News, British retirement age under attack. (2009, law, pay)

[John1960]

LONDON, Sept. 25 (UPI) -- Britain's mandatory retirement age of 65 remains under fire despite a judge's ruling Friday allowing it for now.

While High Court Justice Nicholas Blake rejected a challenge by charities for the elderly, he said he did so only because the government has said it will review the compulsory retirement issue, The Times of London reported.

British retirement age under attack - UPI.com

[Jaggy001]

Originally Posted by John1960

LONDON, Sept. 25 (UPI) -- Britain's mandatory retirement age of 65 remains under fire despite a judge's ruling Friday allowing it for now.

While High Court Justice Nicholas Blake rejected a challenge by charities for the elderly, he said he did so only because the government has said it will review the compulsory retirement issue, The Times of London reported.

British retirement age under attack - UPI.com

There is no "mandatory" retirement age. There is an age at which the government will pay you and old age pension and there is an age at which your employer or financial institution will pay you a pension.

If you can afford to, you can retire as early as you wish. If you can find the job you can keep on working.

[Hengist]

I am worried about my pension after Gordon Brown raided it a few years back when chancellor. Will probably have to stay working as long as possible instead of retiring a few years early. Some people I know deliberately pay nothing into pensions because the various state benefits available are better than anything they could save. You get no reward for trying to look after yourself.

[susan42]

Originally Posted by Jaggy001

There is no "mandatory" retirement age. There is an age at which the government will pay you and old age pension and there is an age at which your employer or financial institution will pay you a pension.

If you can afford to, you can retire as early as you wish. If you can find the job you can keep on working.

The law they are talking about is the one that says your employer can make you redundant at 65 and not have to pay you redundancy.
So it's not really retirement-it's being made redundant.

[Ketabcha]

Originally Posted by susan42

The law they are talking about is the one that says your employer can make you redundant at 65 and not have to pay you redundancy.
So it's not really retirement-it's being made redundant.

I don't quite understand the use of "redundant" in your post. What exactly does redundant mean as you are using it?


Ahaaa. I just found the answer. One of the definitions of redundant is a chiefly British term meaning "fired" or "laid off."

Neat, I had never heard it used that way. Thanks for using it. I learned something today.

[susan42]

Originally Posted by Ketabcha

I don't quite understand the use of "redundant" in your post. What exactly does redundant mean as you are using it?


Ahaaa. I just found the answer. One of the definitions of redundant is a chiefly British term meaning "fired" or "laid off."

Neat, I had never heard it used that way. Thanks for using it. I learned something today.

Yes! In this case it differs because usually if you a re made redundant then you get some redundancy pay. Might not be very much, but at least something.