I am mortified by the fact that the retirement age is 64 for me - I would retire tomorrow (I am 55) or at least work part time. My life is so busy these days - many people don't have careers, some are just earning a crust and some are in menial, soul destroying, boring, unsatisfactory employment. I hardly have time to keep in touch with family, let alone friends.
sue bond - 17 years ago
I had mistakenly thought that employers could no longer terminate employment on grounds of age. I thought there were rules against ageism now.
If an employee is still performing well, and if they wish to continue working, why should they not be allowed to continue beyond the age of 65? This would be good for health, well-being, and for the economy.
Our pensions are failing, while we also live much longer nowadays - it's crazy to prevent a willing and capable person from working.
I am mortified by the fact that the retirement age is 64 for me - I would retire tomorrow (I am 55) or at least work part time. My life is so busy these days - many people don't have careers, some are just earning a crust and some are in menial, soul destroying, boring, unsatisfactory employment. I hardly have time to keep in touch with family, let alone friends.
I had mistakenly thought that employers could no longer terminate employment on grounds of age. I thought there were rules against ageism now.
If an employee is still performing well, and if they wish to continue working, why should they not be allowed to continue beyond the age of 65? This would be good for health, well-being, and for the economy.
Our pensions are failing, while we also live much longer nowadays - it's crazy to prevent a willing and capable person from working.