Retirement shouldn’t be mandatory at 65

Not everyone had the opportunity to find steady work or secure good paying jobs that afforded them a decent paying retirement. A lot just scraped by. Until you are retirement age you may not understand that putting a nest egg away for retirement is not as easy as you think. Many have to dip into that egg and many have spent that egg trying to survive.

If the old age pension and Canada pension paid enough to survive comfortably, and my emphasis is on comfortably a lot more would love to retire. But the old age pension doesn’t really go up enough to afford maintaining your own home or affording rent in a quality apartment. Making better financial decisions wasn’t the answer when the jobs that afforded this luxury just were not there.

So should mandatory retirement be enforced at 65? Sadly no because some of us will have to work if we are physically able to until the day we die, and that folks is a fact.



7 Responses

  1. Anonymous says:

    So many people just decided to snort their paycheques up their nose or drink it away and now the young people must suffer too because the oldies can’t/won’t retire.

  2. Anonymous says:

    It should be besides who the fuck wants to work till they die

  3. Anonymous says:

    There is no ‘enforcement’ happening once someone reaches 65 and goes to work. You can still choose to work past 65 if you wish.

  4. Anonymous says:

    Ya you fucking idiot. I’ll be working until at least 70

  5. Brock says:

    Retirement is NOT mandatory at the age of 65,

    Try researching next time before posting.

    • Anonymous says:

      Try researching yourself before opening your big yap Brock
      “No law in Ontario requires persons to retire at any age. In theory, employees can work until they no longer wish to do so or are incapable of performing their jobs. However, many workplaces have retirement policies that require all employees to retire at age 65. These may arise out of collective agreements negotiated between the employer and union or as a result of an employer’s personnel policies. For the reasons discussed below, employees who do not wish to retire at 65 have no means to challenge the collective agreement or personnel policy. This means that in effect, an employer can impose mandatory retirement at 65.

      The Ontario Human Rights Code defines “age” as:

      s. 10(1) “age” means an age that is eighteen years or more, except in subsection 5(1) where “age” means an age that is eighteen years or more and less than sixty-five years.

      The restricted definition of age means that the Commission cannot receive a complaint of age discrimination in employment from someone who is 65 or older. This means it is not contrary to the Code for employers to require employees to retire at age 65 (or older) and employees cannot challenge this practice. Similarly, workers who continue to be employed cannot complain if their employer treats them differently (e.g. in remuneration, benefits, hours, vacation etc.) on the basis of their age.

      Restricted definitions of age, or other exceptions in human rights legislation that permit mandatory retirement at age 65, have been the subject of several challenges under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In all of the cases, the Supreme Court of Canada has upheld mandatory retirement. In one case, the Supreme Court considered the definition of “age” in the Ontario Code and found that, mandatory retirement policies do discriminate on the basis of age but are a reasonable limit on the equality rights of older persons (McKinney v. University of Guelph (1990)[19]).”

      • Anonymous says:

        So what is stopping the over 65s from trying to find a workplace that is more accommodating? Most I know have 1 some 2 pensions and they are still working.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.