Report Advocates Revoking U.K. Mandatory Retirement Law

A new report suggests that Britain’s mandatory retirement law be reconsidered.
Report Advocates Revoking U.K. Mandatory Retirement Law
1/26/2010
Updated:
1/26/2010
When the United Kingdom’s (U.K.) Parliament passed The Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006, it introduced major restrictions on employment protections for people age 65 or older. Since then, employers have been able to force employees to retire at 65‚ and employers can refuse to recruit anyone that age or older.

The British regulations set a course in the opposite direction of the United State’s social policy on aging and employment. In 1986, with an amendment to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the U.S. Congress abolished mandatory retirement in the United States. There are a few exceptions to this law, such a mandatory retirement for federal law enforcement officers at age 57 and air traffic controllers at age 56.

Of course, many employers can still give employee physical exams and competency tests they must pass.

According to a report by the U.K.’s Equality Commission, working after 65, with more flexible hours, can lead to fulfillment for society as well as individuals. The report advocates revoking the default retirement age (DRA) of 65 and suggests giving greater flexibility of hours and work location for all, especially those over 50.

The report was published in conjunction with a survey by the U.K.’s Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) which found that the majority of workers over 50 want to work beyond 65, which is also the age men can collect the British version of Social Security, called a ‘state pension.’

The state pension qualifying age for women is currently 60, but it will gradually rise to 65 during the next 10 years.

The EHRC wishes to influence the debate on the Equality Bill. The Equality Bill is an attempt to amalgamate existing equality law in one comprehensive bill.

“Most older Britons do not want to slow down; many want job promotions and others wish to work well beyond the state pension age,” stated an EHRC release. According to the survey, 62 percent of women and 59 percent of men want to work beyond 65.

In 2009, a High Court Judicial Review ruled to keep 65 as the age at which employers in the U.K. can force workers to retire.

Justice Nicholas John Gorrod Blake stated in his judgment that, although The Employment Equality (Age) Regulations did comply with an EC Directive against age discrimination, he would have ordered a review of the DRA if the government had not made it known that they were to do so in 2010.

Furthermore, he said he could not see how 65 could remain as the default retirement age after the review. There was a “compelling case” to change the law, he said.

The ruling meant that over 260 cases pending in tribunals of pensioners seeking compensation for discrimination were likely to be dismissed.

Age UK‚ the legal name of two merged charities, Age Concern and Help the Aged, had mounted a legal challenge to the DRA at the European Courts of Justice (ECJ).

The ECJ ruling on March 5, 2009, referred the case back to the British High Court. It confirmed that Britain’s national DRA falls within the scope of European Union law, but made it clear the High Court had to look at social and economic policy objectives—not the interests of individual businesses.

In the United States, the Social Security policy is geared to helping people stay in the work force longer. The age at which full retirement benefits are payable is gradually being raised from 65 to 67.

A U.S. retiree can begin to collect reduced Social benefits at age 62, and benefits are offset by earned income to varying degrees, depending on age, until age 67, when there is no reduction.

Thus, the U.S. government has created incentives to keep working, delay collecting and to continue working after collecting full benefits, all of which helps fund Social Security.

About 1.5 million people work beyond state pension age in Britain. The EHRC survey suggests that many more would do so if legislation were more relaxed.