Immediate 1.1 Alora Erfahrungen
Business & Finance19 mins ago
Do I Have To Retire
I'm 65 in Feb 2013, i work in an office, can my employers make me retire ?
Answers
1 to 12 of 12
A few further notes about this business about employers still retaining a route to compulsory retirement. The terminology being used in employment law parlance is EJRA - employer-
10:41 Mon 17th Dec 2012
No.
Since April 2011 it has been illegal, in most circumstances, to enforce retirement at any particular age. There are limited circumstances where your employers may be able to force you to retire at what they consider to be "retirement age" but they have to have good grounds, such as a health and/or safety issue. It is unlikely that these grounds would exist in the case of office work.
Since April 2011 it has been illegal, in most circumstances, to enforce retirement at any particular age. There are limited circumstances where your employers may be able to force you to retire at what they consider to be "retirement age" but they have to have good grounds, such as a health and/or safety issue. It is unlikely that these grounds would exist in the case of office work.
It is usual for NJ to be correct in this type of issue but unfortunately it may not be as straight forward as he would have you believe. You may find Seldon v Clarkson Wright & Jakes of interest, I suggest you speak to your employers and establish why they believe in the absence of a default retirement age that they believe 65 is the age you should retire.
There's no evidence in the question that koiman's employers want him gone Tony.
And the answer is no, they can't make you retire at 65 or at any age unless your profession is exempt. (police officer for example)
Just carry on and either draw your pension as well as earning or defer it. Info on that here
https:/
And the answer is no, they can't make you retire at 65 or at any age unless your profession is exempt. (police officer for example)
Just carry on and either draw your pension as well as earning or defer it. Info on that here
https:/
You should do nothing unless your employer mentions it. Then you should do exactly as Tony has suggested.
Tony's approach is worded to seek to force your employer into elaborating the reasons why it believes you should retire at 65 (or some other specific age). They will then probably rush to speak to their legal advice people and discover the confusion now created by the legal case Tony mentions.
For many employers, the aggro of a potential unfair dismissal case may persuade them to back off - or reconsider for a period, at least.
Tony's approach is worded to seek to force your employer into elaborating the reasons why it believes you should retire at 65 (or some other specific age). They will then probably rush to speak to their legal advice people and discover the confusion now created by the legal case Tony mentions.
For many employers, the aggro of a potential unfair dismissal case may persuade them to back off - or reconsider for a period, at least.
"I've deferred my State pension, koiman, it grows in value by 10.4% for every year that you can leave it. "
Do your sums before you think you've got a good deal, boxtops. If you defer your pension for five years (and allow it to grow by 10.4% pa) it takes ten more years before your cumulative pension receipts taking the enhanced but delayed pension overtake those you would have received if you took it straightaway. The growth deal sounds good, but bear in mind that the State pension is now bound to grow by a minimum of 2.5%. Of course whether it is good for you depends on your personal circumstances but a simple spreadsheet will demonstrate that all is not what it seems.
Do your sums before you think you've got a good deal, boxtops. If you defer your pension for five years (and allow it to grow by 10.4% pa) it takes ten more years before your cumulative pension receipts taking the enhanced but delayed pension overtake those you would have received if you took it straightaway. The growth deal sounds good, but bear in mind that the State pension is now bound to grow by a minimum of 2.5%. Of course whether it is good for you depends on your personal circumstances but a simple spreadsheet will demonstrate that all is not what it seems.
A few further notes about this business about employers still retaining a route to compulsory retirement.
The terminology being used in employment law parlance is EJRA - employer-justified retirement age. Search it if you need more case law.
Here's some wording from ACAS guidance to employers on the matter; this is going to run and run:
"Employers who wish to use an EJRA need to consider the matter carefully.
They will need to ensure that the retirement age meets a legitimate aim, for
instance workforce planning (the need for business to recruit, retain and
provide promotion opportunities and effectively manage succession) or the
health and safety of individual employees, their colleagues and the general
public.
As well as establishing a legitimate aim an employer will also need to demonstrate that the compulsory retirement age is a proportionate means of
achieving that aim. The test of objective justification is not an easy one to pass and it will be necessary to provide evidence if challenged; assertions alone will not be enough.
When looking to establish an EJRA it can be helpful to first set out the reason why you wish to do so clearly on paper. Then ask yourself whether you have good evidence to support this reason and then finally consider if there is an alternative, less or non-discriminatory way of achieving the same result. Throughout, you should always remember that you need to show ‘objective’ justification not ‘subjective’ justification.
Having established an EJRA, any retirement of an employee as a result will
be considered as a dismissal for some other substantial reason."
No doubt we will hear of dismissals under EJRA being tested at ET for unfair dismissal in the weeks to come.
The terminology being used in employment law parlance is EJRA - employer-justified retirement age. Search it if you need more case law.
Here's some wording from ACAS guidance to employers on the matter; this is going to run and run:
"Employers who wish to use an EJRA need to consider the matter carefully.
They will need to ensure that the retirement age meets a legitimate aim, for
instance workforce planning (the need for business to recruit, retain and
provide promotion opportunities and effectively manage succession) or the
health and safety of individual employees, their colleagues and the general
public.
As well as establishing a legitimate aim an employer will also need to demonstrate that the compulsory retirement age is a proportionate means of
achieving that aim. The test of objective justification is not an easy one to pass and it will be necessary to provide evidence if challenged; assertions alone will not be enough.
When looking to establish an EJRA it can be helpful to first set out the reason why you wish to do so clearly on paper. Then ask yourself whether you have good evidence to support this reason and then finally consider if there is an alternative, less or non-discriminatory way of achieving the same result. Throughout, you should always remember that you need to show ‘objective’ justification not ‘subjective’ justification.
Having established an EJRA, any retirement of an employee as a result will
be considered as a dismissal for some other substantial reason."
No doubt we will hear of dismissals under EJRA being tested at ET for unfair dismissal in the weeks to come.
1 to 12 of 12
