Have your say: Retirement age

What affect will the new legislation have on older workers?

The government has announced that employers will be barred from forcing people into retirement before the age of 65 without good reason from 2006.

But when the new law begins, employers will be able to dismiss people once they reach 65 on that ground alone.

We asked if you agreed with the idea of a 'default' age for retiring, and if 65 was the right age to set it at.

Below is a selection of your comments:

---

I have recently become 60, so am in receipt of a state pension. If that was all I had to live on I would be very poor.

My pension income is going into a savings account to help increase my income when I do finally have to stop paid employment.
Jean Halifax

I am appalled at the government's decision to make 65 the mandatory retirement age.

I was assuming the age directive would allow me to carry on working until I was 70.

I want to work, am able to work, and do not seek to be a burden on the tax payer M J Ashmore

I am fit, alert, hold first and two master's degrees, and various professional awards.

I work as a trainer of teachers, a post that requires experience; and intellectual, not physical exertion.

At the age of 60 my hobbies are cycling and I am learning to fly.

I cannot believe that I should be put out to forced pasture in March 2009. I want to work, am able to work, and do not seek to be a burden on the tax payer.

If there is any suggestion or intention to challenge this decision in the European Court I would support it wholeheartedly.
M J Ashmore M.Sc, M.Ed, BA. PGCE, ILTM

The real question is whether someone over 50 can actually get a job, never mind being forced to retire at 65.

However, I do not think age in itself should be grounds for dismissal.

Maybe contracts from 65 should be renewed on an annual basis, depending on fitness.
Jacqueline

My company specialises in the employer/employee relationship and over 20,000 businesses nationwide have access to our assistance.

Many nurseries have a retirement ages of 55 or 60 as working with children is very taxing Anon

We advise many hundreds of children's nurseries and other businesses where removing the right of an employer to impose a retirement age of less than 65 will be a real problem.

Many nurseries have a retirement ages of 55 or 60 as working with children is very taxing.

Certain staff may want to continue working up to 65 but the quality of their care, lifting problems, speed of action in case of a fire, and general ability to handle the stresses imposed in dealing with young children makes it unadvisable.

To make it such that an employer would have to provide some proof that an employee could not do the job to the standard required will produce added stress.

This government does not seem to think through the effects of its policies. Could this new law effect the quality of childcare? The least I would ask is that there are certain exclusions from the 65 retirement age, fire brigade staff for instance.
Anon

Surely part of the answer is to de-couple pensionable age from retirement age.

By doing this there would be no further concern about the impact of employment beyond retirement age on a person's pension.

Thus people could perhaps afford to work in jobs which are not so well paid once they have "got their pension in".

In fact, people could possibly start a second pension if they are young enough.

This situation would also facilitate drastic changes of career for people in their 50s by allowing them to freeze any existing pension without worrying about the impact of a change of employment.
Mike Romans

I most certainly do not think that there should be an upper working age limit. I am 54 and I spent my younger working life disabled, housebound and in pain, and was an isolated single parent of two disabled children.

I have been existing on benefits for the past 12 years, and my financial position is barely viable. I am a multilingual graduate with a variety of skills. And in many ways I am fitter than I was 10-20 years ago!

Once my boys have flown the nest, I hope to take up some kind of career utilising my skills, qualifications, talents and experience Ms I E Derczynska

Once my boys have flown the nest, I hope to take up some kind of career utilising my skills, qualifications, talents and experience.

I feel very strongly that my skills are timeless, and that people in my position should certainly be allowed to contribute to the working world for as long as they are able, if that is what they want to do.

Otherwise what would be the point of an existence for people in my position, who for all intents and purposes, have their retirement first, and working life later, and would be condemned to permanent uselessness and poverty?
Ms I E Derczynska

The government's decision is very disappointing indeed.

I am a fit man in my early 60s and hoped to be able to stay in work as a matter of right until age 70.

Now, in a couple of years I can be lawfully dismissed. The so-called "right to ask" to be kept on is not much of a new right.

Anyone can ask at present, and be refused. The situation in future will be much the same.

The government has done a u-turn and obviously ageism is alive and well.
Alasdair Bothwell Gordon

The comments we publish are not necessarily the views of the BBC but will reflect the balance of views we have received. It is helpful if contributors state if they work for any organisation relevant to an issue discussed. Readers should form their own views on whether messages published represent undeclared interests, or views prompted by a common source.