This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . It will not be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/business/7629384.stm

The article has changed 9 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 4 Version 5
Setback in retirement age battle Setback in retirement age battle
(about 3 hours later)
A challenge to the right of employers to make people retire at 65 has been rejected by a European court adviser.A challenge to the right of employers to make people retire at 65 has been rejected by a European court adviser.
An Advocate-general, a senior legal adviser to the European Court of Justice, backed current UK rules - although the decision is not binding.An Advocate-general, a senior legal adviser to the European Court of Justice, backed current UK rules - although the decision is not binding.
Age Concern is challenging UK laws, which since 2006 have allowed employers to compel workers to retire at 65.Age Concern is challenging UK laws, which since 2006 have allowed employers to compel workers to retire at 65.
Some 260 people in Britain have cases at employment tribunals which depend on the European court's ultimate decision.Some 260 people in Britain have cases at employment tribunals which depend on the European court's ultimate decision.
Many believe they have been unfairly treated and are worse off because they had to retire at 65.Many believe they have been unfairly treated and are worse off because they had to retire at 65.
Campaigners, who believe that setting an age limit is discriminatory, stressed that the case would run for some time. Campaigners, who believe that setting an age limit is discriminatory, described the latest decision as a setback but stressed that the case would run for some time.
But employers' groups have welcomed the latest guidance. Around a third of UK employers have a mandatory retirement age, but this is not necessarily set at 65.
TimescaleTimescale
The Advocate-General's view could influence the judges who are expected to give their ruling in the case just before Christmas, but it is not binding.The Advocate-General's view could influence the judges who are expected to give their ruling in the case just before Christmas, but it is not binding.
If they eventually find in the campaigners' favour, the case could then return for a final hearing in a British court.If they eventually find in the campaigners' favour, the case could then return for a final hearing in a British court.
AdvertisementAdvertisement
Consultant paediatrician Nigel Speight on being forced out of his job at 65Consultant paediatrician Nigel Speight on being forced out of his job at 65
The employers' organisation the CBI has argued that a normal retirement age of 65 is an essential management tool.The employers' organisation the CBI has argued that a normal retirement age of 65 is an essential management tool.
It has added that employees can ask to work beyond that age.It has added that employees can ask to work beyond that age.
Employers have a duty to consider these requests, and the CBI has said that this system has proved to be a success.Employers have a duty to consider these requests, and the CBI has said that this system has proved to be a success.
'Unfair' 'Sensible'
The case is being brought by Heyday - part of Age Concern. It was prompted by a survey of 60,000 people, with 80% claiming the rules were unfair. Katja Hall, the CBI's director of employment, said the Advocate-general's opinion was a "sensible and fair" approach to the issue.
"Employees already have the right to request postponement of retirement. Our surveys show that just over 30% of employees requested postponed retirement in the last year and over 80% of these requests were granted.
"This right ensures that employers and employees sit down and find solutions that work for both sides.
The law ought to be in favour of good management, recognising value and not price Post-65 worker Phil Hingley
"Firms offer a growing range of options but they must retain the right to say no and retire people with dignity at the end of their career with the company."
Losing this right could make employers less inclined to take on older workers, she said.
But Gordon Lishman, director general of Age Concern, said: "Millions of older workers in the EU will be fuming that the Advocate-general thinks ageism counts for less than other forms of discrimination."
The case is being brought by Heyday - part of Age Concern. It was prompted by a survey of 60,000 people, with 80% claiming the rules were unfair, the group said.
Director Ailsa Olgive said that the current rules were "costing good workers their jobs".Director Ailsa Olgive said that the current rules were "costing good workers their jobs".
"Denying people work because of their date of birth is grossly unfair, and in these tough times we expect more people will need to carry on working into 'retirement' in order to make ends meet," she said."Denying people work because of their date of birth is grossly unfair, and in these tough times we expect more people will need to carry on working into 'retirement' in order to make ends meet," she said.
HAVE YOUR SAYI do not want to be told when I have to retire. If I am healthy at 65 I want to continue workingCaptain, WestburySend us your comments
"More than a million people are already working past state pension age and they are the fastest growing group in the workforce.""More than a million people are already working past state pension age and they are the fastest growing group in the workforce."

/>
Phil Hingley, 66, has 47 years experience in the railway industry and has continued working part-time. His wife, a university lecturer, has also continued to work.
Should people over the age of 65 be allowed to work? Are you of retirement age? Would you like to continue to work? "The law ought to be in favour of good management, recognising value and not price," he said.
Send us your comments by completing the form below. He believed that in many cases line managers wanted employees with experience to continue, whereas corporate human resources departments looked more at the costs involved in keeping on higher paid staff.
In most cases a selection of your comments will be published, displaying your name and location unless you state otherwise in the box below.
Name