Up retirement age? Yes, but…
Posted by Dave Bath on 2009-05-20
The budget plan to raise the retirement age to 67 is something I welcome, providing that there are indeed positions available for people of that age.
The government must lead the way on employing those between 65 and 67 years, and demonstrate how some of the complications (including desire for less than full-time, perhaps half-time or 3 day weeks) can be handled, and can indeed provide benefits to employers.
Mind you, if the government cannot manage the less-than-full-weeks and unpredictable time-outs because of various disabilities and chronic diseases, then there it has little hope of managing the 65-67 year olds, and less hope of private enterprise making best use of wisdom.
And seriously, if your skills are in things like shearing or construction, then there is no real prospect of employment and for such industries, the retirement/superannuation-collection age shouldn’t be increased on you.
- "The Skills Truly Lacking" (2008-) discussed the real skills shortgage – managers smart enough to make the most of people who cannot do a 40-hour week every week all year, or have a disability.
- "Working to 67 is a grey area" (20090519) in The Age by Shaun Carney