Pros and Cons - Debbie Newman, Ben Woolgar 2014
Mandatory retirement age
Section E. Social, moral and religious
Currently it is illegal to enforce a mandatory retirement age in many countries including Canada, the UK and Australia, on grounds of age discrimination. But should public sector employers be given a mandatory retirement age, perhaps of 65 or 70? Should that be extended to private companies as well? The debate could be held for all public sector workers or it could either be narrowed to some professions such as the judiciary, or expanded to cover private companies. It could open up into the world of the self-employed, or the freelance artistic community, although such a requirement would be much harder to enforce.
Pros
[1] Although many judges, surgeons or entrepreneurs will be able to work effectively after the age of 65, many will become less and less competent, lucid and reliable as the effects of old age set in. The impairment of judgement or skill may be slow and gradual, or dramatic. But without a mandatory retirement age, there is no easy way to oblige someone whose facuIties are impaired to stop working — even when it might be endangering life or causing miscarriages of justice. A mandatory retirement age of 65 for all would guarantee that this does not happen, and would put an end to the making of crucial constitutional and judicial decisions by senile, out-of-touch judges and politicians.
[2] In the world of the arts, musicians, writers, actors and composers continue to work way past the normal retirement age. This prevents young talented performers and writers from breaking into the field. A mandatory retirement age would prevent those over 65 from taking paid jobs (book deals, film roles, positions in orchestras) and hence open up the field for young talent to come through. Mandatory retirement would thus encourage meritocracy in the arts as well as in business. Older artists could continue to do creative work on an unpaid basis, and should be encouraged to work for charities and teach younger artists, perhaps from underprivileged backgrounds, on a voluntary basis in their retirement.
[3] Mandatory retirement should not be seen negatively. Too many people these days are dominated by their careers and the world of work. As more and more people live beyond retirement age by two decades, this period of life should be free from the stress and strain of work. It provides a time for people to pursue creative and educational interests, and also to give something back to the community with charitable work. Those who are ’workaholics’ need a mandatory retirement age to give them the spur to develop other sides of themselves and broaden their lives.
[4] Looking at employment as a whole, we still suffer a problem of unacceptable youth unemployment levels. A mandatory retirement age will free up more working opportunities that can be offered to the young jobless — those who are more likely to be supporting families, buying houses and so on.
Cons
[1] This is a repressive and draconian measure and a complete over-reaction, especially in a world with an ever-increasing proportion of people over 65. There may be some who become incompetent as they get older, but they must be dealt with on an individual basis — using existing mechanisms to prevent them from practising medicine, law or commerce on the grounds of their incompetence. The huge majority whose faculties are not impaired should be allowed to continue working for as long as they are able to.
Mandatory retirement would unnecessarily and unjustly curtail many careers and pointlessly deprive the community of the wealth of experience and ability that older lawyers, doctors and businesspeople have accumulated. Most judges, for example, are over 60, because they require a huge amount of experience to be able to do the job.
[2] Many composers (e.g. Sir Michael Tippett who continued to work past his ninetieth birthday), actors (e.g. Sir John Gielgud who won an Oscar at the age of 77; Jessica Tandy who won an Oscar for her role in Driving Miss Daisy at the age of 82), poets (e.g. Sir John Betjeman who became Poet Laureate at the age of 66) and writers (e.g. the phenomenally successful popular novelist Catherine Cookson who only started writing in her forties and produced huge amounts of work from her sixties to her early nineties) produce their best work after the age of 65. Younger performers and writers will get their chance, and there is already much media exposure for ’prodigies’ and young stars, especially in the film and music industries. If anything, an effort needs to be made to give older artists more exposure in a world dominated by the young.
[3] People must not be treated like chil- dren. This legislation would be an extreme measure characteristic of an overbearing ’nanny state’. We must let individuals decide for themselves whether they wish to devote their entire life to their job or prefer to follow other pursuits. Some people may need to keep working for financial reasons, if for example, they have not paid off their mortgages or they are still supporting children.
[4] Such a law would be disastrous economically. The rapidly ageing population in Western countries — where people are living longer and longer — means that a greater proportion of the population are drawing pensions and a smaller proportion are working to provide the money. A mandatory retirement age would only make this worse. There is also evidence to suggest that people’s health and mental faculties can decline quickly after retirement, and so this measure could increase the number of years that pensioners require medical care.
Possible motions
This House calls for a mandatory retirement age.
This House would put youth before experience.
Related topics
Term limits for politicians
State pensions, ending provision of