On 2 Sep 2015 at 2:28pm I`m Andy wrote:
Jeremy Corbyn is suggesting earlier retirement for people in physically demanding jobs such as builders ,firemen e.t.c.Jeremy Corbyn said people like fire-fighters, builders, and emergency services workers should be exempt from the rising state pension age.
“Some people will be happy to work longer, others not. But living longer doesn’t mean we are able to work longer in physically demanding jobs like that of the firefighter, police officer or paramedic,” he wrote in a comment article for the the Daily Telegraph newspaper.this makes perfect sense to me,how about you?
Check it out here »
On 2 Sep 2015 at 3:08pm Old Builder wrote:
Builders yes; Firefighters have, apart from horrors like the A27, a damned cushy life and moonlight taking jobs from builders. Paramedics too. I've got to wait to 65 1/2 so it's not too bad for me. The Old Bill are the most idle of the lot - shiny trousered philanthropists sitting in their squad cars watching the traffic.
On 2 Sep 2015 at 3:37pm Paul wrote:
My job is demanding and I sit in an office - can't believe I'll be able to handle it properly much past 50 let alone 65!
On 2 Sep 2015 at 4:07pm Slarty wrote:
What about mentally demanding or high stress jobs. As people age the ability to work in those sorts of jobs reduces too.
Or teachers. Could a 70-year-old (possibly going hard of hearing, frail, doddery, etc) really be a good, say, reception teacher or PE teacher?
Or footballer (or any athlete), can they work up to 70?
Drivers of any sort? Should a 70-year-old be driving long hours?
It'll be a long list if all professions are taken into account.
On 2 Sep 2015 at 5:22pm Pearliegirliestar wrote:
They want teachers to retire at 68. Seriously, who wants a 68 year old teacher? How many 68 year olds can achieve a 60 hour week which is what it takes these days.
On 2 Sep 2015 at 5:48pm Oddbod wrote:
If people were a bit more careful with their money they would be able to retire earlier.
Live in a cheaper area or live in a smaller house. Drive an old car or cycle.
The idea that someone else tells you when you can retire is ridiculous.
On 2 Sep 2015 at 6:37pm Earl of Lewes wrote:
Why do we have to work full time and then suddenly stop? Surely the most simple, common sense answer would be to gradually wind down, so that people in their late 60s ( and beyond) can still work without feeling that it's killing them. This would be good for the economy and it would offer older people the benefits of work - sense of purpose, social contact and money - without the physical and mental stress.
In the case of very physically demanding jobs, workers could move into a mentoring/training role, helping new employees.
On 2 Sep 2015 at 6:42pm Redballs wrote:
Looks like a planned return to the good old days. I look forward to only having to work 3 days a week and being out on strike.
Coming soonbbut only to that well known utopian state of Corbinville.
On 2 Sep 2015 at 6:48pm The Old Mayor wrote:
the government want us to work till 70 soon, yet the corporate conglomerates make you redundant at 50, and to obtain further employment at that age is nigh on impossible, no companies want you. It's a ridiculous situation !
On 2 Sep 2015 at 7:03pm Annette Curtin-Twitcher wrote:
I've said something very similar myself, Earl of Lewes. I think phased retirement is the way to go, although I agree about those doing very physical jobs.
How the hell is a hod carrier supposed to carry on till they're 70?
On 2 Sep 2015 at 7:10pm I don't live in Lewes... wrote:
On 2 Sep 2015 at 7:16pm Earl of Lewes wrote:
@OldMayor -That's the problem in a nutshell. The Government want us to work longer, but there's more ageism in the workplace and many employers prefer younger staff who are more desperate and are less likely to complain. Also, as an employer, I found men over 50 a bit tricky (I'm a man over 50 and I probably wouldn't employ myself). But that's because my bosses wanted staff who were 'enthusiastic' rather than experienced and mature.
On 3 Sep 2015 at 6:25am DJ wrote:
Police officers take retirement after 25 or 30 years of service as it is deemed not possible to do the work over 50. Lots of them then take jobs within the Police civilian staff. If they are capable of that then why shouldn't they given these jobs to do as a police officer and save paying them twice until they retire again. Jobs for the boys situation.
On 3 Sep 2015 at 12:37pm Earl of Lewes wrote:
I wonder how many would join the police force if they took away the perks? I wouldn't fancy their job even with the benefits.
On 3 Sep 2015 at 1:36pm ar10642 wrote:
Oddbod, it's not that simple. If you move somewhere cheaper it's usually because there are no decent jobs locally. There probably isn't a railway station or a decent bus service either. So you're going to be a lot of car commuting, which costs money. And you probably won't want to do it in an old banger unless your boss doesn't mind you not turning up when it breaks down.
Pensions are mostly worthless so people who can end up buying property to generate an income, which pushes up prices for everyone else, and you now have a fairly big chunk of the younger generations who can't buy a house, probably ever, because it's simply out of reach. When *those* generations get to retirement age, presumably still renting at sky-high rates, it ain't going to be pretty.
On 3 Sep 2015 at 3:25pm bastian wrote:
I have a physical job and I am struggling now, the idea of still doing it at 68 is ridiculous, not to mention, how are the young people supposed to get work if we are all hogging the jobs they need. There is no provision for old age in the work place, ther is, however, the right to dismiss someone who is considered to be unable to do their job, so it's struggle on or get out. Here's the twist, they are no longer replacing people who leave either, so it's no help to a younger man.