This is a problem in academia as stale, unproductive faculty members cling on for unlimited years, treating their position as a lifetime appointment with the primary goal of personal gratification. Meanwhile, young scholars in the most productive years of their lives don't have access to these posts. Retirement has the virtue that multiple gerations -- rather than one generation -- can have a career.
1
For every "stale" older scholar, there are many more older ones who are absolutely stellar. For the few "stale" older scholars, we should not punish all the productive and truly wonderful older scholars who have every right to be productive and useful. Students profit from them enormously. Especially in academe, wisdom, insight, and teaching skills are gained through experience. I take objection to the world "stale." Older does not necessarily mean stale. There are plenty of pedantic, semi-literate, dull younger scholars as well. We need to stop using ageist, generalized terms when speaking of older professionals. If there is not room for both old and young scholars in academe, then something is terribly wrong.
4
Universities are not exempt from the law. Particularly state universities should be held accountable. For many scholars, 65 is too young for retirement. The accumulation of knowledge is, in fact, an accumulating process that given the rising longevity produces results later in life. Senior professor are generally paid higher salaries due to rank. To save money the are routinely fired for reasons that have nothing to do with productivity.
4
I'm 65 and plan to work for at least 10 more years since I am in the midst of building a half million dollar home. This really irks me. I didn't start my law career til 50 so I'm only at 15 years now -- just a beginner.
I work for a large company, but I even got pushback from my 63 year old attorney supervisor who inisisted I had to retire at 68??? WTF. Guess he wasn't listening when the Supremes ruled a few years back. He's the one with pre-dementia, not me. What really irks me is that at 65, I am a runner, cyclist, body builder still at my high school weight with no meds, vibrant, healthy, and quick. I run circles around my younger co workers who are always sick blah blah. Most people think I'm 45 anyway. Needless to say -- I am getting VERY sensitive to this age thing. Fortunately this is a huge publicly owned company, and I would probably take them to court if they fired me for anything less than a very good reason. Our population is aging, and talk of an early or forced retirement is ludicrous.
I work for a large company, but I even got pushback from my 63 year old attorney supervisor who inisisted I had to retire at 68??? WTF. Guess he wasn't listening when the Supremes ruled a few years back. He's the one with pre-dementia, not me. What really irks me is that at 65, I am a runner, cyclist, body builder still at my high school weight with no meds, vibrant, healthy, and quick. I run circles around my younger co workers who are always sick blah blah. Most people think I'm 45 anyway. Needless to say -- I am getting VERY sensitive to this age thing. Fortunately this is a huge publicly owned company, and I would probably take them to court if they fired me for anything less than a very good reason. Our population is aging, and talk of an early or forced retirement is ludicrous.
15
Airline pilots challenged mandatory age retirement rules some years ago. They won.
3
No, pilots were only successful in changing the age from 60 to 65.
4
thank goodness!
Honestly, I don't get what people are complaining about. Mostly it seems like baby boomers whining - they are the welfare queen, gov't hand out generation.
Look if you are in your 60s now, well you should have saved up a little bit of money working for 40 years right? And well you should have a ton of experience, right?
It only takes perhaps $100 or less to register a business. Get hustling and cracking like the rest of us and stop sitting around waiting for another hand out.
Your generation invested the glorious Internet, your generation voted for NAFTA, for tax cuts. So come one now, taxes are lower then they ever were in the 70s go sell something and make some money.
Look if you are in your 60s now, well you should have saved up a little bit of money working for 40 years right? And well you should have a ton of experience, right?
It only takes perhaps $100 or less to register a business. Get hustling and cracking like the rest of us and stop sitting around waiting for another hand out.
Your generation invested the glorious Internet, your generation voted for NAFTA, for tax cuts. So come one now, taxes are lower then they ever were in the 70s go sell something and make some money.
2
I wonder if ageist Boomer bashing will ever cease? I am a boomer and what I know is that my generation fought for women's rights, for minority rights, and many others who were kept out of graduate schools (medical, law included) because we wanted the same education offered to white males. This would enable us to participate in a workforce more inclusively and in better jobs. This hardly sounds like a "welfare Queen" or someone who wants a "hand-out." We were committed to work and opportunity more than any other generation that I know of and fought very hard for the right to do so. I do not have a single acquaintance in my generation that is on welfare or assistance. Many of us are still working long, hard hours and enjoy it. It seems that the generation who fought to open doors not only for ourselves but for younger generations, including yours, deserve to enjoy the spoils if we are willing to continue to work hard, and everyone I know does. Why not say "thank you" instead of trying to kick us out the door?
3
It is a sad statement about America that we value age so little and the many wonderful contributions that older workers bring to the workplace. Competency and experience should count for a great deal, but they are almost entirely disregarded. We need to raise our national consciousness so that we view older workers as valuable employees. Only then can we eventually change employment law. In many cultures around the world, older workers are highly valued for what they bring to the plate, which is significant, and America would benefit in every way if we shared this view.
5
@Jody: Exactly right! And part of what makes America a weaker country is this wholesale disregard for the value of the experience that age brings. Sadly, I don't think the USA will figure out, until it's too late, that you can't run an entire country based on clever 20-somethings alone.
2
It should be noted that most mandatory retirements were abolished by law during the Clinton era and that universities fought, and successfully delayed for several years, the laws application to academicians.
But prior to the enactment of the law, professors were retired at some fixed age, usually 65 or 70, regardless of their competence at that time. After its enactment those professors found themselves with lifetime appointments that could be terminated only by drastic means.
But prior to the enactment of the law, professors were retired at some fixed age, usually 65 or 70, regardless of their competence at that time. After its enactment those professors found themselves with lifetime appointments that could be terminated only by drastic means.
Well, it's disappointing to see comments here that are so biased against people who are 55-60+. How about judging people on their merits? Many of the most energetic, wisest, most capable employees I know - in my field (health care) and others - are 60+. You have got to be kidding when you suggest older workers should step aside for people with kids in their 30's/40's. What the heck are you talking about? People with experience and competence should keep contributing as long as possible. We all need all the help we can get. Plus with no pensions, and the economic difficulties of the past 8 years, older people need to work longer than ever. I know people in their 80's who are quite vital and fabulous workers. Judging people based on age is despicable and illegal and unsupportable.
15
Most accounting firms are partnerships which is a different type of employment. By definitioon, a partner is not an employee.
2
I think that this is the argument used for the admittance of millions of refugees to Germany. They claim they need workers. Of course, the unemployment rate is quite high. As in the US the politicians cover it up. Many older people can work and are more efficient than younger ones. There are not many jobs older people cannot do. I was always impressed with the old white people in Germany picking asparagus. It is simply discrimination of another sort. Older white people are less likely to put up with an employer's BS.
3
For white collar workers in America, retirement age is largely irrelevant. Most large companies will push you out the door long before you reach your 65th birthday. The reason is simple - costs. When looking to cut costs large corporations will naturally look to cut experienced and therefore more expensive workers. The loss of institutional memory and competence is viewed as less important than the short term cost saving. I speak from experience. I was a Managing Director at a leading financial institution and had a 30 year career with my employer.
11
Mandatory retirement at 65? I work in corporate America where it's unusual to find people over the age of 60 who are still working. I don't plan to work beyond 60 (and fortunately for me I probably wouldn't need to). Although I would welcome the opportunity to work for an organization where I could work until age 65 if I chose to.
3
Full retirement age is 66, the assumption being that people live longer, remain healthier, and will work longer ( and of course remain employed). Why on earth would employers terminate someone's job before age 66, especially when an alarmingly high number of people haven't saved enough for retirement? .
Forget judging those employees or accuse them of mismanaging their money. We'll all pay the price for those who haven't saved enough , one way or another.
The best option for those who lack savings ( and even this may not be enough) is for them to work longer and delay receiving Social Security. Every year Social Security is postponed results in an 8% increase in benefits.
But look at the reality: many people do not make it to 66 (let alone 67, 68 or 70) and remain employed. A fair number are forced to take Social Security or tap into their retirement savings early. There is a huge disconnect between what older workers are expected to do ( work longer) and what employers actually allow.
Something has to change or we may face a Perfect Storm of retirees in financial distress. Even those with savings are currently looking at the possibility of bleak returns on their investments, not enough for the traditional 4 percent draw of yesteryear.
Forget judging those employees or accuse them of mismanaging their money. We'll all pay the price for those who haven't saved enough , one way or another.
The best option for those who lack savings ( and even this may not be enough) is for them to work longer and delay receiving Social Security. Every year Social Security is postponed results in an 8% increase in benefits.
But look at the reality: many people do not make it to 66 (let alone 67, 68 or 70) and remain employed. A fair number are forced to take Social Security or tap into their retirement savings early. There is a huge disconnect between what older workers are expected to do ( work longer) and what employers actually allow.
Something has to change or we may face a Perfect Storm of retirees in financial distress. Even those with savings are currently looking at the possibility of bleak returns on their investments, not enough for the traditional 4 percent draw of yesteryear.
3
And why shouldn't people retire at 65? That is, after all, the retirement age set by the Federal government many decades ago. And when older people retire, after a life of hard work, they're creating jobs for the young people who are newly entering the jobs market.
Activist Bill:
You seem to think there is a "one age fits all" answer to retirement - and that age is 65. But even those who've worked hard all their lives may have had their retirement savings battered by a financial crisis. Perhaps a divorce. Or a job loss. Or time off for cancer treatment. There are a host of possibilities. And...just like that...the "life of hard work" may not yet have resulted in sufficient retirement savings.
Retirement age needs to be be more than just an arbitrary number. If we are indeed a nation of individuals then we might do well to also look at workers individually and not take away a competent employee's job simply because of age.
You seem to think there is a "one age fits all" answer to retirement - and that age is 65. But even those who've worked hard all their lives may have had their retirement savings battered by a financial crisis. Perhaps a divorce. Or a job loss. Or time off for cancer treatment. There are a host of possibilities. And...just like that...the "life of hard work" may not yet have resulted in sufficient retirement savings.
Retirement age needs to be be more than just an arbitrary number. If we are indeed a nation of individuals then we might do well to also look at workers individually and not take away a competent employee's job simply because of age.
5
@Activist Bill: In 1950, the life-expectancy for the average white male was 66.5 years!
3
The same Corpoville fat cats who wail about Social Security going bankrupt in a few years, so let's do away with it, want mandatory retirement for workers so the fat cats no longer have to contribute to Social Security.
Solution? Eliminate mandatory retirement and eliminate the Social Security cap from Corpoville fat cats' incomes.
Solution? Eliminate mandatory retirement and eliminate the Social Security cap from Corpoville fat cats' incomes.
3
It's america! a business is pretty near free to do anything it wants.
Employees are at a decided dis-advantage in this country. The balance is way out of whack in favor of employers. Companies are only to happy to push older (and what they believe more costly) employees out the door.
1
So then how is the New York rule that state court judges have to retire at 70 legal?
1
Employees should retire when they cannot do the job...this could be as young as 18 and as old as 110....when it is over 50, age discrimination comes into play, younger than that, any reason for discrimination..
Remember in America only a WASP American male in power cannot be discriminated against. All others are fair game...
Remember in America only a WASP American male in power cannot be discriminated against. All others are fair game...
6
Objectively, I am fitter and more knowledgeable post-65 than I was prior. In my late 50's I resolved to lose 100 lbs and exercise regularly. In my 60's my malformed aortic valve was replaced; this corrected a birth defect. In old age I can lift more weight than ever, chop my way out of a forest (did this) with an ax if trees block the road, walk 20 or 30 miles per day and bike ride 60 to 100 miles per day. I have the energy of the Energizer Bunny.
I know a WHOLE lot more math, history, economics and business facts than a new median American college grad. I don't work. I don't have to. I'm smart enough that I'm worth more than 37 out of 40 Americans.
Just sayin'...
I know a WHOLE lot more math, history, economics and business facts than a new median American college grad. I don't work. I don't have to. I'm smart enough that I'm worth more than 37 out of 40 Americans.
Just sayin'...
3
My wife retired at age 66 and would have retired younger had we not been subjected to a forced employment relocation to this very expensive city five years earlier. However, by the time she departed her position, the administration of the agency had changed (for the worse) so much that she was fed up and ready to go. There are many considerations about when is the right time to retire but personally, I believe that the ability to call it quits to your profession is a gift and one which we planned for our whole lives by saving and living below our means mostly on one salary. Right now we are debt free having purchased a foreclosure when we moved here and living on moderate retirement pensions in a very expensive area. Timing and not living to excess in our youth were the ticket to freedom now.
1
There is nothing wrong with mandatory retirement at age 65, or younger or later, any age for that matter. There are many young people trying to enter the job market and are finding it difficult to obtain jobs, because the older workers don't want to do the right thing and step down, and enjoy a life of leisure after many years of hard work.
Vote for Mandatory Retirement at 35, and Soylent Green at 50! It's the Circle of Life!
2
This country should be busy creating jobs for those younger people who seek them ,rather than exporting jobs to Asia etc, while retaining the experienced labor force to train them. No one should have the right to decide when another person should step aside to "enjoy a life of leisure" which they might not be able to afford, even if they would like to.
4
By law American diplomats must retire at age 65.
1
IT amazes me that the discrimination is so brazen... even if employed , you are assumed to be an idiot., and lazy. Maybe the older doctors ad lawyers and accountants production is10% lower because they are stuck at the office answering phone calls while pups go get that bike ride .It never does seem to be convenient for them to take care of that trivia . Good thing that I am so close ro my deathbed that time off doesn't matter to me .
3
At the company I worked for the second exception listed in this article was used to force the removal of corporate officers at the age of 62. Just below the position of corporate officer was the position of general manager. which was used as a training opportunity for potential corporate officers, and as a result, to be a general manager one had to be significantly below the age of 62, usually no more than 50; thus, forced removal of corporate officers had the effect of a de facto age discrimination policy for managers below the age of 62.
Does anyone ever look at how much health insurance premiums for older workers are costing employers? Tying health care to employment could be the reason many older workers cannot find jobs.
3
Agree, which is why insurance companies and corporate America should be taken out of health care entirely.
2
Seems like another social issue the Baby Boomers should tackle, as they have tackled so many other issues that affected them at different stages of life and they have (voting) numbers on their side. I say that in the full knowledge that as long as the Boomers in my workplace don't retire, my own opportunities for advancement are constricted. I too live in fear of being forced out as "too expensive", in spite of my excellent record and continuing innovations, as do most workers over 50. I have at least one younger, competitive colleague who has openly told others that I'm "too old." Guess what? He didn't get a reprimand, he got a promotion. I can only hope and pray that I will be allowed to keep my job until I'm 60, let alone 65. I've got kids to put through college.
2
As a 30+ year experienced professional who has been out of work for 2 months, I'm appalled at the age discrimination I've encountered in my search.
This is probably the biggest employment issue that has no advocacy especially since attention is being paid to women in the workplace at this time. However, this problem affects both genders. It's very easy to reject a person for their age disregarding benefits such as experience and work ethic. The burden to prove such is so far out of reach that employers can exercise this discrimination with abandon.
I can't imagine a work force really getting to 70 - much less 65 - with conditions such as this.
This is probably the biggest employment issue that has no advocacy especially since attention is being paid to women in the workplace at this time. However, this problem affects both genders. It's very easy to reject a person for their age disregarding benefits such as experience and work ethic. The burden to prove such is so far out of reach that employers can exercise this discrimination with abandon.
I can't imagine a work force really getting to 70 - much less 65 - with conditions such as this.
1
Or the Foreign Service Act of 1980, which forces Foreign Service officers out at 65, even though our retirement system is built on three legs (a federal pension, Social Security, and contributions to an annuity), one of which (SS) is now not necessarily available at 65, depending on when you were born.
1
Hunh? In most states they don't have to force you to retire, they can just fire you. You know, 'right to work' and all.
1
Certainly the airlines in this country do not force old-aged flight attendants to retire!
1
And why is this a Times Insider Article when it should be for all who subscribe to the Times? Obviously the Times is setting up a two tier subscription. Disgraceful.
37
I have the basic subscription, and I read it. Go figure.
5
What about universities that make life hell for older professors? Is that legal? What are the rules?
40
It is moral for full professors, who make good money and who have conservatively saved for retirement, to retire at sixty-five so that younger people may have the opportunity to find employment at universities. Many well-qualified part-time instructors can't secure jobs at universities because of budget constraints caused by the simple fact that full professors at sixty-five refuse to retire. With the retirement of one full professor, at least two new instructors or assistant professors can be hired on tenure-track at our colleges. I retired at sixty-five and do not regret having done so.
1
par for the course. you don't to the top in any field by being a decent human being.
1
I have been having this discussion a lot lately. My daughter told me that there isn't anyone, that she could tell, who was over 60 years of age, at her Big Pharma firm. Where are we all to go? My place doesn't offer a pension and no 401K match. It is difficult to save those millions for retirement. My lifestyle is not high off the hog, no vacations, no extras, see hen3ry comments, they could be for us all. The only industry where age is valued is academia. You have a very limited shelf life in Corporate America.
65
Nope. It's worst in academia. Moreover, universities are not hiring professors when they can hire just part-timers. And in K12 they prefer school teachers just graduated from college. They are cheaper.
1
This is very sad...I remember that the small company my father worked for eliminated pensions altogether once the ERISA changes went into effect (in the 80s maybe?). Fortunately, my mother had returned to a full-time position in the public sector at nearly 50 and her work there allowed her a small pension but more importantly, gave her health benefits on retirement in her 60s, which my father also didn't have (aside from Medicare when he turned 65). He really needed my mother's insurance because he became ill with a disease similar to ALS and was unable to care for himself.
2
I'm living in Luxembourg (Europe), got retired at 57, worked at a newspaper company and had 30 years of night shifts.
Many years ago a friend was upset because her father at 60+ was laid off from his engineering job during 1 of our many downturns. I countered (with love) that should they have let him go, or the person in their 30-40's with kids to support? Can we acknowledge that with all the off-shoring, technology advancements, and industries just seizing up there aren't enough jobs to go around? It's great that 60 is the new 50, and by all means be hopeful, but don't expect to be collecting a paycheck.
7
This is a repellent attitude. I could just as easily argue that the 30-40 year old should be laid off first because that person can more easily find new employment. If there is downsizing, a company should follow last-hired-first-fired policy. There is no other objective way to do it.
3
PS--We 60 and up people absolutely do expect to earn and collect a paycheck. We have just as much right to live a life of dignity and engagement as anyone else.
8
At 60 many people are still supporting their kids, and their kids' kids, and their parents, too. So much for the "a 30 year old needs a job more than a 60 year old" argument.
7
Since when do employees have any rights, remember, this is America your talking about.
116
Sorry to be late to the party ... also allowable if a matter of contract, say, a partnership Agreement in a law firm or an accounting partnership.
9
In the meantime people who lose their jobs are forced to retire when they cannot find new ones only they get no pensions or help. They get to struggle until they are eligible to receive their pensions, draw money from their 401Ks and IRAs without a significant penalty, and lose everything else. What's wrong with this picture? Maybe we should decrease the retirement age or start to allow those who cannot find jobs to receive the benefits they would have received if they had been able to retire at the "required" age. Employers and politicians cannot have it both ways: we're too old, experienced, and hence expensive to hire or train but too young to be allowed to retire. If this country wants to have no middle and working class which means fewer consumers able to spend money, it's doing a great job. After my repeated bouts of unemployment and those of other people, we stop spending on anything but the bare necessities. We don't go on vacations. We don't buy new electronic devices unless we have to. We don't subscribe to anything more than bare bones service. We also drop what doesn't benefit us and that includes health insurance, donations to charities, upgrading our homes or buying those lovely little extras.
158
The 1 % really isn't concerned with the problems of the disappearing middle class, as they already have the means to survive AND take vacations
3
There are millions who live like this. Unemployment is at historic lows? Bull. That doesn't take into account people who have retired early because they had no choice, stay-at-home moms who can't afford child care, people who aren't eligible for retirement so apply for disability, others who work off the books for peanuts, and those of us who are stuck in low paid jobs because we can't find anything else.
4
As The Times's numerically precise Upshot will certainly confirm, the average age of the nine justices of the United States Supreme Court is 69.44, and only three of them are under 65. Yet somehow we deem them fit to be the final arbiter of our laws. The number 65 is just that: a number. Arbitrary and, yes, discriminatory.
122
Airline pilots also must retire at 65. That's one year short of getting your full Social Security benefit.
27
Have you seen what airline pilots look like when they are 65? If you had to guess their age it would be well into seventies. The stress of their job takes a toll and they are responsible for the lives of thousands of people. Twice this year, airline pilots have died while flying an airplane. Both of them had valid medical certification. Do you want to take a chance with your life?
13
Airline pilots had to retire at age 60 until the rule was changed in 2007.
Re: S.L.'s comment about what pilots look like, there is a lot of sun exposure in the cockpit leading to premature aging of the skin. I'll take an experienced, wrinkled pilot any day over a smooth faced youngster.
Re: S.L.'s comment about what pilots look like, there is a lot of sun exposure in the cockpit leading to premature aging of the skin. I'll take an experienced, wrinkled pilot any day over a smooth faced youngster.
29
Do you want to take a chance with an inexperienced pilot. Younger pilots can also die of a sudden heart attack. It happens too to fit young individuals.
1
In a noxious remnant of Ageism, US Foreign Service Officers are forced to retire at age 65, regardless of their health, performance, etc. Political employees are exempted from this rule, which was established by Congress nearly 50 years ago, reportedly by bureaucratic suggestion. This rule does not apply to civil service employees. Needless to add, almost all Secretaries in the last decades have been over 65...
40
What this article doesn't state is that the Supreme Court has made it virtually impossible to prove age discrimination. The barrier is much higher than for other forms of discrimination. You have to prove "but for" causation. So even if the employer discriminates against you because of your age, if the employer comes up with some reason for why it would have otherwise fired you, you're out of luck. Matthew Brinegar, Esq.
104
That's actually one reason this conservative might vote for Bernie. Age discrimination was that last on the list, and the easiest to perform. At age 60 I have to actually consider starting a solo legal practice to maintain my lifestyle. Meanwhile, the senior judges keep their jobs until they are carried out.
1
I was working full-time for an employer in New York City. When I turned 65, she decided that instead of my continuing on as a full-time employee, she would terminate that arrangement and offer me a job to perform exactly the same function but as a contact employee. This would allow her to reduce her costs to me (pay me hourly, eliminate my benefits, not have to pay me for holidays and vacations, etc.). After quickly considering the new offer as a consultant, I told her to take a hike and that I wasn't interested. Naturally, despite having worked for almost 10 years at her firm, I got no pension - I did get 5 whole weeks of severance pay.
50
The question is, would another year of full time employment have qualified you for a pension?
But at least if you were offered a "Consulting" gig, you probably have a decent Social Security check if you can last another year.
Try being a Walmart stocker or working in an Amazon Fullfillment Cneter...
But at least if you were offered a "Consulting" gig, you probably have a decent Social Security check if you can last another year.
Try being a Walmart stocker or working in an Amazon Fullfillment Cneter...
22
Women's pensions and Social Security benefits are lower anyway because of the whammy of sex-based discrimination. It's terrible, really. First, done out of jobs and decent salaries - then done out of a comfortable retirement because all the benefits are based on the wages/salaries. Of course, now that men are demanding paternity/family leave, maybe that will spill over to women so they get their little dregs of compensation, too. Do I sound bitter? Maybe so. yes.
2
@Chip,
You're not clear here. Do you mean your employer did not have a pension plan?
Federal laws requires pensions to vest after 5 years of employment. Any money put in a plan for you is yours after 5 years.
You're not clear here. Do you mean your employer did not have a pension plan?
Federal laws requires pensions to vest after 5 years of employment. Any money put in a plan for you is yours after 5 years.
1
The real issue is personal power when they want people to retire. If you know where the bodies are buried your, dog meat. I've heard too many college professors complain about corporate America malfeasance and why they left to teach. Education is great but what goes on in corporate is criminal in behavior. They would steal the mathematics table and don't really care about the company but themselves. Want to talk about sexual hanky panky, more prevalent then the politically correct NYT can deal with. The business model taught to taught to MBAs is an illusion.
16
It's even worse in the universities these days. Not only do professors not get paid well, they are also set up when they refuse to retire.
Read this specific case: https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/04/15/allegedly-rude-professor-...
Read this specific case: https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/04/15/allegedly-rude-professor-...
12
I read the article, but do not see the "set up." Seems the professor had historically behaved unprofessionally. However, does seem like some warnings were appropriate as this behavior evidently persisted for 15 years.
I just read the case described in the link JXG posted. It does look alarming. Hard to say what really happened, but it looks she was 'set up' because of ideological and curriculum disagreements with her colleagues (she was a traditional Spanish teacher, they cutting edge, ideologically motivated reformers). Since traditionalists often are older in Faculty Departments, compulsory retirement is a dangerous weapon that can be wielded against 'politically incorrect' colleagues for ideological reasons. In Canada age is protected under the Human Rights Code. You cannot be fired for getting grey (or thinking otherwise than your colleagues think)
What am I missing? When politicians talk nonsense about raising the retirement age for Social Security they neglect that no company or business wants employees over 55 much less 65. And when they tell employees to leave and take a package at 62, they say if you don't we will eliminate your position and you will get zilch.
Winning an age discrimination case at trial is almost impossible, you lose at summary judgment. And when you talk about law firms wanting to keep partners over 65, you made me laugh with your lunacy. The young partners don't want them around unless they still can bill 2200 hours a year, and they still want them gone. and if they are not as productive or bring in the same amount of billings as they did at 50, they will get their pay cut so much that they will leave. Spoken as someone who has been a lawyer for 37 years.
Winning an age discrimination case at trial is almost impossible, you lose at summary judgment. And when you talk about law firms wanting to keep partners over 65, you made me laugh with your lunacy. The young partners don't want them around unless they still can bill 2200 hours a year, and they still want them gone. and if they are not as productive or bring in the same amount of billings as they did at 50, they will get their pay cut so much that they will leave. Spoken as someone who has been a lawyer for 37 years.
127
Had to love the ageism on the GOOD WIFE with Howard. The funny thing is, it is at times this blatant.
It should be, and I say this as a retired person myself. Some people can't because of worthless 401k accounts and lack of pensions, and this unfortunately is the trend of the future. Time to re-direct 401k accounts to their original purpose... to supplement defined benefit pensions and Social Security. Pensions should be considered as part and parcel of the cost of doing business.
80
Well, lamplighter, it should not be. At 65 many individuals are still at the peak of their performance and their services and experience are more valuable than young employees with no experience and lack of good judgment. Moreover, as long as an individual is alive and healthy they are entitled to live life to the fullest and for many that means contributing with their talents to society's progress. If some individuals feel that 65 is the end of their lives and just live in a state of vegetation, they should not impose this lack of a desire to live on others.
42
This is correct if the employee has actual decision-making authority. Then judgement, memory, networking and a lack of self-importance play a crucial role. If the employee has merely a rote task, age is not such an important foctor. Also hard physical labor will force a person to retire well before 65.
10
Closer to retirement than not, if I was a boss, I would not hire me for any fulltime job.
Most of us are at our peak between ages 30-50. Before that, we are too dumb and erratic. After, we are too tired and cynical.
There is a good reason that few people with a pension work after age 65 (or 55, if you are a teacher), as that means that you have been working for 40 years or more.
Most of us are at our peak between ages 30-50. Before that, we are too dumb and erratic. After, we are too tired and cynical.
There is a good reason that few people with a pension work after age 65 (or 55, if you are a teacher), as that means that you have been working for 40 years or more.
4