The Government has announced it plans to drop compulsory retirement at 65. But is it good news or bad news? Sharon Griffiths ponders the age-old question.

HUSBAND’S face was a picture when he heard the news. The Government has announced plans to drop compulsory retirement at 65 from next October – the very month of his 65th birthday, so there’s nothing to stop him carrying on regardless.

Is it good news or bad news? Depends who you are.

Good news for those fit and healthy 60-somethings who enjoy their job and want to carry on doing it. Especially for those whose pension pot has shrunk dramatically in the recent recession and need a chance to top it up.

Good news for the Government – more people earning means more tax revenue.

Good news for companies who value experience and expertise and so don’t have to waste time and resources re-inventing the wheel.

Many companies – B&Q, Asda, for instance – positively welcome older employees and their experience.

Good news for society as a whole – we need all ages to be actively involved. Marginalising people for around a third of their lives benefits no one.

It was all so different in the Nineties. Then, it seemed many people were retiring early, 55 years old wasn’t unusual for those with rock solid company or private pensions who were young and fit enough then to do all those things they missed out on as teenagers.

Here in the 21st Century the change is dramatic.

We are all living longer. The economic meltdown has added to the problem. The state pension is stretched to the limit. The people working just cannot support the people retired.

That’s why women’s pension age has already started creeping up. By 2020, it will be 65, the same as men. Then both ages increase until by 2046 – if not sooner – the age of the state pension for men and women will be 68.

So, if we have compulsory retirement at 65 there’s a three-year gap that has to be filled.

And why shouldn’t we work longer?

When the state pension was introduced, it started at 70. In those days, most people had already long popped their clogs by then, so only a minority lived to claim it for any length of time. The country could afford it.

When the state pension and standard retirement age were set at 65, most people started work at 14 or 15, so the working life was 50 years. Now the school leaving age will be 18 and so many people go to university, that working life starts much later. We are staying younger longer. We marry later, have our children later, so it seems only logical to retire later too.

BUT it’s not good news for everyone. Bad news for those in stressful occupations, feeling their age or doing heavy physical work, or a great deal of travelling or driving, or who just hate their job.

Bad news for companies who won’t have a great excuse for getting rid of dead wood at 65 and so will have fewer opportunities to bring in youngsters brimming with enthusiasm and energy and new ideas.

Bad news for employees – it could well lead to less full-time permanent employment and more fixed-term contracts so they can get rid of you more easily, at 65 or any age.

Bad news for society – it’s the 65 to 75 year olds who make up the biggest chunk of voluntary and charity workers, often plugging the gaps in state provision for the most vulnerable.

They would be missed.

Bad news for young people who can’t get jobs because the oldies are clinging on in there blocking their way.

Bad news for many people who won’t get the choice anyway. If you lose your job after the age of 50, the chances of your getting another one at the same level are slim. Many would like the chance to work at 55, never mind 65.

The answer, of course, is compromise. Just because retiring at 65 will no longer be compulsory, doesn’t mean that staying on in work is compulsory either. We shall have choices.

But to do that we have to have a much more flexible approach to work in general, whatever age we are.

And we’re getting there. We’re really doing well.

JUST a generation or so ago, many people still expected to start work in a firm at 15 and still be there 50 years later. Now such people are rarities. Most people move from job to job, even switching careers, gathering new skills and experiences on the way.

When mothers started flooding into the work force, they developed flexible ways of working, which now many men want too. It can work. We are all much more adaptable.

It doesn’t have to be all or nothing at 65, or any age. It can be full-time or part-time. We can ease down between the two. It doesn’t even have to be one job.

Many people – women especially – often have two jobs on the go. As increasingly do youngsters entering the world of work. One day a week here, two days there, a day volunteering and an evening shift as well. Not necessarily a clear career path, but terrific experience.

In an ideal world, maybe 21-year-olds and 65- year-olds could job share – and everyone would benefit.

All organisations need a balance of youth and experience. Too much of either sends the whole lot out of kilter. We can’t consider over 65-year-olds in isolation, but just as one vital part of an increasingly flexible and adaptable workforce.

As for my husband, well, we’ll just have to wait until next October.