You are here

Pension Inequality Firmly on the Election 2020 Campaign Agenda

Published 23/01/2020

SHARE THIS

Age Action joined the SIPTU led coalition of non-governmental organisations for the launch of the STOP67 campaign in Dublin today (Thursday, 23rd January) which aims to halt the increase of the state pension age for workers to 67 from next year in order to address inequalities in the pension system.

Speaking at the formal campaign launch in the Royal College of Physicians of Ireland in Kildare Street, Dublin, SIPTU Deputy General Secretary, Ethel Buckley, said: “STOP67 is the SIPTU campaign to stop the increase of the state pension age to 67 on 1st January, 2021.

“SIPTU representatives are not surprised this is a major general election issue. We have been hearing from our members since the abolition of the transitional pension scheme in 2014 about the difficulties that the retirement gap has been causing for workers. This includes the absolute indignity of people coming up to 65 years of age who are expecting to get their pension and having to sign on the dole.”

National Women’s Council of Ireland Director, Orla O’Connor, said: “This is a core issue for women. Women rely on the state pension for the vast majority of their income in older age. So, anything that impacts on state pensions disproportionally impacts on women.”

Age Action Chief Executive, Paddy Connolly, said: “This campaign is not only about stopping the rise of the pension age to 67 but also the creation of a stakeholder forum which will consider issues such as finances, age discrimination and others that effect people in their retirement.”

Active Retirement Ireland chief executive, Maureen Kavanagh, said: “Ireland has the youngest population but the highest prospective retirement age in the EU. We are not under the demographic pressure of other countries. Retirement is a great part of life but it has to be voluntary, flexible and appropriate. We can’t force people out of a job that they love, or to stay in their job.”

SIPTU General Secretary, Joe Cunningham, called on Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil to make clear their position on the pensions issue.

He added: “All the other political parties are supporting the ‘STOP67’ campaign. The big two parties must make their position clear.”

Support STOP67 Pension Age Increase Campaign

Policy Development

There has been a disjointed and poor approach to pension and retirement planning since 2014. Age Action believes that the next Government needs to review the whole area of pension policy which is why it is a key priority area in our Election 2020 manifesto, in partnership with Active Reitrement Ireland.  The STOP67 coalition is calling for a stakeholder forum to be established by the next Government to ensure that there is meaningful consultation with people who are going to be affected.

Successive policy changes in the area of pensions and retirement have been introduced across the lifetime of the last Government without adequate consultation and planning which has resulted in gaps and yet more anomalies between policies, often from within the same  Government department. Examples of such anomilies include;

  • People forced to retire before 66 have to claim unemployment payments through Jobseekers Benefit, even though they have worked and paid taxes all their lives. Being forced on to unemployment payments at the age of 65, rather than receive a (transition) pension, which was abolised in 2014 when the pension age rose from 65 to 66, means a loss of nearly €2,400* a year (and up to €7,000 for a couple). This is a massive cut in living standards.   
  • The Total Contribution Approach 2012 (TCA2012) was brought in to remedy the unintended and disproportionate impact of changes to the pension calculation rate bands in September 2012, especially on women. Payments were made back to 31 March 2018, still today leaving a gap of 5 years and 6 months in the take home pension of those effected by this.
  • The TCA2012 introduced 20 years of Home Caring credits and 10 years of credits for 'other' reasons such as unemployment etc. Together, there is a maximum cap of 20 years of credits. This has created the unnecessary division between those not in work for caring purposes and those on unemployment, studying or working abroad. The total 20 year cap on all credits also penalises those who were unable to get back into the workplace and who retrained or were unemployed etc. after 20 years at home with their families.

Putting Older People on the Agenda of Election 2020

Paddy Connolly said "It has taken a General Election for the voices of people to be heard on issues concerning us as we get older. It is good to see hopeful TDs listen to and respond to the needs of people. Policy development and implementation has to enable the participation of people in a meaningful way. What we are seeing through the pension focus is that mistakes were made. Mistakes cost money and votes. A Senior Minister for Older People, research on the cost of ageing to enable evidenced based policy and a Commissioner for Ageing would go some way to make sure the same mistakes are not made in the next Government."

Related Reading

To show your support for Stop 67 you can sign the petition or contact your candidate through www.pensionage.ie

To read more about Age Action and Active Retirement's Election 2020 campaign click here 

SHARE THIS

The new Bill is an inadequate response to the growing demand for the abolition of mandatory retirement.

According to Dr Nat O’Connor, Age Action’s Senior Policy Adviser: “Age Action strongly opposes the revival of the Employment (Restriction of Certain Mandatory Retirement Ages). Bill 2024, which is an inadequate response to the growing demand for the abolition of mandatory retirement.”

“Across political parties, in unions and among older persons, we see support for ending the practice of forcing people out of work before they are ready, but the proposed Bill makes no meaningful progress toward that end. The aim set out in its title, to restrict certain mandatory retirement ages, betrays its lack of ambition. All it provides for is the establishment of a complex, formal procedure so that employees can make a written request to stay on past their contractual retirement age; a request which can still be denied by their employer. This is the sole ‘restriction’ the Bill would impose on mandatory retirement.”

“This is a weak and ineffective Bill which is unlikely to help most employees who are forced out of work against their will for the offence of reaching a certain birthday. There is no reason for such timid action when we have seen other countries like Canada, New Zealand, Australia, the UK, and the United States abolish mandatory retirement entirely, in some cases decades ago. These countries have continued to enjoy well-functioning and productive labour markets and workplaces, showing that there is no foundation for the fears expressed by people who want to keep mandatory retirement.”

“Mandatory retirement is age discrimination. If the State allows a form of discrimination to be practiced, it must set out clear justifications for the practice. However, the popular arguments in favour of mandatory retirement are all myths. There is no evidence that older persons are less able to contribute to a workplace, or that they cost more than they contribute, or that they prevent younger workers from gaining employment. In fact, research has demonstrated the many benefits older workers bring to workplaces, including institutional experience, mentoring, and soft skills like better stress management.”

“Mandatory retirement is based on gross and insulting stereotypes about ageing. It is experienced by workers as a humiliating and dehumanizing injustice. It takes away our autonomy and our control over how and when we retire, which is a major life event. People who had no choice in retiring report poorer mental health, life satisfaction, health status, dietary habits, marital satisfaction, self-efficacy, and income adequacy, even years into their retirement.”

Dr. O’Connor concluded: “The proposed Bill is an incomplete and inadequate response to the problem of mandatory retirement, and by virtue of its incompleteness, reinforces and legitimises the dangerous ageism on which mandatory retirement is founded. We want our new government to take strong and decisive action, rather than tinkering around the edges of a serious problem. The Bill needs to be abandoned in favour of legislation that really helps the workers who wish to remain in work for longer.”

Churn:
It is not reasonable to suggest that the abolition of mandatory retirement would create a large problem for companies, when the scale of churn in the labour market is already far higher. The Irish labour market experienced 12.8% churn in quarter 3 of 2024, meaning that 1 in 8 jobs were created, abolished or vacated during this period, which was 365,750 jobs (Central Statistics Office 2024).

Compared to this level of hiring and resignations, managing the relatively small number of older workers who may seek to work longer or whose productivity may fall in older age is a much smaller human resources management issue for companies.

CSO (2024) Labour Market Churn Q3 2024 https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/fp/fp-lmc/labourmarketchurnq32024/

Age Action’s detailed policy paper outlining the case against mandatory retirement can be accessed here: https://www.ageaction.ie/sites/default/files/age_action_paper_abolish_mandatory_retirement.pdf