http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...irms-can-sack-older-workers-to-cut-costs.html A landmark court case has paved the way for employers to dismiss staff based on age - flouting discrimination rules - to escape huge pension payouts. By Louisa Peacock, Jobs editor 1:59PM GMT 22 Mar 2012 28 Comments The appeals court said on Thursday it was OK for an NHS trust to dismiss its chief executive as he approached 50 to avoid him clocking up pensions liabilities worth up to 1m. Nigel Woodcock was told in 2007 he would be dismissed when he reached 49, giving him a pension worth 200,000. If the trust had let him work until 50, his pension pot would have risen to between 500,000 and 1m, so bosses terminated his post. After a three-year battle, the Court of Appeal ruled today in the employer's favour, which will pave the way for public and private sector employers to legitimately dismiss staff based on age - even though the practice is unlawful. Last year, the Government made it unlawful to retire someone based on age, allowing employees to work past the traditional retirement age of 65 without being forced to leave. However, the appeal court's judgement will allow employers to ignore regulations and get rid of older workers, experts said. Companies will also find it easier to dismiss workers on long-term sick leave and to refuse to make adjustments for disabled employees wishing to work at their firm, following the appeals court judgement. The ruling threatens to wind back employment rights several decades, according to lawyers, who argue companies now have a cost justification to retire workers based on age and other "protected" areas, such as disability. When Mr Woodcock lost his job, he sued for age discrimination since the decision to dismiss him was based purely on age and did not follow any redundancy procedure. But the Trust argued the dismissal was justified as saving money was a "legitimate" excuse for discriminating. Several employers will look to use today's judgement to consider how to retire older workers in future so as to escape huge pension costs, experts said. Employers' groups including the CBI have argued that scrapping the retirement age last year has left a gaping whole over how to manage older workers out of the business, and many companies will see today's ruling as a way to do this. Daniel Barnett, employment lawyer at Outer Temple Chambers, said: "Some employers will be able to defend certain discrimination claims on the grounds that it is cheaper to discriminate than not to discriminate. "This will make it easier for employers to justify cost-cutting measures on grounds of costs. The ramifications are wide ranging. For example, it will be easier for employers to refuse to make adjustments for disabled employees because of cost." He added workplaces will return to the last-in, first-out rule over hiring workers because the cost of keeping them on the books would be too high if business orders slowed.
funny thing is, I was just talking to a young 20-something at work the other day about age discrimination in job hiring, and he was quite skeptical about it being an issue, or at least a difficult hurdle that an oldie could not easily overcome by just telling the hirer, that you don't bring any pre-conceived opinions to this job, and are as malleable as a piece of clay, and can be whatever the company wants you to be, and will work for half price if necessary - in order to get the job. Tee hee hee... come back to Earth, space man.
A boss should have the right to sack an employee in favor of a more productive one. The government sector is for non-productive workers, the private sector for building a strong economy. I say sack the old bastards if they can't measure up.
Sure, but really shouldn't everybody realise by now that they will reach an age where they can't compete with younger people? People have plenty of time in advance, decades to prepare for this eventuality and do whatever is necessary. Invest either in themselves or their assets to keep ahead. It just seems most people want to deny this reality.
We had the opposite problem when I worked for the airlines. We had a mandatory retirement age because of capability issues and when the baby boomers started to hit it - they took it to the anti discrimination tribunal and got it changed. Now as long as they hold a medical they can stay employed. Sounds great until you get gramps up the front in a technological aircraft with 300 people on board going into LA or Europe with high traffic and crap weather flying at mach 0.7+. This guy is so far behind the eight ball it's not funny and the poor old First Officer (and Second if you are lucky enough to have one) has to try and run all the systems as well as do his/her jobs. The same "gramps" keeps telling everyone that he's never needed a computer in his life - why should he learn one now. It's all good in theory - but you try it practically. malachii
imo, the sacking of older workers was not the real issue. the real issue was something that was previously sacrosanct for decades was overturned, in these financially challenged times, in order to save dollars. in this specific instance, this principle was applied to older workers. well hello, its not just older workers who are unproductive. how about women taking maternity leave? how about disabled workers? etc. oh, you might say, "that's against the law to sack them..." [return to square one, and re-read the story]
The decision to sack him wasn't based on his age, it was based on the fact that keeping him on for one extra year would cost them at least an extra 300k or worst case 700k The guy simply priced himself out of the market.
Agreed. But the root point is that the law was changed in order to allow an employer to save $$. lets change a few more laws and we'll really be able to save $$ in very many areas. take care of the pennies and the pounds will look after themselves. and of course, if the people in charge can show [for that financial year] the big savings they have made, a big bonus seems in order. and after making such big improvements, possibly their challenges at that work site are over. after getting the bonus, time to look for a new challenge at a new employer, and then start doing cost analysis models to see what type of savings can be achieved there too. there is not a single work place anywhere in Australia, where *I* (black_sun) could not save big bucks by getting rid of lots of staff. I just need to government to help me, by changing a few minor laws to allow me to achieve big savings and thus help the australian economy.
Unfortunately in these economic times for many businesses "saving dollars" does not mean that the owner gets to upgrade her Mercedes this year, it mean that the business can continue to operate on the solvent side of bankruptcy. For many businesses the choice is to cut costs and keep operating and keep some staff in jobs, or to shut down and put everyone out of a job. Yes, some greedy people will use this excuse to increase profits, but a vast number of businesses are now faced with oblivion if they don't cut costs. It's all well and good for workers to be happy when a business grows and takes on more staff and increase wages, but they then complain that they have been cheated and abused when the other phase of the cycle arrives and businesses contract. Australia is a fantastic example: People here are buying everything from overseas via the internet, and then the demand higher wages in the domestic retail sector even through they don't support the sector any more. Employees can be just as greedy as employers. Wages, like house prices cannot grow eternally. If business incomes contract then wages have to contract also. The alternatives is no wages at all because no businesses and no jobs. Qantas staff have started to figure this out and are starting to realise that their union has done them no favours. If workers feel hard done by by their employer, then I suggest that they mortgage their house, give up their paid holidays, sick leave and employer funded super, try and arrange finance and start their own company and employ other people and then get back to me to let me know how it went.
I'm already old my friend, but I am self employed so I am safe in that regard. If these old workers get sacked they can go start a dogwash run or a home handyman business, there is still plenty of life in those industries. FOR NOW.
In the cities you observe companies and businesses preferring to hire young retards whom have no mortgages over older people. Thankfully, many small towns in Australia still hold onto morals, ethics and principles more so than the cities, and it is not uncommon to observe more than 50% employees close to retirement age being employed. For example, here in Lightning Ridge most whom are employed are of the age 50+. Whether this will last and for how long is another story. Note: Yes, it is true; most whom live in 'some' towns are not 'young'. So, I do realize this perhaps plays an important role. However, of some small towns I have observed and trolled, I must point out there are a few where there is clearly more young than old, yet employers still prefer hiring the older people, based on (what I perceive as) employers understanding older people are far more 'deserving' of an income than the young (re: mortgages et cetera). . .
I am going to defend the employee for once this time(you won't see that from me very often). I think the employer needs to take some responsibility here for offering a stupid super package that saw some sort of jackpot in super when he hit 50. A doubling or trebling of super payout for one extra years service is just plain stupid. That alone may have been the sole reason the employee didn't take up other offers for work with higher salaries etc and now the employer has screwed him completely. I am all for employers being able to sack workers who are less productive when the business cycle turns south, but you shouldn't be able to offer ridiculous super packages that jackpot like that then use that same reason as a cause to fire someone.
There are pros and cons to both young & old. One of the cons about the young, is that they are eager to try something, which has been proven time & time again, NOT to work!! The old guys have been there, done that... The young guy thinks he's some type of visionary pioneer and can bring some "special magic" to the equation, and make it work. After it explodes in his face, he gives up. After a while, he moves to another area of responsibility, and then some new twit is brought in, tries the same stupid thing, thinking he has "special magic" to make it work, and it explodes in his face. And if you try to tell them, "don't bother trying that because...", you are ignored, and they think "you just don't have what it takes...", so you just sit back watching twit after twit (as if on an assembly line) having the same situation repeatedly explode in their face. One of the pros about the young is they are technology savvy, in terms of mobile phones and the internet. They love to put all their personal details on the internet/facebook, making it easier for the authorities to monitor them. From the authoritarian government point of view, the young are to be highly praised for handing all this information to them on a silver platter.
