Right: In an age of fast-changing technology, many employers prefer not to hire older workers. Some encourage long-time employees to retire, or even dismiss them to make room for younger people. This has been seen as an argument against raising the official retirement age.Arguments against Australia's retirement age being lifted to 67
1. Increasing the retirement age will be socially discriminatoryIt has been claimed that increasing the retirement age will be discriminatory. Wealthy individuals are not dependent on government pensions. Therefore they are able to cease work when they choose to. Those largely dependent on a government pension to fund their retirement will not only have little or no choice as to when they retire, they are now being told they will have to work for two years longer.
Mike Rafferty, from the University of Sydney's Workplace Research Centre, has claimed that lifting the pension age is an unfair policy. Mr Rafferty has stated, 'For many people that are wealthy, they can retire whenever they like.
So what it is really doing is it is saying to the working age people who can't afford to retire when they like that essentially now they are going to be pushed further away from retirement.'
Mr Rafferty has claimed the move will cause a greater class rift in retirement. He has further stated, 'You are going to create larger inequality into retirement because we already know that by the time people get towards retirement age all sorts of inequalities are already locked in. Now you are going to say amongst those who can't afford to retire, you are going to work longer as well.'
It has also been stated that the increase is discriminatory because it applies to those dependent on an old age pension and does not affect those able to draw on a superannuation pension.
There has been no increase in the age at which people are able to access their superannuation contributions. This means that those unable to build up substantial superannuatoin investments will be at a disadvantage. They will effectively be required to remain at work for longer than others who will be able to draw on a superannuation income.
2. Many workers in manual jobs may not be physically able to continue
It has been claimed that extending the retirement age to 67 may place unreasonable demands on some workers. It is argued that those people who have been employed in physically demanding manual work may well carry injuries which would make it very difficult for them to continue working for a further two years.
Many manual workers have claimed they are simply unable to continue to 67. Mr Noel Brown, 62, was interviewed by The Australian on may 24, 2009. Mr Brown has worked as a bricklayer for 40 years. He suffers from chronic arthritis in his hips and has trouble walking. He now works as a traffic controller on a building site. Mr Brown has stated, 'It's when you hit 50 that you start to feel the aches and pains. I haven't laid a brick in eight years. Hands, knees, back - the lot's gone. In two years, I just want to get out of it. I don't want to see another building site again.'
The Australian also interviewed Mr John Burns, also 62, who is a rigger. Mr Brown stated, 'Sixty-five is a milestone and two years is a long time when you're doing physical work. You're that buggered you can't enjoy your retirement the way you should.'
A similar point of view has been expressed by the Australian Federation of Nurses. On May 27, 2009, the Federation issued a report which stated, 'Given that the nature of nursing work is heavy, stressful and involves shift work, with long unsociable hours, it is difficult to see how nurses could sustain working the extra years. It is already a struggle for nurses to continue working well into their 60s.
These additional years could lead to falling morale, and dissuade nurses from staying on in the health system; we already have difficulty retaining nurses. It is possible that it will lead to an increase in workplace injuries as nurses try to cope with the heavy work on ageing bodies.'
3. Older workers are likely to face discrimination
It has been claimed that many older workers will have difficulty remaining in the workforce because they face discrimination on the basis of their age. Though there is anti-discrimination legislation which prohibits such prejudice, it has been claimed that the reality is that ageism still operates in the workplace. It has been claimed that this is particularly the case should an older worker lose their job. They will then find it very difficult to find comparable, or indeed, any employment because many employers appear to be reluctant to take on older workers.
It has been claimed that there is a general tendency to discriminate against older workers and to attribute a range of negative qualities to them. Elizabeth Broderick, in an article published in The Newcastle Herald, 5 February 2010, stated, 'We live in a culture that is largely obsessed with appearance and places high value on being "vital and young". These values often lead to systematic stereotyping of, and discrimination against, people simply because of their age - in this case, mature age. That is ageism. The unfortunate thing about stereotypes like, "mature people are slow to pick up technology", is not just that they are untrue, but that they are often accepted as "truth" or "reality". Ageism strongly implies a message of decline and of burden.' Such attitudes appear to lead employers not employing mature workers.
Figures released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics indicate that the number of 'discouraged job seekers' - people who are able to work but have stopped searching - increased 51.2 per cent to 111,800 over the last four years to 2009. Of these 'discouraged job seekers', more than half (52 per cent) were aged over 55 and about 40 per cent said they had stopped looking for a job because they were considered too old by employers.
Shane Higgins, from the online job agency Older Workers, has claimed that employers are essentially dismissive of olders workers. Mr Higgins has stated, 'They don't even give them a chance to show their qualifications. A lot of our members are writing and emailing us saying, "we're not even getting responses to our emails, to our job applications". '
Michael O'Neill, the chief executive of National Seniors has claimed that Australia has among the lowest participation rates for the over-55s among the English-speaking OECD nations. Mr O'Neill attributes a significant part of this low participation rate to discrimination against older employees.
4. It will have an adverse impact on those industries dependent on retirees
The retirement industry in Australia is experiencing a growth phase as baby boomers approach retirement age. This growth has also seen a change in the product on offer to retirees. The range of industries involved in servicing retirees has increased. Retirees are now an important component of the tourist market, all areas of the leisure market, the hospitality industry and the real estate industry.
Leon Gettler, an economics commentator for The Age, noted in a blog published on March 31, 2010, that there has been a huge growth in businesses targeting the 'grey market' with a focus on 'leisure products, beauty products and elder care services'. Such businesses are likely to suffer if the retiree market is restricted because people believe their access to pensions and/or to their superannuation entitlements is likely to be delayed.
The recent drops in the share market have given an indication of the negative impact on businesses which could occur if the retiree market is significantly diminished. Finance columnist Michael Pascoe has stated, 'I was talking to a travel agent recently who told me that the part of her business that has really disappeared is the retiree market - people depending on their investments to live.'
It has been suggested that if the age at which people can retire is increased then this may have a negative impact on all those industries which have come to depend for a significant portion of their income on the retiree market.
5. It will reduce the social contribution that older Australians can make
It has been noted that many retirees perform significant amounts of unpaid, volunteer work that contributes in a substantial manner to the wellbeing of Australian society. This work includes community volunteer work in schools, with church and welfare agencies, in animal rescue bodies and in fund raising for charities.
In addition to this, it has been noted, that many retirees perform valuable work within their own families. The care for their grandchildren so that their sons and daughters are able to work. They look after members of their families and others who are ailing and/or variously disabled. Without these services many working mothers would not be able to hold down a job and many of the ill and frail being cared for in their own homes would become a drain on hospitals, nursing homes and other government-funded services.
It has been claimed that Australia has a general tendency to undervalue unpaid labour. The Australian Bureau of Statistics has indicated that it does not consider there needs to be questions about unpaid work in the Census. This means that it is extremely difficult to quantify either the amount of unpaid work being performed or its value.
In 1994, Melbourne economist Duncan Ironmonger published a research paper that attempted to quantify and value unpaid work.
Ironmonger found that the hours of unpaid work performed by Australians are substantially higher than the hours of paid work (in 1992 40 percent more), and over a nearly 20 year period from 1974, the hours of unpaid work in Australia grew by 131 million hours per week. Extrapolating from this to consider the unpaid work of retirees, it seems likely that it is both significant and of important economic and social worth.
If older Australians are compelled to remain in the paid workforce for longer, then their capacity to contribute to the community in other ways will be reduced.