BBC BLOGS - Have Your Say
« Previous | Main | Next »

Should older workers be forced to retire?

10:41 UK time, Thursday, 4 November 2010

Chief constables from two police forces have been given approval to order their officers to retire as part of cost-cutting measures. Should people be forced to retire even if they don't want to?

Police need to cut wage bills to find savings demanded by the government. Fully-sworn officers cannot be made redundant because they are Crown servants and not employees.

Under the regulations, officers can be "required to retire" if their retention would "not be in the general interests of efficiency". But it has been little used in the past and is likely to be strongly resisted by organisations representing police officers.

How would you feel if your boss ordered you to retire? Are you a serving police officer approaching retirement? Is asking older staff to retire an effective way to make cost savings? Are there any advantages to forced retirement?

This debate has now been closed. Thank you for your comments.


Page 1 of 3

  • Comment number 1.

    So we're expecting people to retire later by increasing the state pension age AND forcing people to retire when they don't want too?

    Can anybody see the logic in that?

  • Comment number 2.

    I was a a Met police officer and resigned after 20 years to undertake other activities.

    I would now have completed 30 Years+ service and despite having a degree,in law, a Masters in Criminology and an exemplary record as an operational police officer presumably I could now be booted out as too old!
    The condemned government has just upped my state retirement age to 66.

    The two don't seem exactly consistent.

    It gives the lie to the charade that the condemned cuts will not impact upon front line services.

  • Comment number 3.

    No. People should retire when they please.

    Look at Alex Ferguson. The man's in his 70's and he still enjoys his job. He's in good health, and despite the rumours in the past decade he's still working and is happy.

    To force people to retire is wrong. Plus, considering how the Tories are messing up this country, we'll all have to work abit more now to make ends meet. The happy retirement will now be a shorter one.

  • Comment number 4.

    Am I not right in thinking that Police get to retire around 45/50, and not 60+?

  • Comment number 5.

    I don't think anyone should be forced to retire, unless they can't do the job. There could be officers as young as 50 with a wealth of experience lost to the forces. We need Police Officers, so I'm guessing they'll be replaced with young, new officers. Less experience and cheaper. How is that more efficent in the long term and do the public deserve less of a Police Force?

  • Comment number 6.

    As long as younger officers are forced to resign if their retention would "not be in the general interests of efficiency".

  • Comment number 7.

    You cannot have laws that do not allow you to reduce your expenditure by cutting the numbers you employ. It would be better in the case of the police if their pension entitlement was reduced for existing officers as a way of reducing costs but if they are unwilling to accept that then their numbers will be cut instead.

  • Comment number 8.

    The Police will be better off retiring than getting redundancy, because they will get a pension for the rest of their life. This is being dressed up as being negative for police , when in fact it appears that the police are being better treated than other workers.

  • Comment number 9.

    Can't see this thread getting quite as heated as some other recent ones. Is it really such a sensational story to discover that there is a technical mechanism allowing police officers to be made, for all practical purposes, redundant through early retirement?

    Obviously not pleasant if it happens to you, and I am not saying "Good - lets start firing": I am just surprised that it has been seized upon as much of a story. "Leave at 55, iot gets you off the wage bill, and we'll cut you a deal on your pension": in every industry and almost every branch of the public sector, this has always been the way hasn't it?

  • Comment number 10.

    Sounds like it's going to be tough on B & Q ?

  • Comment number 11.

    I assume the 30 years service gives them maximum pension benefits?

    If so, while I can understand that it might be frustrating for the individuals concerned and that the respective communitees might 'lose' extremely competent experienced officers, if the cuts need to be made would we prefer to see a younger PC (perhaps with a dependant family) who could be just as competant made redundant??

    So if they are getting a full pension, I think they should reflect that life is a bit tough, but it could be a lot worse.

  • Comment number 12.

    Clearly all workplaces should be balanced in age discrimination culture.The demands of the workplace constantly point towards an information age where experience and knowledge over a period of time cannot be replaced by graduate entry.

    There is an increasing pressure to decant experience and information to younger workers to create strategic advantage for companies in a global environment.The government needs to consider two issues.Firstly a decent state pension for all at 65 increasing as you get older.While government pensions only kick in at 65 with tax advantages who volunteer for charities in later life.

    Two: Consider legislation and tax breaks supporting semi retirement after the age of 65 to encourage part time working until 70 years old.

  • Comment number 13.

    I think the EU would look on this as age discrimination.But then again the lunatics have escaped the asylum and are now resident in Downing Street.

  • Comment number 14.

    Hello world. Are there any countries out there who want to import some Brits who are prepared to work hard but would not wish to take over your country. It seems our own country, taken over by foreigners and ruled from Brussels doesn't want us.

  • Comment number 15.

    If a person is incapable of doing a job they should be removed on capability grounds.
    However that does not necessarily have anything to do with age and they should be dismissed, with justification on those grounds e.g. unable to meet specific phyisical requirements for their specific post.
    At least there is a certain honesty here in that the only case for forcing them to retire is cost. It has nothing to do with efficiency. There does seem to be some inconsistencies though. I thought we just had a law against discrimination on the grounds of age? This also seems to suggest that older staff are less efficient than younger staff as though experience doesn't count. I also thought the governement was supposed to be encouraging workers to work longer (hence increasing the retirement age to 66 and beyond) so that they coulkd save on pensions. I wonder if someone will take these employers to court for discrimination and how much that will cost.
    Efficiencies need to be made, money needs to saved but to me this is just another example of the ill considered haste with which attempts to make savings are being implemented.

  • Comment number 16.

    Many people will need to work longer than retirement age just to get enough money to live, should the police be a special case for being forced to retire, I dont think that would be quite fair would it?

  • Comment number 17.

    Depends if they can still do the job, or are "past it".

    An average 70 year old would probably not be as good at chasing a criminal as an average 30 year old. Keeping the best members of the workforce is a natural selection idea.

    Forcing someone to retire purely because of their age is a bit illogical if they are still really good at their job!

    **note: one thing which really gets my goat- jobs are made redundant, not people!**

  • Comment number 18.

    Yet another cost-saving country-damaging measure.

  • Comment number 19.

    The sooner the Government gets its act together the better - they can't have it both ways. Well, not so that it works for the real people of this country. "Call-me-Dave" seems to have an inordiately short attention span.

  • Comment number 20.

    Whether you call it forced retirement or simply redundancy the effect on the employee is much the same and there must be adequate safeguards for the person's pension entitlement. There must also be independent arbitration via the Industrial Tribunal services to establish that this forced retirement is unavoidable and justified.

  • Comment number 21.

    Surely this is age discrimination? Aren't there laws against this?

    I would have thought compentency would have been the benchmark not age?

    Saying that, don't most public sector people retire at 40 with lovely big pensions....

  • Comment number 22.

    Should older workers be forced to retire? No, It's called discrimination.

  • Comment number 23.

    "Should older workers be forced to retire?

    Forced? No! If you're not on a fixed term contract, the only way your employer (Crown, government or private) should be able to get rid of you against your will is by using the normal disciplinary/incompetence procedures.

    Having said that, I keep telling my line manager that if they'd like to pay me 2 years salary freee of tax & NI, I'll drop off their radar as soon as the cheque clears the bank. He thinks I'm jesting!

  • Comment number 24.

    Seems like the cuts are being made as usual at the wrong end of the scale. The number of chief constables , assistants , and non policing officers should be drastically reduced, this would prevent the need to get rid of officers who actually work on the street. Sadly however the turkeys do not vote for Xmas , and in this case the turkeys are making the decisions.

  • Comment number 25.

    This is another one for rule as opposed to judgment based regulation, under which rules the country is slowly sinking.
    Should an 80 year old be allowed to be a policeman? Perhaps if they can pass some sort of proficiency and physical aptitude test. But what is the cost of administering such a system?
    As a society we spend billions on 'equality' for very little overall return to society. One man (sorry, person)'s freedom not to retire is anothe person's invitiation to the dole queue. Surely the Lib Dems should support enforced retirement. After all it is both redstributive and progressive !!!!!
    In the case of the police I do not see why they should not be forced to retire. They have extremely generous pension arrangements and certain other employment protection not available to the majority. It's a quid pro quo.
    More generally it seems to me that the generation now on the cusp of retirement have done very well out of the state. Generous pension schemes, free this, free that, massive state spending leading to huge debts, lower cost housing, free Universities !! Some help for younger generations is overdue and if that means the older generation losing out then so be it.

  • Comment number 26.

    I concur with comment five. One thing you cannot replace easily is experience

  • Comment number 27.

    To force good officers to leave at 30 years is a hugle damaging and ill thought out step within the Police Service.

    Many will be just 48 or 49 years old and will be the most highly trained specialists within their force. They are likely to be dedicated and energetic (because otherwise why would the stay on when they could pick up a two thirds of final salary pension by retiring?)

    The taxpayer has paid a fortune to train these officers and they would get the best value for money as they effectively only cost a third of the salary of a younger officer

    Imagine if the NHS, as part of cost cutting, said to all doctors and consultants with 30 years service that they were being forced out. Hundreds of heart surgeons and cancer specialists would be lost to the health system. That is exactly what is happening in the Police.

  • Comment number 28.

    I think the retirement age should be reduced to 60. Both private & public sector employers should be compelled to implement succession planning and make provision for this by employing young people and training them to fulfill the job roles that will become available as employees retire. Once a person has been working for 35-40 years, I feel they have made more than a sufficient contribution to society and so entitled to retire and enjoy their later years. This would support the ConDem's crusade to get young people off unemployment benefit and into work. As it would be expecetd for this proposal to realise a significant decrease in those claiming unemployment benefit the money saved can be paid in pensions to provide those who have retired with a decent pension. It also means that the young people taking the vacated job roles receive good training and a decent, worthwhile job.

  • Comment number 29.

    "Is asking older staff to retire an effective way to make cost savings?"

    So where does the age discrimination act fit in with this statement?
    With this new act, a business owner or manager cannot recruit an "Older" or "More experienced" individual, so why should an organisation be able to relinquish itelf of staff because of their age?

    Police work is extremely demanding and the skills learned only come with time and experience so why would they want to let go of such valuable staff? These are fairly senior officers whom, presumably, have had the greatest amount of investment in their training and development.

  • Comment number 30.

    ahem...isnt that ageist ?

  • Comment number 31.

    If you are able to do the job and if it has a fitness test you can still pass it then their should be no problem working on, something like the police should have a fitness test perhaps like the army BFT.

  • Comment number 32.

    So some poor police officer is to be forced out of his job because the bankers and the previous government screwed us all over....

    Is there to be no end to the horrors inflicted on us by the criminal fraternity that was the Labour government and their Fagan like PM Brown the Destroyer... The gurning baffoon!

    What I wouldn't give for a cheering public, the previous government and gibbert...

  • Comment number 33.

    Have all the facts been reported properly ?

    If the question is "should Police forces continue to employ staff on "rank based" saleries if they no longer fulfilling the function" the answer is that they should be asked to retire.

    If the question is "should Police continue to employ staff on saleries suitable for the function they are now fulfilling when they are no longer in the ranks" the answer is no they should not be asked to retire.

    I was told, many years ago, by a very senior Council member, that Police salaries and pensions are the main reason for Council Tax rises - I can't comment on this being accurate or not BUT I would say that in these "difficult" times, we, the tax payer, deserve to know where our taxes go and what its spent on!

  • Comment number 34.

    I wish they would make up their minds, only a few weeks ago we were told that they wanted us to work ever longer in to old age and now they are asking people to leave work early ... although to live on what is not explained.

    Mind you with what Mr Brown did to the private pensions, I am resigned to working until my health gives way, then going in to a 'alms house' ... the new 'Victorian Age' beckons for a lot us not on Public Sector Pensions.

  • Comment number 35.

    They're not being asked to retire. They're being asked to leave the Police with a good pension, and are free to pursue another job or career.

    Which is exactly what I did (albeit not from the Police) earlier this year.

  • Comment number 36.

    Retire police early?? How does that save money when nearly 50% of the police budget goes on paying large index linked pensions. Most of our boys in blue finish before retirement age anyway on bad health reasons like sittig in a 40k+ car then saying its given them a bad back. Hard to prove!!!. People should work as long as they feel fit and are able to fulfil the role requested. Do we really think that if all the oldies retired when they should our young population would be eager to fill their shoes?? Most would would but the bone idle element who have known nothing more that the benfit system would never get off their backsides and do an honest days work so we would have let in more migrants to help us whilst our own self bred population continued to scrounge and bleed the system. Continuous loop with no exit!!!

  • Comment number 37.

    If they are excess to requirements or affordability, why aren't they just being made redundant? That's what happens in the private sector.

    Or - is it that they can be selected to leave based on age (which IS discriminatory) or that public sector redundancy is too expensive?

  • Comment number 38.

    The more we talk of retirement and pensions the less I like them. Maybe I will reach retirement age but I hope I die before my body packs in. I dont want to be a burden on my family (regardless of how they feel about such an idea) and draining their time and money.

    I certainly dont want to be shipped off to some care home which look fantastic but it isnt the way I want to go. I dont want to save all my life only to spend it all on dying slowly and unable to do much with it.

    The most scary thought I have is losing my mind. I dont want my mind to pack in on me (although its an interesting mind at my young age) and would prefer to take my own life while I have control of myself.

    Personally I intend on working until I have to stop because without work there is little drive. As we get older we are obviously reducing our options for work but I want to continue until I am physically out.

    I enjoy my life while I have it because I could be hit by a bus tomorrow, but I hope it hits me before I become useless. So at this moment in time I dont care what is happening to retirement age because I dont know what state I will be in if I ever reach it.

  • Comment number 39.

    #3) "At 11:31am on 04 Nov 2010, Planet Mars wrote: .....To force people to retire is wrong. Plus, considering how the Tories are messing up this country, we'll all have to work a bit more now to make ends meet. The happy retirement will now be a shorter one."

    Are you suffering from a Bobby Ewing moment .... 'messing up this country' was done by Labours 13 years of reckless overspending on the public sector, racking up debts on the 'never never' aka 'PFI debts' (which incidentally have still have not been fully accounted for), raiding billions from private company pension funds, entering not one but two wars, open door immigration policies .... the list goes on and on.

    That's how you 'mess up this country' mate.

  • Comment number 40.

    Old news BBC.

    This practice has been going on for at least a decade as public services attempted to trim their budgets. It is perhaps one of the hidden "advantages" of a lower retirement age, when a previously excellent worker slows up a little and brings to light management deficiencies. It has been called "pressure and relief" in management speke.

    It has also been used as a cop out in difficult sickness or disability cases.

    The Government will try to cover up the mess it is and will be creating through budget cuts any which way it can. Now perhaps you'll understand what trade unions mean by dirty tricks; or is the BBC already an offender?

  • Comment number 41.

    Only if you are prepared to pay them a pension that they can actually live on!

    I was made redundant a couple of months after my 50th birthday. According to my college's own procedural code, I should have been offered early retirement but was not. A year later I am still looking for work. I'd have been happy to retire if I could live on a pension, equally there's some more work in me yet if someone would care to hire me. At the moment I have neither work or pension and am having to ask for benefits :(

  • Comment number 42.

    This is a false economy! The police authorities should not be credited with the full value of the wage bill reduction. Their budgets should be cut by the extra cost to the public purse of paying early pensions.

  • Comment number 43.

    I am my boss, I'll tell myself when to retire when I think it's appropriate!

    Seriously, being offered a good deal on their pension, they should take it and then look for work in the Security Industry. There's plenty of room for them - and lots of opportunity. Some are even re-employed - I know one who processes pub licencing issues and others who take "civilian" posts with their own forces.

    On the wider issue of when people should retire, I think it's entirely up to them, nobody should be forced out whilst they are competant and able. Thats why I set up my own company many years ago, I can now control my own retirement free from any government intervention.

  • Comment number 44.

    The police should be made to retire at 66 - just like other workers.

    They are not a special case.

  • Comment number 45.

    Once again we see the rank and file getting it in the neck rather than the overpaid bloated wasters at the top. At least now it looks as if a career in crime will be an attractive option.

  • Comment number 46.

    "Should older workers be forced to retire"? This is a disengenuous and misleading question as the news report relates to police officers.

    Sworn police officers are 'crown' employees Their service conditions are 'outside' normal employment law which is why suspended 'sworn' officers remain on full pay.

  • Comment number 47.

    Personally, I don't see why a 'older' person is in some way less entitled to keep their job than a 'younger' person. If police numbers have to be reduced, why not do it on the basis of individual performance rather than a blanket favouring of one section of the workforce over another?

  • Comment number 48.

    Should older workers be forced to retire? This is in breach of the age discrimination act as well as being contrary to the government’s policy of encouraging people to carry on working until they are older.

    That the government itself is coming up with policies that discriminate against its older employees shows it's anti-ageist laws and policies are just window dressing.

  • Comment number 49.

    Just had a though- why are we bothering with this- all police are shot the day before they retire anyway (usually while protecting their pardner from a shoot out!)

    **note: the above comment was intended as a joke**

  • Comment number 50.

    Never at such at time do we need Police Officers as we do today, with early retirement being a bad idea. It`s experience we need on the streets, older guys that have the brains and tact to sort things out before they begin, showing and mentoring the younger rookie in these skills, and they do sort out things so many times I`ve seen it, with the small timer saying to a cop and meaning it, "thanks mate, it was stupid of me" saving public money, unnecessary procedure and loathing. It`t red tape, vast amounts of it that needs cutting, get the cop out of the blizzards of paper he/she deals with and onto the streets again. Lets see some good old fashioned sensible policing.

  • Comment number 51.

    I cannot understand the logic of retiring police officers on a pension paid out of the police authorities resources and then taking on yet more police through new recruitment and adding more salaries making any kind of sense. When everyone else is having to delay their retirement through legislation or lack of pension funds, why should the police be looking at 30 years service or less to retire. I have a police friend who retired after 30 years service at the age of 55 on a generous index linked pension very lucky for him. But for the rest of us we are having to pay for it. Surely by increasing the number of years service by even 5 years a police officer could look to retire at a more reasonable age. By doing this and stopping recruitment you could reduce costs and start to bring reality to a pension scheme that is well out of control. The same could be said for the armed services who are thrown out too early to retire, but who find it hard to find work on civvy street. We need to think outside the box on all the spending issues, certainly we cannot afford to retire people at aged 55 or earlier.

  • Comment number 52.

    No-one should be forced to retire. I can't get my pension until I'm 66. What are you supposed to do? Claim dole money until you are entitiled to your pension. What makes much more sense, is that if you have paid enough contributions to entitle you to collect a full state pension, you should be given the option. This would mean no increase in people claiming unemployment, and would free up jobs for younger people, while at the same time allowing older workers to live with a bit of dignity, rather than making them feel like scroungers. No offence, but even with ageism now against the law, it's much harder for the over 50s to find employment.

    On the subject of ageism, how can this government be allowed to discriminate against under 35s with regard to their new housing benefit policy?

  • Comment number 53.

    It strikes me that its well over due time for Police "terms and conditions" were updated to reflect the 21st Century.

    How about starting with having to work longer before their pension kicks in.
    Allowing redundancies to happen.

    I realise it won't help us immediately but doing nothing is not an option either!

  • Comment number 54.

    Retirement is a hot topic in several media. The growing amount of people who are entitled to retire weighs on the working class. With the burden of the increasing retirment costs, and the pleas for a higher retirement age, it seems unlogical to force people to retire.

    However, this situation is rather irrelevant for police officers. Since they are Crown servants, their remunerations is paid by public funds. Consequentually, the nation needs to reward them, whether they are working or not. Furthermore, with the government putting the police under pressure by demanding nearly outrageous savings. Another argument is the physical fitness, that is necessary, perhaps even essential for a police officer.

    On the other hand, by forcing older officers to retire, and recruiting new and younger servants, the weight put on working people’s sholders will only become vaster. On a big scale, this issue could cause high expenses, leaving the police itself out of range. Making people retire at a early stage in their carreers is characteristic for a short-term vision. On a longer term, it will eventually become clear that this method of dealing with financial difficulties only postpones the problem, rather than solving it. Moreover, the government loses reliability by encouraging lower retirement ages in times in which all European countries are trying to heighten it.

    Putting all this in perspective, it seems unwise to continue this method of dealing with the issue. Working people can still contribute to society, and help to reduce the burden caused by taxations. Encouraging older employees who are still willing to work seems to make the government’s policy as wel as the police’s more credible. Arguments containing the fact that police officers are Crown servants and therefore too much of a burden on the nation are too simplistic and unvalid.

  • Comment number 55.

    Its scary to know I will have to work till I'm 66 .if anyone wants to force me to retire before I would be very happy.

  • Comment number 56.

    10. At 11:41am on 04 Nov 2010, Jaydee wrote:

    Sounds like it's going to be tough on B & Q ?

    And Wal-Mart, I mean Asda.

  • Comment number 57.

    Post #33 - yes it's true. Among numerous other services, your Council Tax pays for police and education in your area.

    You don't need a 'senior council' member at all to tell you that?

    In fact, when your Council Tax bill arrives through your letterbox, it is accompanied by information on where your Council Tax goes. Read it, and challenge it.

    If you don't pay Council Tax (WHY?) or have Council Tax Benefit - why would you care - another Council Tax payer will fill the gap for you! aaargh!

    Furthermore, as the cuts bite .... let's have a reduction in Council Tax in equal measure and cuts in Council CEO salaries/allowances and re-location expenses. How about cuts in Bedfordshire fire chief selling his sports car to the local authority and using same car as a company vehicle? Yes, this information is in the public domain.

  • Comment number 58.

    Not if they are public sector workers.

    I would prefer my taxes to pay for them to work then for them to retire earlier with an uplifted pension and get paid to do nothing

  • Comment number 59.

    Instead of raising the official retirement age, they should be lowering it! By doing so, it allows younger people to move up the ladder and students to find a meaningful job in their chosen profession. They raised the retirement age through lack of funding, what kind of excuse is that! We don't set the goals, the government of the day did. They got that wrong, raise the contribution levels then we'll see who is and isn't so popular. Either that or get out of the retirement business altogether and leave it to professionals! One thing for sure is this, if you contribute to government retirement as I did for all my working life, you will never get the basic minimum wage currently £5.93 per hour for an adult, think about it, don't be hoodwinked!

  • Comment number 60.

    Moving a cost from the wage bill to the pension bill is not a saving

  • Comment number 61.

    Lets face this is just a political move to avoid saying they are making policeman redundant.

    In general, we somehow need to make space in the employment market for youngsters come out of school so I feel a retirement age is unavoidable.
    This, of course, requires pension provision to be sufficient to allow the eldery a good quality of life, after a lifetime of service to society.

    Of course many people will continue to work on, e.g. in the voluntary sector.

  • Comment number 62.

    I have no issue with having older colleagues. If they choose not to retire that is their choice (I will certainly be retiring as soon as I can - probably at 70 if the age keeps increasing).

    HOWEVER - I have worked in offices where those over the age of 60 at higher band/wage levels reduce their hours to only one or two days a week. Their wage at 1-2 days could allow a new lower band employee (bands based on years at the company, not expertise) to be hired for 3-4 days (ideal for a parent or student) doing the same work. Therefore the person working more days, doing more work for the same cost is more benefical to the company/office as a whole.

  • Comment number 63.

    So your forced to retire there are no jobs about the pension age is increased and no one cares a monkees ; what a great advert for living in the UK today

  • Comment number 64.

    Being a public sector worker in healthcare I can't afford to retire, ever! Despite fantasy figures being bandied about regarding public sector pensions being money spinners. I will be lucky to get £3000 a year pension which, even in todays terms is useless. So to be forced to retire is the same as being sentenced to a life of poverty similar to life in a third world country. Instead of Cameron and his 'Greedy bankers protection party' forcing cuts onto public services I suggest he looks at who is profiteering from all this economic mess and, tax those that can afford it most. You can only cut public services so far, once a certain level of government atrocities is reached then society will start to breakdown and crumble.

  • Comment number 65.

    I agree with having a set retirement age, jobs are short & when it comes to active duty I'd rather have a 25 year old copper chasing a mugger than a 65 year old. That being said being kicked out after 30 years service seems a bit rich! Some of these people will have joined the force early & will only be 50 or so when this kicks in. Also this means that we're taking people with 30 years police experience out of the force, aren't these the very people we need there to mentor the youngsters? In any other sector 30 years experience would be considered a bonus. Considering the retirement age is to be raised (& raised & raised again!) what are all these ex coppers supposed to do for the 10-20 years of their working life? Will they get re-trained & get help finding another job? how much will that cost? are we creating a false economy by getting rid of them early then having to pay out thousands in support?
    I would say keep the retirement age the same as for everyone else but take people off active duty at 60 (or earlier for medical reasons) & put them onto teaching, training & other less "active" roles until they retire.

  • Comment number 66.

    Absolutely not. Workers should retire when they want to, but not receive a pension until the alloted time, which is for the government to decide.

  • Comment number 67.

    FORCED to donate organs FORCED to retire we seem to be getting a lot of forcing from above.

  • Comment number 68.

    If you don't retire at the statutory time then you should lose pensioner perks such as free bus passes and winter fuel allowances but not forced to retire.

    From a police prospective many of my friends are counting the days to when they can retire. I have also saw a good few of them lose the plot, on retirement, and hit the drink.

  • Comment number 69.

    i have just over one year to retirement it will take me two seconds to pull the plug on this computer and put my coat on three seconds and i will be out of the door and wont look back dont yalk about it bring it on NOW

  • Comment number 70.

    Am I not right in thinking that Police get to retire around 45/50, and not 60+?

    No you're not right in thinking that.

    It used to be the case that it was 30 Years service which produced a minimum retirement age of 48 if you joined at 18. However since the 1990's the minimum normal age for ranks up to Superintendent is 55 (You would be unlikely to get into a police service now below the age of 21-25) The maximum for senior ranks is 70

  • Comment number 71.

    So they rob our pension funds, tell us we have to work longer to get what bit they've left us, and then say they can get rid of us when they want to????

    Sorry, this country gets more stupid by the day.

  • Comment number 72.

    One minute we're telling people that they have to retire later and complaining because the police can retire at 50, the next we're forcing (some of) them to retire after 30 years service regardless of age.

    It partly depends on how its done, if its done the typical HR way which means they make a decision and send a letter saying "We're delighted to inform you that we're terminating your employment but you will be able to start claiming your pension" then that's unacceptable. If they involve the unions and more importantly consult with those potentially affected and take account of their circumstances then it may be the best way forward.
    It does mean that police as young as 48 may end up retiring with little choice on their part, it will not be appropriate to then demonise them as public sector shirkers on gold plated pensions happily retiring at 50ish though many on here will do just that.

  • Comment number 73.

    I don't know about making savings, that makes it sound more like redundancy under a different label. But it is an excellent way to open up job opportunities to younger folk, who need to make their contribution to society, and support themselves and their family. Let's have the sense to lower the retirement age to 55 or less, allow those who have done their bit for society enjoy a well earned pension, and get younger folk off of welfare and bolster their self respect.

  • Comment number 74.

    Depends if they can still do the job, or are "past it".

    An average 70 year old would probably not be as good at chasing a criminal as an average 30 year old. Keeping the best members of the workforce is a natural selection idea.

    Forcing someone to retire purely because of their age is a bit illogical if they are still really good at their job!

    **note: one thing which really gets my goat- jobs are made redundant, not people!**

    Think you have been watching too much TV cop shows.
    In 20 busy Years of service in inner London I only chased 3 or 4 criminals on foot.

    I caught 2 of them both when I was over 40!
    Mind you one of them fell over when he dropped his zimmer frame!

  • Comment number 75.

    Unfortunately, there are some who start their retirement long before they stop working.

  • Comment number 76.

    The Chief Constable interviewed on BBC Lunchtime News just stated that if he can get rid of more experienced officers he can employ cheaper new recruits........But dear Chief Constable if you are still going to put your cheap labour into a fleet of new expensive executive class police traffic cars with costly electronic wizardry to detect the odd tax evasion, cop the odd traffic infringment etc whilst the nation wants proper crime prevented or've missed the point and there is one enormous salary you could save on our behalf.....yours.

  • Comment number 77.

    Instead of forcing experienced older police officers to retire early wouldn't it be better to reduce the number of new recruits coming in.

  • Comment number 78.

    One of the Condems biggest problems. We retire at 68 or whatever but banks and enployers will treat anyone over 65 as retired. Therefore over 65, you cannot get a mortgage or bank loan, and employers will consider you unfit to carry on work. Come on Cameron, get it sorted!!!

  • Comment number 79.

    Retirement age should be compulsory, so when it does become 66 that is the age everyone retires, no more oldies snoozing on the court bench, Parliament or the house of Lords and getting paid £1000's for doing it. A very high proportion of youngsters are unemployed - make some space for them, we can't create jobs any other way.

  • Comment number 80.

    With a growing UK Working Age population upon the one hand coupled with a decreasing in demands for Full and Part - Time Workers, then add in the pending Public Sector Spending - Cuts over at least the next 5 Years and beyond and something HAS TO give.

    The problems we face with a Jobs shortage due to these Spending - Cuts in the Medium to Long term with employment in every rank of British Society leaves us with a problem as to HOW do we make it both fair to our Younger Generations both today and up-coming over the next 10 Years to ensure that they can get their legs onto the employment ladder, while at the same time having to except [ currently what the Government simply refuses to except ], that there simply WON'T BE enought employment places and vacancies available for ALL whom would want a Job in the future out there.

    Therefore, raising the current State Default Retirement Age to 66, while enforcing the Rights of everyone to carry on in Employment to Working beyond 65 is the WRONG approach, for Working on in Employment until you drop simply leaves others including those in our Younger Generation left staying Unemployed.

    The reality of course is that everyone should be made to Retire, so while the Government is suggesting on the one hand, that the UK's State Retirement Age should become more flexible, then in terms of this flexibility the current Default State Retirement Age should be reduced for those whom would wise to take their Retirement earlier than the curent time set of 65 Years of Age, thereby freeing - up Employment places for everyone else, for it is a complete nonsense to have things as they currently stand whereby the State Retirement Age is rising while those current in Work [ as in the Police Force ], are being told that they must retire after doing 30 Years Service which could see someone as young as 46 - 47 Years of Age being retired.

    To overcome this, the UK's State Retirement Age should be available in terms of flexibility to ALL from between 55 and 65 Years of Age, thereby allowing the individual the Rights to determine when he or she would like to take up their State Retirements

  • Comment number 81.

    Older workers should not be forced to retire because this question should not be of any relevance.People who get to 60 and have paid in for 40 years or more should be guaranteed a decent pension and so not need to take jobs from the young.Sadly mismanagement by politicians,greed by bankers and pension companies means British people have to work until they fall into their grave.

  • Comment number 82.

    There are ready made jobs out there waiting for them.

    Investigating benefit fraud.
    Housing Associations anti-nuisnce officers
    Dealing with immigration.

    etc etc

  • Comment number 83.

    What a week.
    While "call-me-Dave" struts about with unconvincing confidence
    his side-kick "Trigger" Clegg is unnaturally silent.
    I wonder WHY.

  • Comment number 84.

    "74. At 1:19pm on 04 Nov 2010, steve wrote:

    Think you have been watching too much TV cop shows.
    In 20 busy Years of service in inner London I only chased 3 or 4 criminals on foot."

    They can't have been that busy, can they? Were you one of the cops who goes to schools to talk to the kids about crime being wrong?

  • Comment number 85.

    4. At 11:34am on 04 Nov 2010, The Fickle Finger wrote:
    Am I not right in thinking that Police get to retire around 45/50, and not 60+?
    You are almost right. Police Officers can draw their pension after 30 years service, but unless they reach one of the higher ranks this dosen't provide them with a decent wage so most either stay on 30+ or get jobs in the private sector.

  • Comment number 86.

    79. At 1:31pm on 04 Nov 2010, chrisk50 wrote:
    Retirement age should be compulsory, so when it does become 66 that is the age everyone retires, no more oldies snoozing on the court bench, Parliament or the house of Lords and getting paid £1000's for doing it. A very high proportion of youngsters are unemployed - make some space for them, we can't create jobs any other way.
    Like Logan's Run?

  • Comment number 87.

    for members of the public who have hard physical jobs yes yes yes BUT
    police nurses armed forces teachers should work longer at least 10 years
    people who work hard suffer many work related problems

  • Comment number 88.

    Why should you be forced to retire if you don't want to, and what if you don't have a substantial enough pension? Some people do save for pensions yet get completely shafted by the banking system and end up with a fraction of what they should get, how can you force people not to support themselves.

  • Comment number 89.

    Should older workers be forced to retire?

    The answer? Carousel.

  • Comment number 90.

    "Should older workers be forced to retire".

    Members of Parliament, Members of the European Parliament are not forced to retire, but quietly carry on in consultancy contacts they make while elected. Members of the House of Lords are not forced to retire, but claim too much. The heating bills alone would solve all pensioner poverty.

    Yes, perhaps I have been flippant based on the reality of government ministers, MPS, MEPS, therefore they are public sector employees, paid by the people. Does anyone disagree with that?

    Should those who govern us, and decide our laws, be setting standards, rather than dictating them?

  • Comment number 91.

    Better surely to get rid of those that are no good at their job first?
    That can be because of incompetance, lack of fitness (for the police/fire etc.) and so forth.
    There are MANY people of post police retirement age who are very fit, and quite a number of very useless - and I suspect unfit - officers.
    Using an arbitary measure like age is just not very good.

  • Comment number 92.

    Oh it gets more ridiculous every day - the idiots cannot even be bothered to maintain the appearance of consistency in their mystic babbling just sacrifice, sacrifice, sacrifice! Does not matter what is being sacrificed - you are now required to 'work longer' and 'retire earlier' at the same time! Wow

  • Comment number 93.

    No, a grossly stupid philosophy! Let people retire when they want not force them to or force them to continue. We all wear out at different rates, everyone knows that except the morons in Government it would seem.

  • Comment number 94.

    But aren't they raising the pension age?

    How's that going to work then?

    Hahaha! To be a Lib Dem voter today! Well done- just well done!

  • Comment number 95.

    Government is insisting we work, and possibly, until 70. [health permitting?]
    "Union-fury-ministers-scrap-retirement-age-65" refers.

    Yet government are cutting back hard, on vacancies that in turn
    employ non public servants.

    I hope it is not forgotten that money going AROUND makes the economy strong.
    Stop it circulating, like the banks did, and BUST will be CERTAIN.

    Providing the person is doing their job efficiently, this is a "loop hole" to enforce (unwarranted) redundancy.

    We all know what happens when we put the brakes on too hard.

  • Comment number 96.

    Only if they've enough put by in a pension to live on comfortably (and becasue they're public sector, police pensions are particularly generous after 30 years service).

  • Comment number 97.

    I understood that next year a law would be passed stopping employers chucking out the over 65's and so it should be. I will be 65 next year, I am fit, experienced, have been in the same career for 37 years and love it. No body is going to force me to do anything I do not want to, and with the miserly UK pension, which is not just poverty, it is prison, I will carry on as long as my health dictates.

  • Comment number 98.

    If we are going to force older policeman to retire and then take on new recruits at a lower wage then we perhaps could do the same to the law judges. Imagine how much money we could save in that department. We could have younger judges at a lower cost who are more in tune with the public rather then the old dodderers we have now who are completly out of touch with public opinion.

  • Comment number 99.

    1. At 11:23am on 04 Nov 2010, Nakor wrote:
    So we're expecting people to retire later by increasing the state pension age AND forcing people to retire when they don't want too?

    Can anybody see the logic in that?

    Yes, some of us can see logic in that, it's the public/private sector divide. Read the line "Fully-sworn officers cannot be made redundant" and understand what that means, if they don't want to retire, they could legally hold a position long after they should retire if they so want. This measure opens up the positions to officers that wish to advance while helping the Police make cuts when they can't decide where to cut.

    Also, if you'd read the story "Police Federation vice-chairman Simon Reed said the regulation was not designed to remove "hundreds, maybe thousands of officers", but "the odd officer who has got to retirement age and is not performing"." This describes the measure's intended use well enough.

    Some people obviously like to have an opinion but don't want to read or research. Makes them seem like complete anti-coalition types rather than well-meaning.

  • Comment number 100.

    Every year, the police authority precept element of my council tax rockets - mostly to cover the cushy pensions enjoyed by officers who often retire in their 50s and then go on to take other jobs, despite the rest of society having to slog on for another decade or so.
    I'd prefer it if they were made to carry on working until state retirement age, moving from frontline duties after a "certain age" and doing the station-based tasks and paperwork that police always moan are taking up too much of busy officers' time.


Page 1 of 3

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.