End mandatory retirement but protect seniors from discrimination

End mandatory retirement but protect seniors from discrimination

(Speech delivered by Mel Catre on Sept. 8, 2004 at the public hearing on Ending Mandatory Retirement conducted in Toronto by the Ontario Liberal Government.)

My name is Mel Catre, President of Community Alliance for Social Justice. We are an umbrella organization of community groups and network of individuals dedicated to advancing the cause of social justice through advocacy, education, community action and changes in legislation. Our members aremostly new Canadians.

We are delighted to know that our government through your committee is reviewing the current status of Mandatory Retirement.

Our stand is to End Mandatory Retirement and give Ontario workers the right to choose when they want to retire.

We endorse the plan to change the definition of age in the Ontario Human Rights Code. Particularly, defining age in employment as being 18 years and older, but less than 65. Legislation should allow those individuals affected to file complaints on discrimination regardless of age.

Statistics show that Toronto attracts more immigrants than any other city in Canada. Starting salaries for new immigrants are in the lower brackets. Some arrived only recently. Their pension contributions are not enough to retire comfortably to face current needs. Many are willing to work and improve their contributions. There is a growing trend of more workers reaching 65 years, yet the proportion of younger people contributing to the pension fund is alarmingly sliding. When the pension fund was originally designed there were more younger workers than retirees. Reports showed that in the U.S. there were nine workers for every American eligible for retirement at 65 at the time social security was initiated. By 1990, the ratio had become 3.3 to one retiree. The same figures are registered in Canada. One can imagine the ratio in a few decades from now. Retirees now live longer. Actuaries in the life insurance industries are recording life expectancies in the 80’s for Canadians.

The old adage of the law of supply and demand is still applicable. The labour market looks at the efficiency of the older workers favorably. It is not a matter of ideology but rather a matter of necessity. The old dream of retiring early so they can go to Florida for some is realistic but for many, it remains a dream. Even those that have saved money through the stock market, mutual funds and similar investments are lamenting on the performance of their investments. They need to go an extra mile to achieve their dream retirement. This is the time we will no longer see bright, young people eager to push older workers out of work but rather, the willingness of the younger people to understand older people’s plight and the eagerness of the employers to retain deserving, efficient and hard working older workers. The Family Service Association and the Community Social Planning Council of Toronto report that more than one-third of Toronto families where parents are younger than
35 live at the poverty level. Who is going to support the retirees?

It has been argued that abolishing Mandatory Retirement will compel employers to monitor closely and because of that the older employee will be forced to resign early. This argument does not wash. Employers will look at productivity, efficiency and performance as has been proven in the past by these older workers. Many are tasked to train subordinates and younger employees. Words that are familiar such as “individual choice” and efficiency should earn merit and should be the guidepost of employers.

In a non-unionized workplace, ending mandatory retirement will not adversely affect terms and conditions of employment. The choice is for the older employees. Although, collective bargaining agreements have to be reviewed and re-written in unionized workplaces, labour leaders are cognizant of the law and are expected to obey the law when applicable.

We need to protect the pensions that workers and retirees have accrued over their working lifetimes. Some employers fail to meet their commitments, either through bankruptcy, insolvency, or winding up pension plans. They face sudden loss of income.

Pension benefits are augmented when more contributions are deposited. This will allow workers to retire in dignity. The necessity of expanding the Canada Pension plans, GIS and Old Age Security has to be reviewed.

Statistics Canada found that 18 percent of middle age workers expect to never retire, with typical reasons being a fear of inadequate pension, or insufficient private savings. Also, if they have invested in stock markets, they are worried because the stock markets have been underperforming recently. Working past 65 has helped workers to plan on a more active lifestyle. The Canadian Association for Retired People (CARP) has been very supportive in banning mandatory retirement. They support that working after 65 will have positive effect on their financial security and general happiness.

The bottom line is, the more years an employee contributes, the more he will get at the end.
There should be some flexibility on the pension for workers 65 years and older if they choose to work. The current insurance providers on Workplace Insurance System is adequately prepared to adjust to needed market demands. No need to provide legislative support on this matter.

We endorse the changes proposed by the Ontario Human Rights Commission. The proposal to allow workers aged 65 and over to file complaints with the OHRC if employers force them to retire or refuse to employ them because of their age is long overdue .

Ending mandatory retirement on occupational sectors such as colleges and universities, fire, police, education, and health workers should be addressed by the legislations. These maybe considered as permissible as long as age is a reasonable and bona fide requirement of the job or occupational requirement. This question is already settled by the Supreme Court of Canada, for as long as the employer can satisfy all elements of the test for the (BFOR) exemptions.

Focus should also be directed to providing adequacy and security of retirement income, both for public and employer-sponsored plans.