Why Some People Need to Work Beyond 65

Mandatory Retirement is Age discrimination

The employees of "2% of the federally regulated employers" are being discriminated against. 

Many of the professionally qualified and experienced immigrants migrating to Canada are in the age group of 35 - 42 (maximum allowed for applicants at the time of application). It takes another couple of years or more before they arrive in Canada. This does not give them enough time to earn enough to save for retirement, especially when there are obstacles in them finding gainful employment in their chosen profession on the basis of which they have migrated to Canada. The new immigrants end up working odd jobs, such as labourers, security guards, drivers, pizza delivery drivers etc.

Not with enough money for retirement, they end up living hand-to-mouth or collecting Guaranteed Income Supplement which is an added burden on the public exchequer.

There has been a shift in demographics with people living longer as currently the life-expectancy is 78 to 80 years for males and females. There are some who have taken early retirement only to go back to work to jobs that are less demanding, do not pay as well, and are less secure.

Raymonde Folco said in the House of Commons, "Research shows that, according to current trends, abolishing mandatory retirement should not have a significant impact on the average age of new retirees or on the total number of years worked. For people concerned about the consequences—I have spoken to many of them—the research indicates that two-thirds of older workers choose to retire before age 65, 43% of all workers retire before 65 and the average retirement age for all workers was 61 in 1991. In addition, 11.8% of Canadians between 65 and 69 years of age were part of the labour force in 2001. Immigrants and women may remain in the labour force longer to build up larger pensions. Employers are better able to plan for turnover."

More and more people over the age of 65 are working beyond normal retirement age. This is due to people wishing to work longer and having the good health to work into retirement, but also due to fear over their financial situation, including fear that their existing pensions will not be enough to cover them throughout their retirement. There is increasing evidence that retired people are living in poverty due to shortfalls in their pension provisions.

There is the Damocles' sword hanging over the pensioners who periodically feel threatened with cuts (as much as 20% to 30% in some cases) at the time of negotiations for renewal of union contracts.

Daniel Paillé MP from Hochelaga, QC asks, “Are we able to live off our retirement pensions at age 65? I am the vice-chair of the Standing Committee on Finance. A number of people have come to see us here in Ottawa to tell us that they cannot retire at age 65 because of a lack of income. They want to be able to continue working to achieve their full potential, because they are fit …”

Some older people have postponed retirement while many others have become self employed.

Many pension funds have not done as well as expected in recent years, and the drop in the stock market has meant that people who had reached retirement age found themselves leaving work with a lot less money than they had expected. Some of these people were obliged to stay on at their places of work if they were permitted to do so, while others had to seek alternative employment.

After paying towards a pension all of their working lives only to find that their pensions were worth less than they expected, was a source of great hurt, and disappointment for many people.

Ed Komarnicki, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour, though opposing the Bill, pointed out, "Today, approximately 10% of Canada's population continues to work after age 65. The average age of retirement in Canada is 62. Given these facts, it is worth noting that mandatory retirement policies in the federally regulated private sector currently affect very few employees in practice. How few are affected by the mandatory retirement? Less than 2% of the federally regulated employers. Among large employers with 100 employees or more, about 10% have a mandatory retirement policy. That is a major drop from about 25% in the late 1990s. Within the federal public service, the practice of mandatory retirement ended in 1986. There has been consistent progress." 

In that case, why not give an option to work to the employees of "2% of the federally regulated employers". 

Many countries are changing their laws to allow employees to work beyond the age of 65. The reasons for this are not all about giving greater choice to people in retirement or about personal development for the retired community. The reasons are more likely to do with, in part, the labour shortage that exists in many developed countries, in part because there are more older people in the labor market, and, more worryingly, because of the pension deficit.

Below is a link to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal decision on November 8 which only applies to the two Air Canada pilots who have been fighting for last few years. That means every other pilot or employee, who wishes to work beyond the current discriminatory mandatory retirement age (60 for pilots and 65 for others), has to fight and wait.

Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Decision, November 8, 2010:

Vilven-Kelly Remedy Decision