professionals in their 40's, with 20+ years of work behind them, that find it hard to get work.

Ireland's workplaces are absolutely rife with ageism and that needs to be tackled in a very serious way, because there is a real fat disaster in the near future if it isn't, especially when all of those people who bought overpriced houses find out they can't get a job to pay the mortgage, or they find out that the dole they have to sign onto won't cover the rent, which will be far in excess of what we have now if things continue going the way they are.

Public sector employers are pretty good for not being ageist or ableist or racist or sexist or whatever. So older people and others who are having difficulties finding employment will get a fair whack in most public sector employers.

AulWan wrote: »

That does not mean that public sector workers were immune to pressures like downsizing or cost cutting.

Your dismissive attitude towards those working in the public sector is misplaced and unwarranted.

Not to mention the increased demand for services like social welfare and health and other areas that were services with reduced staff levels.

anewme · 30-12-2019 10:19pm

Do public service workers get the equivalent of DB or DC pensions?

AndrewJRenko · 30-12-2019 10:22pm

anewme wrote: »

Do public service workers get the equivalent of DB or DC pensions?

All public sector (civil service, local authorites, statutory agencies) are on DB schemes. All staff recruited from 2013 onwards are on the fairly spartan Single Pension Scheme.

Some commercial bodies (ESB, Bord Gais) have their own pension schemes, mostly still DB afaik.

Pension schemes are funded from current expenditure, so there is NO actual pension fund.

Tony EH · 30-12-2019 10:22pm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Public sector employers are pretty good for not being ageist or ableist or racist or sexist or whatever. So older people and others who are having difficulties finding employment will get a fair whack in most public sector employers.

It's the private sector I am talking about. The sector where most people have to find employment.

AndrewJRenko · 30-12-2019 10:24pm

Tony EH wrote: »

It's the private sector I am talking about. The sector where most people have to find employment.

Yep, I'm aware of that - just pointing out a current alternative for those who want to consider it.

anewme · 30-12-2019 10:30pm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

All public sector (civil service, local authorites, statutory agencies) are on DB schemes. All staff recruited from 2013 onwards are on the fairly spartan Single Pension Scheme.

Some commercial bodies (ESB, Bord Gais) have their own pension schemes, mostly still DB afaik.

Pension schemes are funded from current expenditure, so there is NO actual pension fund.

Anyone left on a DB scheme has a huge benefit.

AndrewJRenko · 30-12-2019 10:39pm

anewme wrote: »

Anyone left on a DB scheme has a huge benefit.

It's not that simple. It depends first on the level of benefit available.

In the public sector, it also depends on the willingness of future governments to live up to their commitments.

anewme · 30-12-2019 10:49pm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

It's not that simple. It depends first on the level of benefit available.

In the public sector, it also depends on the willingness of future governments to live up to their commitments.

A DB is a massive benefit though, and the Govt. wont get away with shafting people, the way many in Private Sector were shafted.

Nor should they.

A friend of mine lost DB about 10 years ago, and only now when retirement looms, is it clear how much was lost.

noodler · 30-12-2019 10:50pm

The Tetrarch wrote: »

They are immune to not having a job, pressurised by management who want to downsize, cut costs, reduce numbers.
I had about 20 years service so my pension was 20/60, and there is no annual increase for inflation.

Oh there's an annual increase for PS pensioners.

The pension is linked to the grade. And it goes up by quite a bit more than inflation.

Varta · 30-12-2019 11:26pm

There is probably no need to increase the pension age at all. The growing levels of obesity will likely reverse the longer life expectancy that we have been witnessing.

punisher5112 · 30-12-2019 11:33pm

When the ESB done a big cull the staff that retired early even got free public transport.

They were given special ESB/cie passes so could/can travel anywhere in Ireland for free.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1 · 30-12-2019 11:34pm

punisher5112 wrote: »

When the ESB done a big cull the staff that retired early even got free public transport.

They were given special ESB/cie passes so could/can travel anywhere in Ireland for free.

That I know for certain is complete nonsense.

punisher5112 · 30-12-2019 11:36pm

Edison Lazy Pavilion wrote: »

That I know for certain is complete nonsense.

It actually isn't as I was shown them on many occasions. We were even shown them in training.

This is the same bull I hear that drug addicts don't get free travel as they do....

political analyst · 30-12-2019 11:37pm

A desk-job in the public sector isn't physically draining (though I acknowledge it's still very stressful for many employees). So why are they subject to manual retirement at 65? They could work into their 70s if they were allowed to.

anewme · 30-12-2019 11:40pm

political analyst wrote: »

A desk-job in the public sector isn't physically draining (though I acknowledge it's still very stressful for many employees). So why are they subject to manual retirement at 65? They could work into their 70s if they were allowed to.

Are all public sector not allowed stay till 70 now?

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1 · 30-12-2019 11:44pm

punisher5112 wrote: »

It actually isn't as I was shown them on many occasions. We were even shown them in training.

This is the same bull I hear that drug addicts don't get free travel as they do....

I have somebody here with me right now who took early retirement from the ESB, after 34 years there, in 2011. He got no such free travel and has to get his pass at 66 like everybody else. He says he regularly meets other retirees (so of whom went on earlier deals ) and there has been discussion when some of them finally get their travel passes. So, not bull: Fact.

punisher5112 · 30-12-2019 11:47pm

Edison Lazy Pavilion wrote: »

I have somebody here with me right now who took early retirement from the ESB, after 34 years there, in 2011. He got no such free travel and has to get his pass at 66 like everybody else. He says he regularly meets other retirees (so of whom went on earlier deals ) and there has been discussion when some of them finally get their travel passes. So, not bull: Fact.

It may well be higher ups but I can tell you for a fact as a db employee we were told to accept them as they were free travel passes.

They had ESB and CIE on them.

I'd love if I could find a photo but it has been a while since seen any.

Look I could not give a rat's tail if you don't believe me, I have no reason to make it up and I'm just telling you what we were shown and told to accept.

AulWan · 30-12-2019 11:52pm

political analyst wrote: »

A desk-job in the public sector isn't physically draining (though I acknowledge it's still very stressful for many employees). So why are they subject to manual retirement at 65? They could work into their 70s if they were allowed to.

I worked with two people personally who made requests to stay after age 65, both were refused, even though they were fit and well able to remain.

One of them did find another job, but part time only. The other became a full time childminder for her grandchildren.

anewme · 30-12-2019 11:54pm

AulWan wrote: »

I worked with two people personally who made requests to stay after age 65, both were refused, even though they were fit and well able to remain.

One of them did find another job, but part time only. The other became a full time childminder for her grandchildren.

Is thr compulsory age not 70 now?

AulWan · 30-12-2019 11:54pm

noodler wrote: »

Oh there's an annual increase for PS pensioners.

The pension is linked to the grade. And it goes up by quite a bit more than inflation.

Pension increases are linked to the grade at retirement, but they are not annual.

noodler · 30-12-2019 11:55pm

anewme wrote: »

Are all public sector not allowed stay till 70 now?

Been stated a few times in the thread but nobody is paying any heed.

Compulsory retirement and the rise in the State pension age.

Comments