Is Mandatory Retirement Discrimination?
Dec 13, 2007
A former CTV employee who was forced to retire in September 2006 because he had turned 65 has resorted to arbitration in hopes of getting his old job back. He was told by his employer that he could not work past his 65th birthday because of company policy.
The issue of mandatory retirement has been a controversial one. In Manitoba, mandatory retirement at 65 hasn’t been allowed for about 30 years. Other provinces including Ontario, Quebec, Saskatchewan, British Columbia and Nova Scotia have either enacted laws banning the practice or will have legislation in place in the next two years that does so.
However, employees at CTV and other broadcasters fall under federal jurisdiction. Under the Human Rights Act, it is not a discriminatory act to terminate the employment of an employee who has reached the “normal age of retirement for employees working in positions similar to the position of that individual.” Compaines such as Air Canada can, for example, force pilots to retire at age 60 because of this provision. And in specific occupations like this, that might not be a bad thing.
But mandatory retirement creates a host of problems for society, especially as ours gets older. In the 1920s, when the issue of mandatory retirement was first studied, a person 65 years of age was a lot “older” than a person of that age today. Someone 65 in this day and age can reasonably expect to live another 20 years. Obviously, some people are going to want (or need) to work longer before they choose to retire.
Compulsory retirement is also particularly hard on women, many of whom choose to stay home with their children in their early years, and then reenter the workforce in their late 20s or even well into their 30s. Because women are still paid less than men, women in general aren’t able to put away as much money as men having been out of the workforce. And the problem is compounded because they still live six or seven years longer than men on average.
Workforce shortages that will only continue to get worse as baby boomers retire in greater numbers have forced some companies to institute plans that utilize retirees on an “on call” basis. Others have such things as “phased retirement.” These allow workers to ease their way into retirement while ensuring that companies don’t lose the institutional knowledge that these workers possess. Mentorship programs serve the same purpose. As long as these programs are voluntary, they can be valuable to both employee and employer.
But one would have to argue that the most convincing argument in favour of abolishing mandatory retirement in any form is that it is discriminatory. If one has the skills and ability to perform a particular vocation, then their age should have absolutely nothing to do with it. Very few occupations are of such a nature that they require a skill set that is specific to age. We don’t accept discrimination in any other form, so why do some still see ageism as acceptable?
Comments
Comments are now closed
Mandatory Retirement is wrong and I can't believe in 2007 companies can still get away with it.
Jimcotton - 2007-12-13 18:35
The MGEU Equity and Human Rights Committee has recently added the portfolio of ageism to its mandate. We hope to educate our members on the issue of ageism for young and old. And yes, it is discrimination.
Laurie Geseron - 2007-12-13 21:14
I think people should have the right to choose when they retire. Many choose to keep working simply because they enjoy it. Forcing someone to retire is just not right
Norma Holmes - 2007-12-14 00:01
We don't know the whole story. Maybe the gentleman mentioned was being let go softly as opposed to being fired. His family and friends may feel that he is finally going to get a break. We just don't know.
Gary Bullock - 2007-12-18 11:27