Mandatory Retirement for employees

Mandatory Retirement for employees:

The Issues Introduction Mandatory retirement is a controversial policy that has attracted critical issues among the unions, legislators, employers and employees who are approaching retirement age. Some concerns raised against the practice questions whether employees should retire at some particular age and what would be the appropriate age at which employees should retire. Furthermore, activists are worried of the effect of this practice on its stakeholders. States have faced serious problems when setting and implementing mandatory retirement age policy (Gunderson & Institut, 2004). A great controversy emerges with the effort of establishing whether the policy is beneficial or destructive. Whereas some scholars believe that mandatory retirement is essential, some activities have strongly criticized the policy. The idea of “normal retirement age” is contentious because legislative, economic, social and demographic forces alter the opportunities and perceptions of when an employee should retire (Warman & Worswick, 2010). This necessitates the significance of examining the issues associated with the mandatory retirement age. Legislative framework for mandatory retirement in Canada Regulations prohibiting age discrimination in the country were initially introduced in 1964. The province of British Columba integrated these regulations into the human rights provisions by 1970s. A strategic move adopted by the Canadian government includes the formulation of a comprehensive federal Charter of Rights and Freedom (CRF) in the year 1982 (Clark, Hammond & Wharton 2001). The country included this Charter in the Constitution Act providing it with extensive authority. The Charter includes various regulations that control factors such as employees’ compensation, safety and collective bargaining. Furthermore, the Act discourages discrimination against employees on the bases of their age, physical disability, race, religion and sex (Gillin, 2005). This means that in Canada, age discrimination is illegal at provincial and federal levels according to CRF guidelines. Manitoba and Quebec were the first provinces to ban mandatory retirement following the CRF’s provisions. Later, Quebec included the Charter in its labor standards provisions. Lately, most Canadian provinces excluding New Brunswick has banned regulations that grant employers authority of sacking workers who have attained an age of 65 (Willes & Willes, 2012). However, there are some limits to such guidelines because most provinces have schemes that allow imposition of compulsory retirements for jobs that demand physical strength such as military work and firefighting. In the last decades, most political leaders have emphasized the need of re-evaluating the mandatory retirement regulations (Schlachter, 2011). Scholars argue that if the retirement age had increased with the extended life expectancies, today’s equivalent age should be between 75 and 80 years (Warman & Worswick, 2010). However, Britain has maintained a mandatory retirement age of 60 or 65 in the public sector. The country has also set a mandatory retirement age of 75 among the judges with the exception of High Court Judges. Particularly, Canada presently has three jurisdictions that include the Newfoundland, British Columba and the Saskatchewan that have adopted an age cap of 65 (Willes & Willes, 2012). In this context, the country’s regulations provide an avenue through which employers can discriminate against workers who are under 19 or over 65 years. In the country, few regulations define an age at which workers should retire. Basic exceptions to these regulations exist for military personnel, airline pilots and judges. Employers apply a policy of compulsory retirement where they require workers to step down at a predetermined time. Countries do not present uniform pattern of mandatory retirement, but mainly most forced retirements occur at the age of 65 (Gillin, 2005). Major concerns associated with the mandatory age policy The subject of mandatory age requirement has attracted mixed reactions from various stakeholders. Some scholars regard compulsory retirement as a strategic approach of addressing the labor and societal problems in the contemporary society. However, few individuals are opposed to the regulation because they believe that the practice promotes discriminations within the labor force. Arguments in support of the policy Initially, Labor movements fear that the abolishment of mandatory retirement would create a situation where older workers are flooded in workforce while establishing a less generous social security. The group argues that this practice is essential because it provides the society with ideal approach of avoiding the effect of old workforce that is less productive. The age of 65 is considered to an average age at which most people starts experiencing physical and mental complications (Fredman et al, 2003). Consequently, mandatory retirement has the potential of protecting against the harmful effects that emanate from faults or misjudgment by elderly experts (Clark, Craig & Wilson, 2003). This is especially fundamental for the sensitive careers such as in the case of judges, private practitioners and surgeons. These professionals have a considerable effect over the lives of most individuals. For example, incompetence causes severe harm in situations of surgical procedures and judicial decisions (Templer & Armstrong-Stassen, 2008). Activists argue that mandatory retirement minimizes the scope of employer monitoring and evaluating older workers by setting a specified date of retirement. Furthermore, mandatory retirement plans provide the government and employers with a strategy of minimizing pension benefits that force employees to remain employed for long (Fornero, 2005). Furthermore, strong argument highlights that compulsory retirement creates jobs and promotions for the youthful workers that reduce the unemployment rates. Gomez & Gunderson (2011) asserts that considering the high unemployment rate in most states, mandatory retirement is of great importance because it could create opportunities for the youth who are in urgent need of the resources. Creating jobs for the youths is essential because individuals in the group are at the age of supporting themselves, establishing lifestyle and supporting their families (Monaghan, 2012). Furthermore, the practice is economically important because supporting unemployed youths is costly than paying the pensions. Gunderson & Institut (2004) argues that the youths should have opportunities of acquiring careers and establishing themselves because encouraging this at a later age is extremely hard. Providing youths with opportunities is a strategic approach of making long-term investment (Clark, Hammond & Wharton, 2001). Abolishment of mandatory age retirement policy would demoralize the youth because they can hardly obtain top positions in the presence of elderly professionals. When a person retires from the workforce, the management fills his or her position by promoting another relatively experienced employee (Schlachter, 2011). This procedure continues and eventually an entry-level position becomes available to a relatively young and unexperienced employee. Scholars observe that lack of mandatory retirement is likely to jeopardize the growth of the minorities (Monaghan, 2012). Consequently, strategists insist that establishing flexible professional hierarchies provide the youths with the opportunities of attaining high levels of their career. For example, in the judicial system and law the younger workers should wait for an elder reputable consultant to retire in order acquire a higher level of their career. Mandatory retirement creates a favorable environment for the exposure of the youthful talents. This practice allows the youths who have new and modern skills to infiltrate the professionals (Clark, Craig & Wilson, 2003). Mandatory age retirement also creates fair labor procedures that value the need of providing equal opportunities. Clark, Hammond & Wharton (2001) argue that under basic principle, it unfair to force some employees to retire at the age of the 65 while allowing others to continue working. Equality principles would expect that all compulsory retirement plans should force individuals to retire at the same age disregarding the nature of their careers. However, this is not the situation because the present plan allows some individuals to continue holding positions even after attaining the age of 65. According to Lund (2004), discrimination in the labor environment occurs when personal traits other than productivity determines an individual’s status in labor force. This means that in the labor market where salaries mainly reflect one’s productivity, the salary of the aging employee who presents a decline in productivity should fall accordingly. Surprisingly, this is not the situation because wages of most employees increases as they age. These ideologies present high levels of discriminations within the labor environment (Gomez & Gunderson, 2011). According to Clark, Craig & Wilson (2003), the society should not consider compulsory retirement as a reprimand of the elderly, but the move should be regarded as a well-earned rest and reward of the long period of work. Studies indicate that from the health perspective, retiring at the age of 65 is beneficial because at this level people are at risk of developing stress related complications. This means that a mandatory retirement policy would save the elderly from stressful work environment that may worsen their health condition (Beam & McFadden, 2001). Arguments against the policy Individuals have questioned the principles and assumptions of the mandatory retirement scheme. Initially, people objecting the policy clams that there is no medical confirmation that individual of age above 65 are infirm or incapable. Furthermore, there are effective safeguards to determine malpractice or incompetence in the professions like medicine and law where the law would be sensitive. Consequently, this group observes that labor policies should work on the matter of incompetence or one’s health at individual levels instead of punishing workers who are prepared to work beyond the age of 65 (Fornero,2005). Furthermore, scholars argue that the world’s population is presently ageing as persons are living longer due to improved living standards. This means that forcing people to retire is likely to increase the economic burden of pensioners on the governments. Furthermore, the ratio of dependent group to the working groups continues to increase (Lund, 2004). Consequently, the mandatory retirement policy appears as an unnecessary approach that antagonizes the problem. This means that the government should aggressively encourage those who are capable to continue working instead of discouraging them. Further arguments insist that it is not the duty of the government to decide what persons need to do. This means that if an individual is willing to work and has the capability of executing his or her duties the government has no right of deterring such a person from working (Hae-Chun, Joonmo & Kwangho, 2011). Some scholars feel that the assumption that the introduction of the younger employees to the labor forces improves the standards of the professions is misguided. The youths mainly present lower standards because they lack essential experience. The elderly group has accumulated skills obtained through their long period of service (Templer & Armstrong-Stassen, 2008). Consequently, these professionals are highly proficient at their work and utilize their experience in solving sophisticated work related challenges. Moreover, individuals present unique skills meaning that the idea of generalizing a group is misinformed. Often, the mandatory plan makes organizations force individuals who have exceptionally skills to retire on bases of their age. This is detrimental because the organization may fail to get others persons with the same skills to fill the positions (Beam & McFadden, 2001). Conclusion It is apparent that the policy of the mandatory retirement remains controversial. Adoption of the plan attracts serious legal concerns. The policy promotes discrimination and infringes into the right of the elderly by denying them the option of working at their will. However, abolishing the regulation is also detrimental considering the effect of old aged workforce and their potential in denying youths a favorable environment of developing their skills and growing their careers. This highlights the need of re-examining the policy in order to establish a strategic plan that aligns with the contemporary labor and social demands. References Beam, B. T., & McFadden, J. J. (2001). Employee benefits. Chicago, Ill: Real Estate Education Co. Clark, R. L., Craig, L. A., & Wilson, J. W. (2003). A history of public sector pensions in the United States. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Clark, R. L., Hammond, P. B., & Wharton School. (2001). To retire or not?: Retirement policy and practice in higher education. Philadelphia: Univ. of Pennsylvania Press. Fornero, E. (2005). Pension systems: Beyond mandatory retirement. Cheltenham [u.a.: Elgar. Fredman, S., Fredman, S., Spencer, S., & Spencer, S. (2003). Age as an equality issue: Legal and policy perspectives. Oxford [u.a.: Hart. Gillin, C. T. (2005). Time’s up!: Mandatory retirement in Canada. Toronto: Lorimer. Gomez, R., & Gunderson, M. (2011). For Whom the Retirement Bell Tolls: Accounting for Changes in the Expected Age of Retirement and the Incidence of Mandatory Retirement in Canada. Canadian Public Policy, 37(4), 513-539. Gunderson, M., & Institut C.D. Howe. (2004). Banning mandatory retirement: Throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Toronto: C.D. Howe Institute. Hae-Chun, R., Joonmo, C., & Kwangho, W. (2011). Value-added Effect of Labor Productivity in Extending the Mandatory Retirement Age: Evidence from Korea. Engineering Economics, 22(4), 402-411. Lund, J. V. (2004). Military pay, benefits and retirement. New York: Nova Science Publishers. Monaghan, C. (2012). Justifying Direct Age Discrimination: When will a Mandatory Retirement Age not Amount to Direct Age Discrimination? Seldon v Clarkson Wright & Jakes. Journal Of Business Law, (6), 479-485. Schlachter, M. (2011). Mandatory Retirement and Age Discrimination under EU Law. International Journal Of Comparative Labour Law & Industrial Relations, 27(3), 287-299. Templer, A. J., & Armstrong-Stassen, M. (2008). The HR Management Perspective on the Elimination of Mandatory Retirement in Ontario. Relations Industrielles / Industrial Relations, 63(4), 603-624. Warman, C., & Worswick, C. (2010). Mandatory Retirement Rules and the Retirement Decisions of University Professors in Canada. Labour Economics, 17(6), 1022-1029. doi:10.1016/j.labeco.2010.04.014 Willes, J. A., & Willes, J. H. (2012). Contemporary Canadian business law: Principles & cases. United States of America, USA: McGraw-Hill Ryerson.

Last Completed Projects

Are you looking for a similar paper or any other quality academic essay? Then look no further. Our research paper writing service is what you require. Our team of experienced writers is on standby to deliver to you an original paper as per your specified instructions with zero plagiarism guaranteed. This is the perfect way you can prepare your own unique academic paper and score the grades you deserve.

Use the order calculator below and get started! Contact our live support team for any assistance or inquiry.

[order_calculator]