Recently we have been asked to consider a change to the retirement age.
Those who would like to work longer think this is a great idea; after all they are productive and would like contribute for longer.
Those who wouldn’t like to work longer think this is a bad idea; they don’t have the energy or the inclination and think they have contributed enough.
So our choices become do we or don’t we and we don’t get to explore other options for keeping people in the workforce longer.
Imagine a system where we valued the contribution of people older than 55, where people who were 60 were seen as an asset not a liability, where people who were 65 were measured by more than their production capacity, and where people who were 70 brought special insight to big problems.
If we really want to change the dynamic around how long people stay in the workforce we must first attribute a real value to the contribution that older people can make, not assign a new number to the retirement age which further devalues those older people.
dave isles
i think we need to enhance the practice of ‘transition to retirement’ Lisa.
it is in place, but only really effective for self-employed bods (like me). the rigidity of work and remuneration practices leads to the thought from management that their enterprise cant afford to keep senior people, give them annual pay rises, etc.. actually, getting paid a bit less ( or a lot less!) to work shorter hours is great value all ’round. there are many who ‘need’ a pension at 60, and many who never do.
getting the ‘parties’ to agree on flexibility rather than hard and fast rules and (as you say) numbers, would be a great step to making your last 2 paragraphs come true! cheers.. from a 62 year old!