>Mandatory retirement allows
employers to force all employees to retire at a certain age,
usually at 65. Mandatory retirement was >widespread in the U.S. in
the 1960s and 1970s before Congress abolished it in 1986. However,
it is still common in many European countries today. Since the global
economic recession, many
older workers are not retiring or are re-entering the labor force because they
have suffered a sharp decline in economic security. At the
same time, younger workers are having a difficult time securing employment and are leaving
the labor force in large numbers. Should there be a mandatory retirement
age? Or is this age discrimination?
Mandatory retirement gives younger people greater opportunities of
employment. Considering the high unemployment statistics in many countries,
it will help reduce youth unemployment.
This is more economically sound - it makes more sense
to pay more pensions than to support the unemployed youth
of the country. If they are not given the opportunity to begin a career,
or become established at a company,
it is far more difficult to encourage them later in life.
Besides creating new jobs, mandatory retirement policies remove senior, high-earning workers and
replace them with entry-level workers, which
may save companies money in terms of payroll. In addition, mandatory
retirement also reduces or eliminates the phenomenon known as “plateaued
workers.” This occurs when workers reach a level of pay or responsibility with no room
for further advancement. These older
workers may have little motivation to continue working hard, which
can decrease morale and clog >promotional channels for lower-ranking employees.
One of the main reasons that certain professions, such as police
officers, doctors, and pilots, have a mandatory retirement age is
to ensure that the person who is responsible for the safety
of others remains competent to do his or her
job. Based on the idea that after a certain age, people’s physical reflexes and >mental acuity are more likely
to decline, these professions are not available to people over
a certain age as a safety precaution. Mandatory
retirement would protect against the detrimental effects that
could be the result of mistakes or Cons
The population in many countries is ageing. People are living longer.
Forcing people to retire simply increases the heavy economic burden of pensioners. The ratio of the dependent population to the
working population is increasing, and a mandatory retirement age is
an unnecessary measure that
>exacerbates the problem.
Instead, we should be actively encouraging those who are able to continue
Mandatory retirement forces a number of people to leave a position at the height of
their experience. This means that they will not be allowed to remain
at an organization to pass on their knowledge to
younger people. This may rob a particular profession of
the group of people who know it best, thereby causing the overall competency of an organization
to decline. In addition, many people who are pushed out of a job after
they reach a particular age are not qualified to perform other kinds of work.
It is often extremely difficult for them
to get hired, particularly for positions where they have little experience.
Therefore, a mandatory retirement age is unfair for older workers
who still need income.
There is no medical proof to confirm
that a person over the age of 65 is either infirm or incapable. In the professions
where this law would take effect, there are safeguards to identify malpractice or incompetence. These are far
better dealt with on an individual basis, according to health and
fitness, rather than punishing
those healthy capable individuals who wish to work beyond this age.
1. When did U.S. Congress abolish mandatory retirement?
2. Why are many old people not retiring or re-entering the labor force?
3. As a result, what do young people suffer from?
1. What is your opinion about the topic? Express your opinion.
2. Can you think of any ways to improve mandatory retirement issue?
3. What is “employment”? Use the word in a sentence.