Call for end to pension 'poverty'
Wednesday, 22 October 2008More than 1,000 protesters will converge on Parliament later to call for the state pension to be increased above what they say is poverty level.
Pensioners and trade unions will join forces to demand a rise in the basic single pension from £91 to £151 a week.
They also want it to be paid universally to all pensioners regardless of their contributions.
Pensions minister Rosie Winterton said she wanted to "give" more - but the demands would cost some £30bn a year.
The protest has been organised by the National Pensioners Convention and 15 trade unions to mark 100 years since the state pension was introduced.
'National disgrace'
The protesters say the state pension has become even more important following the recent crisis in the stock markets.
That is because many people relying on private pensions for their retirement will have seen the value of their funds fall.
General secretary of the NPC Joe Harris said it was "a national disgrace" that at least 2.5 million older people were living below the poverty line and millions more were struggling with rising prices.
"The government should use the huge £46bn surplus in the National Insurance Fund and give everyone a pension that takes them out of poverty," he said.The unions, in particular, want the government to increase pensions in line with earnings or prices, whichever is higher.
The existing Pensions Bill allows for the restoration of that link from 2012 or the end of the next Parliament.
But Unison general secretary Dave Prentis said he wanted to see "a living pension" for retired people now.
"Telling 70, 80 and 90-year-old pensioners to wait until 2012 is simply unreasonable - they need the money to put food on the table today," he said.
Pensions Minister Rosie Winterton said the government understood that people were "facing challenges with rising costs".
But she said: "We would like to give pensioners more but we must balance that with the ability of people to pay taxes.
"The NPC proposal would cost in the region of £30bn per year in the early years. That's equivalent to an increase of around 7p on the basic rate of income tax."65 isn't a sell-by date
By Yvonne Robertsguardian.co.uk, Wednesday September 24 2008
Ageism embodies poor management practice, narrowness of vision, stereotypical attitudes and bullying in the workplace
At 30, mystery probably surrounds the idea of anyone wanting to work over the age of 65. At 50, it's often a different story. All that freedom and stress-free hours of doing nothing can begin to appear as attractive as a three-month forced march barefoot through the Gobi desert.
Why? For a variety of reasons, not least because saying goodbye to paid work, for the unprepared in this occupation-obsessed society, may also mean farewell to an adequate income, friends, a daily routine, status, self-respect and a sense of usefulness. Also, for a fit, active, experienced person with a lot to offer, it makes no rational sense. And that in itself is depressing.
Chronological age isn't what it used to be. Once, marriage, parenthood, middle age and retirement followed in an orderly fashion. Now, parenthood can come at 40 or 50, marriage a decade later – but no matter how much spring in the step, at 65, any boss can show you the door and get away with it.
Yesterday, an advocate-general, a senior legal advisor to the European court of justice, a challenge to the right of employers to make people retire at 65. The charity Age Concern is challenging UK laws which, since 2006, have allowed employers to compel workers to retire at 65. Two hundred and sixty people in Britain have cases at employment tribunals which depend upon the European court's ultimate decision.
So, we have the ludicrous situation that a manager can't ask you whether you intend to start a family – but he can ask you how many candles you'll have on your next birthday cake. Around a third of employers have a mandatory retirement age, although not necessarily at 65.
This retirement deadline has a ripple effect: if you are past your sell-by date at 65, then 50 doesn't look so hot either. One in three people over the age of 50 who would like to work are unable to find a job. B&Q, the do-it-yourself chain with a pro-older employees policy, have tried hard to tackle this discrimination but it can't hire the entire workless vintage population of the UK.
Ageism is a plague. Yet, ironically in a period that so overvalues youth that it eulogises the sexagenarian who from a distance manages to pass as an ingénue – it works both ways. According to a survey by the Employers Forum on Age (EFA) published last year, firms continue to pay older people more, manage younger workers differently to older ones, and overlook younger staff for promotions irrespective of experience.
Despite nine out of 10 people knowing it is illegal to discriminate on the grounds of age at work, more than half of employees claimed to have witnessed ageist behaviour in the workplace in the past year. This level of discrimination says as much about poor management practice; narrowness of vision, stereotypical attitudes and bullying in the workplace as it does about the counterfeit battle of young versus old.
It's a paradox that a time when individualism is once again on the rise – the ability to judge a person on their talents, abilities and merits does not seem to figure hugely in the workplace. Age is often such an irrelevant gauge of ability. Eventually, however, demographics may force a different approach, at least when it comes to the older age group.
According to the EFA, by 2017 – just round the corner – there will be more people over 40 than under. From 2010, the number of young people reaching working age will begin to fall by 60,000 every year, fundamentally changing the shape of the workforce. The trouble is that the disparaging view of the older employer, apparently already embedded in the workplace, means that anyone working beyond 65 in a less than enlightened setting in decades to come, may face two choices.
One is delusion, denial, facelifts and achieving the miracle of turning back the clock by lying about age. The other choice is to work, exuding "gratitude" for this second chance. A better option would be to introduce flexible working hours; the opportunity to take on two or three day contracts and a more inspired range of work hours that allows employment to taper into retirement much more gradually.
Hopefully, in the retirement age struggle, this ruling is only a setback and Age Concern will win on appeal. But any change in the law also requires a cultural shift. In the US, for instance, Civic Ventures is a charity that offers newly-retired professionals over 55 (1,800 so far) opportunities to use their skills and experiences and give back to the community. The point is not what they do – but the belief that originally drove the late John Gardner, one of its founders, and his approach to an ageing population. "The nation today faces breathtaking opportunities," says his website, " … disguised as insoluble problems". It doesn't take an old head to see that makes sense.
Reference: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/24/equality.workandcareers
Reflective essay:
The first article mentions about the pensioners and trade unions joining forces to call for the state pension to be increased above what they say is poverty level. Apparently the current pension they receive is not sufficient to support their daily needs and this problem has become even worse following the current global economic crisis.
This is situation is called Pensioner Poverty syndrome. The people who are 65 and above only depend on their pensions for the rest of their lives. With the increasing life expectancy, the pensions are surely not sufficient for them to survive. Pensioner Poverty syndrome often occurs in Brunei especially to people who used to work for low-position jobs. In Brunei, the system of TAP (Tabung Amanah Pekerja) is being used whereby a small percentage of the salary of the workers are being put aside for future savings. Once they reach their retirement age, the accumulated amount of money is given back to them. The amount may seems to be huge, but actually it can only be able to support them for a couple of years.
The second article talks about the age discrimination that often exists in the workplace. The discrimination says as much about poor management practice; narrowness of vision, stereotypical attitudes and bullying in the workplace as it does about the counterfeit battle of young versus old, whereby a person is being judged based on his age instead of his talents, abilities and merits. People are forced to retire once they reach the age of 65 eventhough they are still capable to work. Firms also tend to put an age limit for those who are getting hired and it was found out that people who are over 50 who would like to work have difficulties to find a job.
The elderly are often viewed less important than adults employed in the paid labor force. They are labelled as the economic burden because they are seen as a waste of a country's resources as they are no longer productive and do not contribute anything to the country. In my point of view, this is not how the elderly should be treated. Those people who still have the skills and ability who are still willing to work should be given a chance to continue their career. For example, in Japan, the government has already passed a law requiring companies to raise their mandatory retirement age or provide retraining and re-employment for older workers in order to tackle the problems associated with the ageing population.
No comments:
Post a Comment