The default retirement age: A contentious issue

HRzone.co.uk is dedicating September to equality and diversity. We've already covered the benefits of a diverse workforce and the challenge of Generation Y, and we have a whole host of other articles on this topic coming up over the next few weeks so look out for them on the site!

One issue we will be looking at is the reasons for and against having a default retirement age and whether or not it should be scrapped. In July, HRzone reported that the government is to bring forward a review of the default retirement age by a year, to 2010.

Organisations such as the Employers Forum on Age (EFA) and The Age and Employment Network (TAEN) welcomed the government announcement about the review and are behind scrapping the mandatory retirement age (MRA) altogether, as they believe it is an archaic system that does not reflect how we live our lives today; whilst the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) believes the opposite to be true, warning against scrapping current arrangements without a suitable alternative.

The EFA and TAEN carried out a survey this summer, of almost 200 HR professionals, and found that 64% of employers who operate an MRA agree that it can lead to a loss of valuable knowledge and talent. They concluded that organisations that have dispensed with an MRA are managing well and have discovered genuine business benefits in their decision.

However, HRzone.co.uk is currently running its own poll, asking you whether you believe the MRA should be scrapped. So far, over 100 of you have responded and 58% think that it should not be scrapped as it gives employers a clear framework to work to; whilst 34% agreed that it is no longer needed in today’s workforce.

We've decided we need to hear both sides of the argument so we will be running two articles – one on the reasons for the MRA, by Aon Consulting, and one on the reasons against, by TAEN – so look out for them and don’t forget to let us know your thoughts on this divisive topic.