Every Sunday in the Telegraph, Sir Terry Wogan offers his musings on some matter or other that's caught his attention during the week. This week he's given his tuppence worth on the Miriam O'Reilly age discrimination case. So far, so unremarkable (although his point of view is more interesting and relevant than most). But our Miriam, clearly scanning the Internet for every mention of her case, hasn't just read Terry's article - she's commented on it, too.
See what she had to say here...
Sunday 16 January 2011
Friday 14 January 2011
Blogosphere reacts to the scrapping of the default retirement age
Dr Ros Altmann, the Director General of Saga, has managed to get the same article in both the Guardian and the Telegraph today. She is, of course, delighted that the default retirement age is to go. But, as usual, the really interesting bit is the replies that her article is attracting.
The arguments broadly fall into two categories.
On the one hand, by forcing people to retire before at a particular age, you make them stop working, producing and earning. So they end up contributing less in output to the economy and pay less taxes into the pot, meaning the country is less wealthy and the government doesn't have as much money to spend. Which creates more jobs for young and old alike.
On the other hand, increasing the retirement age will not cause the economy to grow (at least in the short to medium term) and will instead increase the supply of workers, driving down wages. The young will have less opportunity to get on the career ladder. And if older workers are at the top of their career income they are more expensive to employ and, if generally less efficient, this may reduce efficiency, competitiveness and the total number of jobs available.
In reality, the precise ramifications of scrapping the default retirement age are just too complex and subtle for any commentator to predict. But from an employment law perspective, the most immediate issue is likely to be how employers will treat a workforce which, as a general rule, may become less productive as employees reach old age. If an employee becomes less able over time but insists on staying put, what then? Most employment lawyers would agree that 'capability' is by far the most difficult 'fair reason' to rely on in dismissing an employee, as it carries an obligation to allow an employee to come up to scratch via support, training, redeployment and so on - all of which can take months. This can be hurtful to an employee and easy for another solicitor to challenge (usually pointing to the employee's most recent appraisal which, more often than not, will be glowing because the employer didn't want to hurt anyone's feelings). So will scrapping the default retirement age promote good industrial relations or become a source of conflict? We suspect this is one where time (and a hefty raft of case law) will tell...
The arguments broadly fall into two categories.
On the one hand, by forcing people to retire before at a particular age, you make them stop working, producing and earning. So they end up contributing less in output to the economy and pay less taxes into the pot, meaning the country is less wealthy and the government doesn't have as much money to spend. Which creates more jobs for young and old alike.
On the other hand, increasing the retirement age will not cause the economy to grow (at least in the short to medium term) and will instead increase the supply of workers, driving down wages. The young will have less opportunity to get on the career ladder. And if older workers are at the top of their career income they are more expensive to employ and, if generally less efficient, this may reduce efficiency, competitiveness and the total number of jobs available.
In reality, the precise ramifications of scrapping the default retirement age are just too complex and subtle for any commentator to predict. But from an employment law perspective, the most immediate issue is likely to be how employers will treat a workforce which, as a general rule, may become less productive as employees reach old age. If an employee becomes less able over time but insists on staying put, what then? Most employment lawyers would agree that 'capability' is by far the most difficult 'fair reason' to rely on in dismissing an employee, as it carries an obligation to allow an employee to come up to scratch via support, training, redeployment and so on - all of which can take months. This can be hurtful to an employee and easy for another solicitor to challenge (usually pointing to the employee's most recent appraisal which, more often than not, will be glowing because the employer didn't want to hurt anyone's feelings). So will scrapping the default retirement age promote good industrial relations or become a source of conflict? We suspect this is one where time (and a hefty raft of case law) will tell...
Thursday 13 January 2011
Run on shares in carriage clock factories expected: default retirement age to be scrapped in October
The Government has today published its response to the consultation on phasing out the default retirement age. Fulfilling a pledge in the coalition agreement, from October employers will not be able to force staff to retire at 65.
The Government's intention is that the change will be phased in between April and October, giving firms time just 6 months to prepare and change their human resources policies.
You can view the Government's response to consultation here.
The Government's intention is that the change will be phased in between April and October, giving firms time just 6 months to prepare and change their human resources policies.
You can view the Government's response to consultation here.
Monday 10 January 2011
Coalition Floats its Employers' Charter
The newspapers today carry details of the Government's plans to relax key elements of employment legislation in a bid to encourage economic growth.
Although no timeframe has been given for their implementation, key proposals include:
Although no timeframe has been given for their implementation, key proposals include:
- Raising from one year to two years the qualifying period of employment before an employee can bring a claim of unfair dismissal. The present qualifying period of one year was introduced in June 1999. Prior to that date, an employee had to be employed for two years before being able to claim unfair dismissal.
- With a view to reducing the number of vexatious allegations, workers will face a fee when lodging an employment tribunal claim.
- Small companies may be excluded from some of the more onerous employment regulations (it remains to be seen what these are).
- The length of time that firms have to pay statutory sick pay to employees is set to be reduced.
Interesting stuff - and certain to encourage debate (see, for example, the reader comments on the The Daily Telegraph's website. At the time of posting, a comment thread hasn't appeared on The Guardian's website - we're betting it'll be feisty!).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
