Shelagh Fogarty

12:00 - 14:00

« Previous | Main | Next »

Should workers who are past it be forced to step aside?

Post categories:

Christopher Hunter | 07:48 UK time, Thursday, 29 July 2010

The government's planning to scrap the default retirement age. It wants to stop bosses being allowed to dismiss staff just because they've hit 65. Some campaigners say it's a victory against ageism. But critics are worried it'll mean fewer jobs for younger workers.

Read more on BBC News - Plan to axe fixed retirement age

So, should workers who are past it be forced to step aside?

The phone-in number is 0500 909693 and you can text us on 85058.

Comments

  • 1. At 09:54am on 29 Jul 2010, Andronico75 wrote:

    It's interesting to think of the effect of our youth-obsession on financial regulation and markets and the recent crisis: one wonders if the cycle of serious economic crises reoccurs because nobody in the workplace is old enough to remember the last crisis.

    Then again, people in financial services (those being paid well anyway) stereotypically seem to retire in their thirties, forties and fifties anyway, and if they hate their jobs that much, then it's hard to expect them to behave in a consistently sane and responsible manner whilst within them in any case, or?

    Complain about this comment

  • 2. At 09:07am on 03 Aug 2010, zeldalicious wrote:

    Nowhere to blog about the discussions held last Friday, yesterday and today? Is this going the same way as Victoria's?

    Complain about this comment

  • 3. At 2:30pm on 04 Aug 2010, cleverelliejo wrote:

    We are constantly being told that because there are so many pensioners in this country we need more people in work, so we have immigration on a huge scale, but there are not the jobs,so funds have to be diverted away from pensioners to support the vast numbers there are no jobs for.
    If we are constantly adding to the bottom of the pile, pyramid fashion, and expanding, can anyone explain to me what will happen when those at the bottom get to retirement age, many from their non-jobs, how many will be required at the bottom to fund their pensions??????
    Is the population going to have expand continuously??????

    Complain about this comment

  • 4. At 08:50am on 09 Aug 2010, U14560718 wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 5. At 09:00am on 11 Aug 2010, zeldalicious wrote:

    Wot? No blog for today 11.08.2010? Quelle surprise! Tsk, Tsk.

    Complain about this comment

  • 6. At 9:10pm on 11 Aug 2010, Stirling wrote:

    No blog for over a week. I therefore assume that the breakfast blog is going the same way as the messageboards?

    Complain about this comment

  • 7. At 09:27am on 12 Aug 2010, zeldalicious wrote:

    Looks like it Stirling.

    Complain about this comment

  • 8. At 11:15pm on 15 Aug 2010, NewCastleIndianaUSA wrote:

    yeah, just when I find the blog, and start to read/follow it, it stops. Sorry guys.

    Complain about this comment

  • 9. At 10:25pm on 22 Aug 2010, Nick Vinehill wrote:

    Well maybe they should providing they are well pensioned off if they've worked hard all their life and would have worked hard all their life if the economics of capitalism hadn't have prevented them from doing so!

    A far more pertinent question to ask is should workers who are not past it yet involved in mainstream journalism, commissioned military, politics, finance, law and everything else in upholding the political and economic interests of the British ruling class be foced to step aside.

    After all, their combined contributions ensure that in an alleged democratic society nobody hears an alternative agenda to the failed political agenda of all the major parties!

    Complain about this comment

  • 10. At 09:36am on 23 Aug 2010, zeldalicious wrote:

    Can the BBC now officially announce the death of the breakfast phone in Blog? I knew it wouldn't last.

    Complain about this comment

  • 11. At 10:51pm on 26 Aug 2010, Nick Vinehill wrote:

    Can't you just close this darn site and admit that a 5 Live moderated 'phone-in' has defeated free speech and diverse viewpoints!

    Complain about this comment

  • 12. At 08:04am on 30 Aug 2010, JunkkMale wrote:

    'So, should workers who are past it be forced to step aside?'

    That phrasing suggests an interesting perception of ability based on age by the BBC itself.

    I am not sure I'd conflate being older with being 'past it' quite so glibly.

    Did you run that by one the scores of youthful compliance/sensitivity officers being hired daily, or are they, along with the rest of the corporation, off on school hols?

    Complain about this comment

  • 13. At 12:14pm on 31 Aug 2010, NewCastleIndianaUSA wrote:

    plenty of people never reach 'it'.
    and here in the USA it depends on what 'it' means. :)

    Complain about this comment

  • 14. At 11:08am on 30 Sep 2010, laweresque wrote:



    If you are old and have been highly paid, you should step aside and stop piling up
    capital in favour of someone younger who needs a job. Is that a bit Loganesque?

    Complain about this comment

  • 15. At 11:11am on 30 Sep 2010, laweresque wrote:


    Its people who work dressed like fashion items who want to go on and on
    NOT trench diggers and real workers.

    Complain about this comment

  • 16. At 11:12am on 30 Sep 2010, laweresque wrote:



    There are said to be workers on programmes who get six times more than other broadcasters on the same show. Not happy families then?

    Complain about this comment

View these comments in RSS

BBC iD

Sign in

bbc.co.uk navigation

BBC © 2012

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.