Retirement isn't so great for everyone
Posted 14 April 2008 at 10:24AM by Hannah Gilchrist in Hints and tips
For many the thought of retirement sounds like something worth working towards. Days spent in front of the TV, afternoons filled with yoga and tapestry classes seem blissful, but is diving head first into relaxation really the best move for your staff?
The age-old "cliff-edge" view of retirement, which was once celebrated with a leaving party and gift vouchers for the local off-licence, usually meant you wouldn't see your colleague for dust. However research suggests that employees who opt out of the celebrations and slowly ease into retirement have a much more relaxing time.
But hang on a minute, isn't entering retirement about feeling free and escaping daily pressures? And wouldn't you want to do this as soon as the law allows? It seems not. New Ipsos MORI research actually found that less than 25% of retirees felt "free" on their first day of retirement. But is it right to keep your staff working flexibly after the age of retirement and does it make good business sense?
Tags: bt, bt broadbandoffice, homeworking, pension, retirement
New feature: Rate this post!
Average rating: 2.6/5
Comments
2. At April 14, 2008 2:29 PM, Brian wrote:
Back in the day I started up 2 pensions. Great will retire around 55 to 60 but the facts are that the goverment of the day wiped them out so now I'll be lucky if I can retire at 75 never mind 65. As a manager I'm glad one of my over retirement age staff have carried on working just think of the expirence I would have lost and the older staff turn up for work on time and they put in a full days work not like there younger co workers
3. At April 14, 2008 3:37 PM, Jim Coupar wrote:
Do'nt you believe it. Thanks to the need to reduce the Civil Service I managed to retire at 51 (13 years ago) on virtually a full pension. Since that time we have moved into a cottage in Cornwall - that is nearly as big as the house we left in Twickenham, the wife has completed a BA in fine art at Falmouth Art College and I have taken up photography in a big way. We are fitter now than we have ever been - walking and swimming and are so relaxed that if we are not careful we would fall over. Retirement is great.
Anyone that sits down and watches daytime television must be totally brain dead.
As for going back to work -who wants it. Nothing but pressure due to the travelling, deadlines and pressure to keep to performance targets. No thanks.
4. At April 14, 2008 7:33 PM, Laura Skrzynski wrote:
I think flexible working makes sense, regardless of age. It's a question of what one can afford. Both extremes can be equally cruel. It's probably more realistic in the current economic climate for most to gradually reduce rather than stop abruptly. It also helps people suffer less isolation and ageism if they can continue a part-time connection with their employer. But it's just as vital to have increasing time to travel, do courses, etc.
My husband managed to retire at 50 from local government though he still has to work part-time on our present budget. As I'm a lot younger, I hope to gradually start easing off by my early 50s till my official retirement age and perhaps even beyond.
Young people in their twenties and thirties will be doing phased in retirements more and more, simply because they won't be able to afford to fully retire like their parents did.
5. At April 15, 2008 8:35 AM, Mick Foley wrote:
Brian, how can anyone be expected to actually up-tools for a man who does not know the difference between "there" and "their"? I for one would be outside smoking most of a shift for any employer, nevermind a dolt with a degree from The University of Life. (See how I capitalized the words to make it seem like a real university when in fact it isn't.) Back to point, when my parents retired the government totally screwed them with pensions, even attempting to suggest that 60 years of work did not warrent a pension! Now my parents are saps and put their faith in the government only to have that thrown in their face.
That's why I'm challenging the whole damn government to a hardcore match!
- Bang! BANG!
Mick Foley
6. At April 15, 2008 9:07 AM, john scott wrote:
Employers beware! with changes in regulations regarding age and redundancy packages you could find your older employees costing you much more than you expected if you have to let them go. Much more!
7. At April 15, 2008 12:32 PM, Waj wrote:
Never mind retirement -- I can't get a grip on the first rung of the career ladder I want.
It's all about experience; no employers have the ability to recognise talent and less and less is education held in any regard. It is science fact that the brain begins to deteriorate at around 26 years old -- if anyone wants brainpower, ideas and innovations it's the young you ought to seek, not the ageing misoneistic veterans who now only rely on tried and tested formulas.
Now I know it's not all old dogs and malleable youths -- age does have a direct correlation with experience and wisdom and youths have yet to make many mistakes from which to learn -- but from where I'm standing (in the shadows, jumping up and grabbing at the elusive ladder) it looks as though the youth are being overlooked and their skills and potential are wasted.
Why is there not a mechanism for finding suitable employees that is not wholly biased on previous work? This is ageist by definition. Just because one has done the same thing for 19 years does not necessarily mean it has been done well. How is opportunity and longevity any indication of talent these days, when corporations are too large to take into account individual output?
I apologise if this is a little off-topic, but all this talk of keeping retired people in work when a perfectly willing -- desperate -- hoard of youth is being ignored has just fuelled an indignant rant.
8. At April 15, 2008 1:23 PM, Steven wrote:
I retired this year, at 46 - it's great & I can thorougly reccommend it - put as much as you can afford away, and DO IT life is too short, and you are a long time dead!!!
9. At April 16, 2008 8:56 PM, Do unto others wrote:
There Their Mick. Maybe you do Warrent a Pension Ha Ha.
Pottle Kettle springs to mind.
Funny how all those early civil service retirees have a smug attitude to retirment, especially as the public purse pays the bill.
If one cannot afford to retire and one is capable then good on you, as you continue to contribute to the public purse in addition to keeping the wolf from the door.
Enjoy your mature years, whatever you are doing.
10. At April 20, 2008 12:35 PM, Tanvir Ahmad wrote:
How about a match with me Mick. A few smack on the head would wake me up.
Thought I would retire around 60 but the way things are going I think i will need another 37.5 hours a week to save enough for when i'm 60. That is if i live that long.
11. At April 20, 2008 2:59 PM, Rob Smyth wrote:
These posts confirm that successive governments have a lot to answer for!
In the mid 80s they encouraged private pensions and lots of companies closed their final salary schemes.
Then when Equitable tried to do what was best for their members mutually, they were forced by the government to obey to the letter a mistaken guarantee they had made to some members, and as a result the majority lost much of their pension. (Excuse the rant!)
But good luck to those former government and local government workers who can afford to retire early.
The rest of us may want to stay around to continue to contribute to the community, but also want to earn a bit of extra money to enable travel and new interests.
Post a comment
As 14 days have passed, comments are now closed for this entry.
1. At April 14, 2008 2:05 PM, Karen Hanley wrote: