Monday, October 09, 2006
09/10/2006 Sample opposes mandatory retirement at 65 for Council Officers
9th October 2006
Cllr Paul Sample has spoken out against mandatory retirement at 65 for Council Officers. He spoke out at a meeting of Salisbury District Council’s Resources Scrutiny Panel, at Bourne Hill, on Monday 9th October.
The Council’s Head of People and Organisational Development, Anne McConkey, had produced a paper on Age Discrimination at Salisbury District Council which warned the Council that new legislation makes it illegal to discriminate against employees in relation to their age.
The report continued: “It is anticipated that the new legislation will not include a mandatory retirement age. Employers will be able to adopt a mandatory retirement age, which if is less than 65, must be justifiable. It is unlikely that we could justify a retirement age of less than 65.
“If a mandatory retirement age is not adopted then employees will be able to work for as long as they wish or are fit enough to do so. If a mandatory retirement age is adopted this must be applied consistently. Employers will also have to give six months notice of retirement to individual employees and consult fully with those employees prior to the retirement taking effect.”
The report added: “The council will need to decide whether to introduce a mandatory retirement age. Some of the advantages of setting a mandatory retirement age are as follows:
· The council can undertake better succession planning if we know that someone is going to retire at 65.
· The employee can plan better if they know that they will not be employed after the age of 65.
· The knowledge that an employee is going to be retiring within a few years has sometimes been used to avoid addressing performance issues. If we do not have a mandatory retirement age then these employees may stay with the organisation indefinitely.”
But Councillor Sample told the meeting: “I do not think we should impose a mandatory retirement age. I know lots of older people, aged 65 and over, who are a real credit to our society. Older people who are bright, intelligent, energetic and who have a great deal to give. By not having a mandatory age limit we would be able to retain skilled and experienced workers – and it wouldn’t stop them leaving at 65, or even earlier, if they choose to.
“Many older people are working part-time or full-time because their skills and knowledge are invaluable – and because they are doing a great job. We would be shooting ourselves in the foot if we imposed mandatory retirement at 65 against the wishes of our employees. We should find out what they feel about it.”
Cllr Sample pointed out that District Councillors could serve on the Council into their 70s, 80s and 90s, if local residents voted them into office every four years.
“If Councillors can serve their community into their 70s and 80s, we should enable our employees to do the same. Just because a member of staff might be over 65 shouldn’t make any difference. The key issue is not age, but capability and performance. If an employee can do their job well into later life, they should not be forced to retire. Retirement should be a personal decision. We shouldn’t have one rule for Councillors and another rule for employees.”
The meeting agreed to two proposals from Councillor Sample:
To consult all employees, through their Trade Union, to find out what the views of the staff were on the issue, and;
To take into account the views of staff when making a final decision on whether or not to introduce mandatory retirement at 65.
Cllr Paul Sample has spoken out against mandatory retirement at 65 for Council Officers. He spoke out at a meeting of Salisbury District Council’s Resources Scrutiny Panel, at Bourne Hill, on Monday 9th October.
The Council’s Head of People and Organisational Development, Anne McConkey, had produced a paper on Age Discrimination at Salisbury District Council which warned the Council that new legislation makes it illegal to discriminate against employees in relation to their age.
The report continued: “It is anticipated that the new legislation will not include a mandatory retirement age. Employers will be able to adopt a mandatory retirement age, which if is less than 65, must be justifiable. It is unlikely that we could justify a retirement age of less than 65.
“If a mandatory retirement age is not adopted then employees will be able to work for as long as they wish or are fit enough to do so. If a mandatory retirement age is adopted this must be applied consistently. Employers will also have to give six months notice of retirement to individual employees and consult fully with those employees prior to the retirement taking effect.”
The report added: “The council will need to decide whether to introduce a mandatory retirement age. Some of the advantages of setting a mandatory retirement age are as follows:
· The council can undertake better succession planning if we know that someone is going to retire at 65.
· The employee can plan better if they know that they will not be employed after the age of 65.
· The knowledge that an employee is going to be retiring within a few years has sometimes been used to avoid addressing performance issues. If we do not have a mandatory retirement age then these employees may stay with the organisation indefinitely.”
But Councillor Sample told the meeting: “I do not think we should impose a mandatory retirement age. I know lots of older people, aged 65 and over, who are a real credit to our society. Older people who are bright, intelligent, energetic and who have a great deal to give. By not having a mandatory age limit we would be able to retain skilled and experienced workers – and it wouldn’t stop them leaving at 65, or even earlier, if they choose to.
“Many older people are working part-time or full-time because their skills and knowledge are invaluable – and because they are doing a great job. We would be shooting ourselves in the foot if we imposed mandatory retirement at 65 against the wishes of our employees. We should find out what they feel about it.”
Cllr Sample pointed out that District Councillors could serve on the Council into their 70s, 80s and 90s, if local residents voted them into office every four years.
“If Councillors can serve their community into their 70s and 80s, we should enable our employees to do the same. Just because a member of staff might be over 65 shouldn’t make any difference. The key issue is not age, but capability and performance. If an employee can do their job well into later life, they should not be forced to retire. Retirement should be a personal decision. We shouldn’t have one rule for Councillors and another rule for employees.”
The meeting agreed to two proposals from Councillor Sample:
To consult all employees, through their Trade Union, to find out what the views of the staff were on the issue, and;
To take into account the views of staff when making a final decision on whether or not to introduce mandatory retirement at 65.
