Ordered to retire... postal worker fears he may lose house

[andy2007]

One thing does have me concerned about this.

If Royal Mail have a policy for compulsory retirement at 65 - what about when the age for entitlement to State Pension increases to 66 etc.

Are they going to change the policy or just dump us on the state, albeit with a RM pension if entitled.

"The state retirement age, which is set to be 65 for men and women by 2020, will rise to 66 between 2024 and 2026, to 67 between 2034 and 2036 and to 68 between 2044 and 2046"

Legally an employer is not required to provide employment after an employees 65th birthday and looking at the scale above it is going to rise incrementally over the next 30 years or so anyway. We all know that 65 is the retiring age and arguably we have 49 years to plan for retirement. IMO it is unreasonable to expect all employers to maintain an ageing workforce, although some companies actively recruit pensioners it is not healthy to maintain an old workforce to the detriment of young people who have their lives ahead of them.

The answer must be to retire with dignity when due and if you wish to supplement your income find a part time job. Most OAPs struggle to pay their bills in this day and age because the state pension is inadequate and most people haven't made adequate provision for the future, understandably so, because no-one can predict how much things are going to be 40 years hence - although they do know it aint gonna be cheaper.

Do you realise that you just contradicted yourself?
"IMO it is unreasonable to expect all employers to maintain an ageing workforce, although some companies actively recruit pensioners it is not healthy to maintain an old workforce to the detriment of young people who have their lives ahead of them."

And

"The answer must be to retire with dignity when due and if you wish to supplement your income find a part time job."

Surely you realise, that these days, it's mainly Part Time Jobs that youngsters have much of a chance of geting, don't you?
By the time someone is nearing Retiremnent Age. They've usually worked their way up to a decent job. Not something that someone could just apply for, off the streets. For example: When did you last hear of someone getting a FT Duty in RM. Other than Managers, of course.

And why should older people not be allowed to have a good job?
Are they worth less than younger people?

While we're on the subject: Why do we pay NI?
That was intended to provide a livable Pension, and free Healthcare. If it's not enough, it should be increased. Although I suspect that it's being used for other things as well. Just as Road Tax, isn't used for maintaining the Roads anymore. Well, some is. But the majority, goes into the Government Coffers, for other things.

When is everyone going to wake up, and smell the coffee?!?!?!?

[Tman]

Surely you realise, that these days, it's mainly Part Time Jobs that youngsters have much of a chance of geting, don't you?
By the time someone is nearing Retiremnent Age. They've usually worked their way up to a decent job. Not something that someone could just apply for, off the streets. For example: When did you last hear of someone getting a FT Duty in RM. Other than Managers, of course.
And why should older people not be allowed to have a good job?
Are they worth less than younger people?

And you've just contradicted yourself too. Maybe young people would have more chance of a "proper" job if retirees didn't try and hang on past their due date? Hard luck for the postie in question, but he always knew he was going to have to retire at 65 (at most) so to try and blame RM is lame.

While we're on the subject: Why do we pay NI?
That was intended to provide a livable Pension, and free Healthcare. If it's not enough, it should be increased. Although I suspect that it's being used for other things as well. Just as Road Tax, isn't used for maintaining the Roads anymore. Well, some is. But the majority, goes into the Government Coffers, for other things.
When is everyone going to wake up, and smell the coffee?!?!?!? [

What coffee is there to smell? A colleague's relative had heart failure some years ago, and since then has had two "mechanical hearts" and a heart transplant. She has needed in-patient care for the last two years, with consequent round the clock care and drugs. Her doctor (an American, paid as an NHS consultant on a part-time basis) estimates the cost of her "treatment" so far to be well over £1,500,000, but she's never worked a day in her life. Whose NI contributions would cover that cost?
This maybe an extreme case, but treatment, including drugs, facilities and staff costs, is expensive for any medical condition. Far from NI contributions being used for "other things", "other things" are subsidising healthcare and rightly so.

[dvbuk55]

Andy states:


Do you realise that you just contradicted yourself?
"IMO it is unreasonable to expect all employers to maintain an ageing workforce, although some companies actively recruit pensioners it is not healthy to maintain an old workforce to the detriment of young people who have their lives ahead of them."

And

"The answer must be to retire with dignity when due and if you wish to supplement your income find a part time job."

Surely you realise, that these days, it's mainly Part Time Jobs that youngsters have much of a chance of geting, don't you?
By the time someone is nearing Retiremnent Age. They've usually worked their way up to a decent job. Not something that someone could just apply for, off the streets. For example: When did you last hear of someone getting a FT Duty in RM. Other than Managers, of course.

I fail to see how I contradicted myself and I would point out that Royal Mail is not the only employer in the world and NO I don't think that all employers are seeking part time youngsters. When do you think someone should retire? When should youngsters be given the opportunity to start climbing that ladder to an exalted position? Having said that what job is there in RM that you couldn't do straight from the dole queue with suitable training.

Now to the problem of the underfunded pension from the NI contributions. It has been made abundantly clear by the Government that there is a serious problem with the old age pension and that people should make additional provision - a bit late in the day of course but in time for the next generation. The NHS, ah, that perennial thorn in any Governments flesh - well perhaps we should, as many people do, take out insurance against illness and join BUPA or some other private health scheme. Perhaps we should restrict the amount of care to a fiscal sum. How about the rich paying more to care for the poor? How about means testing. How about restricting the age at which medical care is administered? What you cannot do is to keep pouring vast sums of money into a bottomless pit.

[baldrick]

30K for sorting in the dry and warm ????????????????????

17K for walking/cycling delivering 6 bags of mail for 5 hours in all weathers, how is this possible ?

He must be doing a hell of a lot of O/T.

He's almost certainly working nights with the night's
shift allowance - the airport hub staff are mainly on nights.
And he's probably working a fair amount of OT/SA.

[andy2007]

Andy states:


Do you realise that you just contradicted yourself?
"IMO it is unreasonable to expect all employers to maintain an ageing workforce, although some companies actively recruit pensioners it is not healthy to maintain an old workforce to the detriment of young people who have their lives ahead of them."

And

"The answer must be to retire with dignity when due and if you wish to supplement your income find a part time job."

Surely you realise, that these days, it's mainly Part Time Jobs that youngsters have much of a chance of geting, don't you?
By the time someone is nearing Retiremnent Age. They've usually worked their way up to a decent job. Not something that someone could just apply for, off the streets. For example: When did you last hear of someone getting a FT Duty in RM. Other than Managers, of course.

I fail to see how I contradicted myself and I would point out that Royal Mail is not the only employer in the world and NO I don't think that all employers are seeking part time youngsters. When do you think someone should retire? When should youngsters be given the opportunity to start climbing that ladder to an exalted position? Having said that what job is there in RM that you couldn't do straight from the dole queue with suitable training.

Now to the problem of the underfunded pension from the NI contributions. It has been made abundantly clear by the Government that there is a serious problem with the old age pension and that people should make additional provision - a bit late in the day of course but in time for the next generation. The NHS, ah, that perennial thorn in any Governments flesh - well perhaps we should, as many people do, take out insurance against illness and join BUPA or some other private health scheme. Perhaps we should restrict the amount of care to a fiscal sum. How about the rich paying more to care for the poor? How about means testing. How about restricting the age at which medical care is administered? What you cannot do is to keep pouring vast sums of money into a bottomless pit.

You said that people should Retire, and then get another job, if they need to. Either they should be allowed to work, or not. You can't have it both ways.

When do I think someone should Retire?
When they are ready to. Some people are burned out, in their 50's. Other's can still give younger Collegues a run for their money, in their 70's. Not everyone ages in the same way. We're individuals, not Robots. If you still feel that you have something to contribute, and want to continue to earn your living. Then you should be allowed to. Particularly as the Pensionable Age is soon going to start increasing.

Oh, and in case you're wondering. I actually know someone in their 70's, who does Agency Work. Including RM at times. And when we were on our Targets, and Flirts. He put some people to shame. So I do know what I'm talking about.

As for the NI problem. Well, the obvious answer is: Increase it, to a level that would fund the NHS, and a livable Pension for all. Simples!
If Tman is right about the NI contributions being supplimented by other Taxes. It would mean that they would be reduced, while the NI was increased.

[dvbuk55]

Andy states:


Do you realise that you just contradicted yourself?
"IMO it is unreasonable to expect all employers to maintain an ageing workforce, although some companies actively recruit pensioners it is not healthy to maintain an old workforce to the detriment of young people who have their lives ahead of them."

And

"The answer must be to retire with dignity when due and if you wish to supplement your income find a part time job."

Surely you realise, that these days, it's mainly Part Time Jobs that youngsters have much of a chance of geting, don't you?
By the time someone is nearing Retiremnent Age. They've usually worked their way up to a decent job. Not something that someone could just apply for, off the streets. For example: When did you last hear of someone getting a FT Duty in RM. Other than Managers, of course.

I fail to see how I contradicted myself and I would point out that Royal Mail is not the only employer in the world and NO I don't think that all employers are seeking part time youngsters. When do you think someone should retire? When should youngsters be given the opportunity to start climbing that ladder to an exalted position? Having said that what job is there in RM that you couldn't do straight from the dole queue with suitable training.

Now to the problem of the underfunded pension from the NI contributions. It has been made abundantly clear by the Government that there is a serious problem with the old age pension and that people should make additional provision - a bit late in the day of course but in time for the next generation. The NHS, ah, that perennial thorn in any Governments flesh - well perhaps we should, as many people do, take out insurance against illness and join BUPA or some other private health scheme. Perhaps we should restrict the amount of care to a fiscal sum. How about the rich paying more to care for the poor? How about means testing. How about restricting the age at which medical care is administered? What you cannot do is to keep pouring vast sums of money into a bottomless pit.

You said that people should Retire, and then get another job, if they need to. Either they should be allowed to work, or not. You can't have it both ways.

When do I think someone should Retire?
When they are ready to. Some people are burned out, in their 50's. Other's can still give younger Collegues a run for their money, in their 70's. Not everyone ages in the same way. We're individuals, not Robots. If you still feel that you have something to contribute, and want to continue to earn your living. Then you should be allowed to. Particularly as the Pensionable Age is soon going to start increasing.

Oh, and in case you're wondering. I actually know someone in their 70's, who does Agency Work. Including RM at times. And when we were on our Targets, and Flirts. He put some people to shame. So I do know what I'm talking about.

As for the NI problem. Well, the obvious answer is: Increase it, to a level that would fund the NHS, and a livable Pension for all. Simples!
If Tman is right about the NI contributions being supplimented by other Taxes. It would mean that they would be reduced, while the NI was increased.

You will notice I said a "part time" job after the main employment has inevitably run it's course - such as a trolley dolly or cardboard packer or agency work - the 70 year old isn't employed by RM and would be out when the workload isn't there. There is nothing wrong with transient ageing workers who choose to work after retiring - but there is something wrong with people who expect to go on forever because it suits them - that sets a precedent for all OAPs to go on working forever and a day at their whim. There is a move afoot to make employers keep people on beyond their 65th birthday by legislation next year and that I feel would be a grave error - no pun intended.

As for the NHS and NI contributions you just cannot continue feeding cash ad infinitum to a wasteful system. Pensions and healthcare need to be better controlled not fed cash to distraction.

[andy2007]

I'm not suggesting that we should just throw money at the system. But neither should we allow standards to drop to the point, where were FORCED to pay for Private Treatment. And people are unable to survive on their State Pension.

As for it being a grave error to force Employers to ALLOW Staff to continue working beyond 65. Why is that?
Do people suddenly become incapable of doing their jobs at 65?
Or is it more realistic, to say that they loose the ability to do their job properly. At some point within a decade or so, either side of 65?

Obviously, someone who's done Manual Labour from leaving School, is highly unlikley to be in any fit state to continue past 65. But what about people, who've lost other jobs, and choose to join us in their 40's or 50's?
And what about people who want to carry on working, after working somewhere like RM. Who go for a Desk Job elsewhere?
Should they be denied that chance?

Someone's ability, and right to a job, shouldn't be based on their age. It should be based on their ABILITY, and whether they feel they want to.

[Night Tonic]

No one has a 'right' to a job. Thats hogwash.

[dvbuk55]

I'm not suggesting that we should just throw money at the system. But neither should we allow standards to drop to the point, where were FORCED to pay for Private Treatment. And people are unable to survive on their State Pension.

As for it being a grave error to force Employers to ALLOW Staff to continue working beyond 65. Why is that?
Do people suddenly become incapable of doing their jobs at 65?
Or is it more realistic, to say that they loose the ability to do their job properly. At some point within a decade or so, either side of 65?

Obviously, someone who's done Manual Labour from leaving School, is highly unlikley to be in any fit state to continue past 65. But what about people, who've lost other jobs, and choose to join us in their 40's or 50's?
And what about people who want to carry on working, after working somewhere like RM. Who go for a Desk Job elsewhere?
Should they be denied that chance?

Someone's ability, and right to a job, shouldn't be based on their age. It should be based on their ABILITY, and whether they feel they want to.

"As for the NI problem. Well, the obvious answer is: Increase it, to a level that would fund the NHS, and a livable Pension for all. Simples!
If Tman is right about the NI contributions being supplimented by other Taxes. It would mean that they would be reduced, while the NI was increased."

Sorry I thought that throwing money at the system was precisely what you were suggesting because it was "Simples".

You seem to misconstrue what I am saying so I'll make it clearer - I am not against people working beyond 65, what I am saying is that they have no right to expect an employer like RM, BT, TNT, BAE or anyone else to provide that employment because it suits them to continue working beyond normal retirement age - whatever that age is or becomes. That has nothing to do with a persons ability to do a job, merely that a line is drawn at a certain point and everyone,
with some exceptions of course, abides by that. If you wish to continue working then you make your own personal arrangements not expect your employer to abide by your wishes .

[Night Tonic]

spot on

[baldrick]

I think this debate, while interesting, is pointless.
The next Government, whether (New caring) Conservative, or New (Conservative) Labour
is going to raise the retirement age, probably to 70.

[andy2007]

No one has a 'right' to a job. Thats hogwash.

While I agree that no-one has a right to do a job, if they're no longer able to perform their Duties properly. And neither does anyone have a right to demand whatever job they want (unless they're the best candidate). EVERYONE SHOULD BE ENTITLED TO THE OPPORTUNITY TO EARN A LIVING. RATHER THAN JUST SIT AROUND WATCHING DAYTIME TV!

[andy2007]

I think this debate, while interesting, is pointless.
The next Government, whether (New caring) Conservative, or New (Conservative) Labour
is going to raise the retirement age, probably to 70.

Well, that solves that problem!

[Night Tonic]

No one has a 'right' to a job. Thats hogwash.

While I agree that no-one has a right to do a job, if they're no longer able to perform their Duties properly. And neither does anyone have a right to demand whatever job they want (unless they're the best candidate). EVERYONE SHOULD BE ENTITLED TO THE OPPORTUNITY TO EARN A LIVING. RATHER THAN JUST SIT AROUND WATCHING DAYTIME TV!

Thats having a right to work, but a right to a job, no.

[andy2007]

Yes, I must admit. I worded my post very badly. I was referring to people's right to work. Sorry.