Currently, an employer can legally sack a worker when they reach 65. A watchdog has said people should be allowed to work beyond the age of 65 and with more flexible hours. Do you agree? Give reasons and examples.(Write about 250 words - Don't forget to use affixes)
21 comments:
Increasing population and raising life expectancy create a considerable numbers of job seekers which could affect social life. In fact, some employers would prefer to engage young employees, whereas others look for experience. I believe old employees should transfer their experience and vacate job for new employees, gradually.
The first point is knowledge of new technology. Recently, technology has accelerated to progress and its neglect could detriment the business. Therefore, most old employees who have worked for many years are behind developing world. For example, nowadays, driving license theory test is taken by computers and old people have problem with that.
It is a simple example for using technology.
Furthermore, life is accomplished with risk and young generation has a good effort to take it, despite old generation. However, risk in job should co-operate with experience to build up business confidentially.
Thirdly, young employees like improving themselves. It results in invention and speed of work. An energetic young employee like to present new and efficient method of work. For instance, young teacher looks after students more in compared with old teacher who have flexible hours.
In addition, old employees are often misused by employers. Because of their age, employers might pay them lesser.
Finally, young people want to make their future and they need job. It is a serious issue which could affect their social life.
In conclusion, increasing young generation population is inevitable. They all need job which are engaged already. Therefore, old people who have good experience can work more flexible to vacate more jobs for new employees. Under these circumstances, energy completes experience.
Feeling old is something natural.Some people may be sixty but feel thirty.I think we cannot base employment eligibility just on the age.As long as person is physically healthy and the mental faculties are in order,he or she can still contribute to society possibly more than younger inexperienced individuals.
I think that older people have more to give in experience and even to teach the ones who are starting now work,that it is a great loss if any enterprise would not use the knowlegde and background experience from older people.
To summurize older people should not be discriminated against.
Every one has the right to a job no matter what age.
One of recent problems in UK nowadays and probably one of the most discussed is the rule change for age retirement. The idea of abolishing the compulsory retirement age divided people into two groups, which both have got reasonable arguments to insist on their opinions.
Firstly, healthy and well elderly people want to work on flexible basis or get promotions from employer after retirement age. The carried out in Russia survey of public opinion about the same policy shows that majority of people thinks that most important reasons to continue working is financial necessity or willing to help children. Another reason for UK might be the fear of elderly people to become useless and lonely. It seems to me that the government could find the better alternative than the change of compulsory age of retirement, such as bigger state pensions.
Secondly, the decision was made on public opinion poll which says that rule change would be welcomed by 64% women and only 24% of men. In my opinion this is unfair deal. There are the rest of the people? I tend to believe that this part is young generation. It might happen that new retirement age rule will take jobs what young people so desperately need. Many of young people aged 20-25+ years need to combine their education, full-time or part-time jobs and small children. New tendency of government to give more jobs for “welderly” will put into stress young families.
To conclude, I think there will be no fair answer to this argument until government looks only at one side of it. In my personal opinion work allowance to aged 65 should remain as it was before.
My perspective is people who washed to work beyond the age 65 years old they should be allowed to work. I believe that, no one should be forced to stop or resign from the work because of they are old or in another word they are beyond the age 65 years.
Some people cannot start to work until late because of their personal circumstances for example, illness , family responsibilities or family problems. It is really unfair on them who desire to work and planed for the future when they become 65 years old they get sacked while the expenses still to go out like mortgage. Many other reasons are there which we could take them into account to consider the individuals circumstances. In other hand the expectation of population’s growth is another issue.
Moreover, young generation are willing to get vacant despite, the aged people not willing to resign, this two issues are contrast each other and causing enormous difficulties. My point of view on this issue is the government has to support those people who are capable to create jobs and vacancies.
In conclusion, in entire would increasing population is a huge problem and must be significantly consider. In addition, the aged people who has worked all their life they should give chance to the young generation who are inevitably need the job and wanted to reach their desires.
Nowadays,many people involvoed in different types of jobs to have some kind of financial for themselves.
Some people want to continue working up to 65.There are advantages and disadvantages.
Fristy,what is good if acontinue working? They could develope themselves more and more active,and helping themselves with fince.
Secondly,if every one retires at 65,the give more opportunities to the youner generation.
My perspective on the issue,i think there should be not age limit people can decide working or retires.
In my opinion it depends on the individual person and the type of job they are doing.Certain jobs may not be suitable for people over the age of 65 as the risk of injury may be a lot higher.However there are many jobs where people over the age of 65 would be at no risk to themselves or to others.
Many people these days that are over 65 are still very fit and healthy and are perfectly capable of doing their job correctly and I believe these people should be allowed to carry on working as normal. For example there are lots of people working in administrative jobs that are good if not better than younger people at doing that job as they often have more experience. With regards to flexible hours I would agree that it is a good idea for people over the age of 65 to be allowed to have more free time however for certain employers this is not possible.
There is also the issue that often older staffs are not as up to date with new technology and often can’t cope with having to be constantly learning new ways of doing their job. This means therefore that many employers feel that younger staff would be more effective. Sometimes this gives rise to the question of age discrimination and I agree that you should not be allowed to sack someone solely on the basis of his or her age, and it is not always just a question of age but more a question of the person’s capability of doing that job.
To conclude I think that each individual case should be taken into consideration and that no one should be sacked if they are still perfectly able to do their job with no risk to them or others.
Workers should be able to stay in their jobs beyond the age of 65,on the other hand employers should be co-operate to allow older employees to work flexibly and
regularly.
My personal view is that,if olderly people want to stay in employment past the current retirement age,it doesn't matter if they work full-time or part-time.
Firstly,it would also have health benefits as well,so work is a good kind of activities for them.Also some people want to keep earning and they want make their life better and better.
Secondly,nowadays,many people they are over the age of 65.Still they are healthy and they can work properly and regularly.In my point of view these people shouid be allowed to carry on working.
A law which allows to force staff to work at 65.My personal opinion is that,it depends to person and kind of job.The threat of enforced retirement at 65 is totally un-acceptable and the sooner it is scrapped the better.As I said before if some people over age 65 want to carry on working currectly with more flexible hours,why those people should be retirement.
In conclusion,in my opinion,some employer has copulsory retirement age limit,people will have the legal right to ask.If they can work beyond that age,employer must consider their reguest formally.
It has been known for some time now that a wish from some people towards a later retirement is being carried out, in other words, more and more people feel younger to cope with their work, as well as they really enjoy them, evidence for this is provided by Anne, who wants to work until she is seventy years old.
Goverments should treat the issue tactfully, keeping in mind, everybody employers and employees, furthermore if two parts are agree there is no point to stop working. A popular belief is that the sooner you get retired the better but for many people is not truth, therefore let's leave working the people who actually wanted it.
My feeling about the issue right now is quite ambiguous because it is a topic which doesn't affect to me directly, but I hope in the future when I am sixty-five years old I could choose my own decision, so far that same point the people should can do what they want, without any restriction from the goverment.
you said
It is unacceptable that an employer can legally sack a worker when they reach 65. In my opinion that the employer must give those six to twelve months written notice and the date of retirement before the employee reaches retirement age. Some argue that people should be allowed to work beyond the age of 65 and with more flexible hours. Therefore, the current situation is likely to change dramatically in the near future.
Firstly, in my view that it is unreasonable that some employers has age discrimination unless people have physical conditions don’t allow to work anymore (by illness or accident) or as a result of legislation concerning their position. Otherwise, retirement is considered a right of the worker in many societies which allow retire employees have the right to request to continue working one more year. In fact, the old employees could transfer their experiences to the new employees gradually during the year time. Whereas the new employees work with the old employees will build up their confidentially.
Furthermore, the majority of people retire before 65, but some people work beyond state pension age. Consequently, we will consider what action we could take next, if someone is capable of working and wishes to do so, it is uncertainly why they should be forced to retire. Government should encourage that physically healthy and the mental well elderly people go to work on flexible hours in order to raise financial necessary. Of course, many people choose to retire when they are eligible for private or public pension benefits.
Moreover, in my view that government increase the retirement age would not block high level jobs to younger generations. On the other hand, younger generations are willing to get vacant that would stimulate the economy.
In conclusion, it is unfair that some employers has compulsory retirement age limit, elderly people has the legal right to work beyond the age of 65, employer should consider elderly people request formally.
The issue of retirement at age of 65 is an important one, especially if both employer and worker agreed. I dislike the idea of an employer sacking a worker who reached the age of 65, as this might be perceive as an age discrimination. Employer should respect their staff wishes whether they decided to work or to retire beyond the age of 65. Some adults might not start working until they reached their 30’s, and this would disadvantage them when retiring, as their pension would not be enough. This following are just few of them.
The most important decision of working beyond the age of 65 must be the one of the employee as long as the person is physically and mentally able to carry out the work required of him/ her. Employer should not sack a worker when they reach the age of 65, because those people are essential to the success of the company they are working for. They could contribute by giving their experiences to the younger generation.
Another important fact is, the person might start work in his/ her thirties and might not contributed enough in his state pension which would disadvantaged him/her when retiring at 65 years because he/she would not able to travel or enjoy more desiring activities such as golf, tennis or cruising. Although younger generation might be affected because of the competitive job vacancy, elderly people should not be denying the right to work if that is their wishes.
Perhaps, employer should not have the right to sack because of someone age, as this is an age discrimination. Therefore, they must considerer employing younger generation and keep older generation beyond the age of 65 who wishes to continue working with the company.
Retirement Age,
The work is one of the main liabilities we find our presence at, we feel that we can benefit assistance the society and ourselves when we work and use our energy and knowledge, especially, if we find the proper job which is exactly appropriated with our qualification, talent, or hobs.
The work is minimum right we can have whenever and wherever we live. When we look for job, there are some bases we have to use them as a rule for looking for job which is seemly for us, like age, gender, qualification, skills, hobs, location, time and experience even sometimes religion or nationality.
People who are satisfied at work; they do their best to use their power and skills to make the employer content just to persuade them to employee them without threaten them by sacking out.
There are some rules we can’t challenge and fight them to keep our work for longer, because it’s applied for everybody without any discrimination, one of them is the age, there is a specific age for retirement, sometimes some people get to the retirement age and they still can work and so zealous and keen to continue without complaining about their age or anything else.
When they get the redundancy, they realise that they reached to the last station in their life, this embarrassment stage annoys and desperate them, they think that the time is over and they can’t do what they have been doing before and their life is going to be at the verge. This feeling affects them negatively, that’s how some of them think and scared of.
To escape from lonely and boring life they look for voluntary job just to make themselves busy and benefit other people around. They don’t want to waste their energy and skills at home and spent the rest of life alone. I had a neighbour she was complaining about her retirement and her children’s ignorance and neglect for her, she preferred to go back to work and do the same job voluntary.
In my opinion, it’s better to give a chance to people who are still interested to wok and still got energy and innate to do what they been doing at the same place even for volunteer to help them get benefit from their experience.
Shilan Jalal
03/10/2011
Retirement Age
There is a fierce debate over whether or not to force/encourage elderly workers and staff to retire at an early age. In my opinion, I totally disagree with the ideas that the chronological age is to be the determinant factor for retirement, instead, the ability to do the job sounds more perfect to be the judgement, by this I mean; they must be allowed to work as far as they are capable to perform the tasks.
To begin with, senior employees are experienced, trained and have a great working knowledge which is indispensable for businesses. Next, life span is increased nowadays due to better health services and care facilities than decades ago, therefore, firing age could be as late as 70-plus years. Last, but not least, forcing gray-haired to leave jobs is against democracy and human right; equal opportunity for all regardless of one's age.
On the other hand, those who argue that aged citizens must quit paid work at an early age have some points. Firstly, there is a growing number of unemployed upcoming youth who are waiting to start building their future. Secondly, in the fast-paced world of business and hi-tech innovations, a young mind would seems to be able to adapt with great flexibility (In English there is a saying '' You cannot teach an old dog new tricks''. add to that, new generations have high energy, than elderly counterparts, fresh ideas and above all is knowledge of using technology.
To sum up, it may be true that youngsters need a chance to establish their own life. Nevertheless, this should not be at the expense of the oldsters by sending them to pension.
In my opinion,extending retirement age beyond 65 would cause major obstacle and setback in the society by looking the points detailed below.
Reason and example .
Advantage.
1.First merit the aged people have huge experience,Which is involved in different aspects.
2.Other thing it will save a lot of money,Which we would give the retired persons those years.
Disadvantages.
1.First problem by Starting into abyss.
Enhancing retirement age will probably decrease the manpower of younger people who will not getting chance to provide fresh mind and ideas to country.
2.Second point. the older people are less active in mind and ability .So,This would be big insuperable .
In my opinion,extending retirement age beyond 65 would cause major obstacle and setback in the society in the current time and as well as future. by looking the points detailed below.
Reason and example .
Advantage.
1.First merit : Aged people have got huge experience in multiple tasks ,Which is very crucial for the scenario
2.Other point: It will save a lot of money,Which the government usually spends for pension.
Disadvantages.
1.First problem by Staring into abyss.
Increasing retirement age will probably decrease the opportunity of younger people who will not getting chance to provide fresh mind and ideas to country.
2.Second point. Aged people are less active in mind and ability .So,This would be cause falling level of manpower.
3.Other demerit is Aged people can't work flexible time,they already tired and not good enough to perform on time the task like young one.
Many older people are forced to end their working lives much earlier than they would like to do. According to rules ,when people reach 65,they are practically retired and an employer has legal right to sack their employees who are over the age of 65.I fundamentally disagree that the employer should be allowed to dismiss their workers.
There are several justifiable reasons as the older people should be allowed to continue their jobs after being retired. Capability of doing a job is the most essential factor that we need to consider. Many old people have substantial knowledge and ability in different occupations. In fact, they can transfer their experiences of their work and life to younger employees.
Another issue is high expenses of life. There is no guarantee for retired people that the state pension incomes will solve their financial problems. In my opinion it is utterly unfair that elderly people face huge concerns about their future. Working, undoubtedly, might be the significant financial support for them.
In addition, retired people who have worked during their whole life, hardly admit their retirement age .realising the fact that they are not helpful in their jobs can be bitterly disappointing for them. Furthermore, their social life could be faded and it has a considerable impact on their relationships.
In general, age is not the major priority to employ workers. The abilities and experiences of old people are valuable and are more important than age. Lots of old people are very subservient in their careers and can be superior to young workers.
In my point of view we have to accept the changes considering the reality in job markets. There are lots of challenges we are facing nowadays, for instance jobs markets has fallen rapidly in the last past years, no work available for young educated people, they need money in order to make a living.
Older people have contributed a lot to the community and society and they has achieved their goals. Why don’t they put their feet down and enjoy the fruit of their labour. They have to consider leaving work for young people who are out of job. If you are living with your own kids who have finished their education and not working and you are in retirement age, won’t you look back at what you have done with your life? The answer is you will definitely, and want them to be successful. The only option you have is to retire and wish all who has same age as you to do the same. We need to think hard and open our eyes to see the reality and put everything into consideration. Some are concerned about staying fit as work is the only source of excise they have. There are other activities they can do on their own pace without any hassle such as walking the dog, gardening and doing house work.
If the situation was different I was going to be in agreement with those who want to exceed retirement age.
As my point views. I would say I'm agree with what a watchdog has said.Now our days it's not easy to find a job like that.Even for the job they used to not ask before for an experience now days they ask for it.For example: To do cleaning you have to show them you already had an experience.
It true that when the workers starting to get old they suppose to leave they job.The reason is if, they do not have chose and their feel like still wanted to work. So like a watchdog said, people over the age of 65 and more suppose to have more flexible hours, to be able to work as well.
I disagree to the first questions where a 65 years old, people getting sacked by their employer.Basically in the UK legistation the women get retired at the ages at 60 while man are 65 however, in my opinion at that ages they claim for them do not work and by the low the employer daesn't have the legal right to sack his/her employers.
In this case i totally disagree with the next question because,the watchdog has not the right to say to people that they should be allowed to work beyond that ages of the 65 and with more flexible hours.On the other hand that is not their job, the reason to that the watchdog should be lookinga after the dog, not to tell people to work in that ages with more flexible hours it is impossible.
As my point views. I would say I'm agree with what a watchdog has said.Now our days it's not easy to find a job like that.Even for the job they used to not ask before for an experience now days they ask for it.For example: To do cleaning you have to show them you already had an experience.
It true that when the workers starting to get old they suppose to leave they job.The reason is if, they do not have chose and their feel like still wanted to work. So like a watchdog said, people over the age of 65 and more suppose to have more flexible hours, to be able to work as well.
As my point views. I would say I'm agree with what a watchdog has said.Now our days it's not easy to find a job like that.Even for the job they used to not ask before for an experience now days they ask for it.For example: To do cleaning you have to show them you already had an experience.
It true that when the workers starting to get old they suppose to leave they job.The reason is if, they do not have chose and their feel like still wanted to work. So like a watchdog said, people over the age of 65 and more suppose to have more flexible hours, to be able to work as well.
Post a Comment