Over a third of workers intend to work past the age of 65

New research from Canada Life Group has revealed that people are planning to take advantage of the opportunities offered by the end of the default retirement age, with over a third (35%) of employees believing they will work past the age of 65. This will force employers to take the implications of having an older workforce into account in terms of the benefits they offer, with some benefits likely to become more expensive.

Lack of understanding:

Despite the fact the change occurred a year ago, 48% of workers were not aware that the default retirement age had been scrapped. This suggests that while many people may wish to work longer, some may not be aware of the option and simply retire as they think they should.

Men in particular feel they are more likely to continue working for longer as a result of the removal of the default retirement age, with 44% agreeing they would still be working past their 65th birthday (women 31%).

Implications for rest of the workplace

However, some people believe that an older workforce will create problems, particularly for younger employees. Nearly a third (29%) feel that having people remain in work past the age of 65 will make it harder for younger people to move up the career ladder, especially in light of the current unemployment figures. The older generations – potentially as they intend to keep working – are most likely to feel this way, with 43% of those aged 51-60 forecasting a ‘job-blocking’ effect.

Others expect that having older workers will change the working dynamic, with a fifth (20%) forecasting changes because older people may have more health issues. As a result, 27% of workers think that employers will be forced to hand out incentives in order to encourage people to retire, with nearly a third (31%) of 51-60 year olds believing this will be the case.

Paul Avis, Sales and Marketing Director at Canada Life Group Insurance comments;
“It is evident that many UK workers intend to take advantage of recent changes to the default retirement age and work past the age of 65. Whether this will have a positive or negative effect on younger workers remains to be seen, but it is inevitable that having an older workforce will have implications on the kind of benefits that employers can provide.

“For older workers, healthcare provision and group protection products such as critical illness cover will become an increasingly attractive part of their employment package. If a substantial rise in the number of older workers should occur within the workplace, employers will find it hard to avoid providing these types of products, but may find it more expensive.

“We would advise all employers to take into account the impact of the change to the average retirement age and review their benefit packages accordingly. By speaking to an advisor to ensure they are getting the most for their money, they won’t be faced with an unexpected bill!”

Opt In Image
Subscribe today and receive our FREE Ebook
The twelve most popular HR articles of 2014

Subscribe to our daily newsletter plus any of our specialist topic newsletters (including employment law, recruitment, wellbeing, reward, diversity, HR events, products and services) and receive your FREE EBOOK today.

4 Comments - Write a Comment

  1. Many businesses do not have any benefit schemes and UK public sector organisations have different pension arrangements. Another concern may be the effect on occupational health departments and providers who will be increasingly drawn into health/capability issues – the employee thinks they’re fine but others can see they’re not. It could be a very delicate situation to manage in a non-ageist way.
    Lindsey Hall

  2. This is not a subject to which ‘generalisations’ can be applied. It all depends upon the role being considered. It is probably fair to say that people over the age of 65 should not be erecting scaffold on high rise buildings, although there will be those who can still do this fairly competently. A person in a senior management role which benefits from a long and varied experience may well be able to work beyond 75.
    Why should they be forced to retire if they add value and status to their company. The law now forbids that, on grounds of age alone.

    It is sad that the HR world is now talking in a patronising way about people having to be ‘performance managed’ out of their jobs at the end of what may have been a long and successful career.

    I understand that ‘presenteeism’ is the latest buzz phrase being used to denegrate and undermine older workers. I think this phrase is meant to describe people who do not take time off sick, but are not ‘up to the job’, in the opinions of others.

    If all of the young very well educated people in the market were actually ’employable’ then there may be a case for treating older workwers as job blockers. But they are not and the law has it about right.

  3. In consideration of the ageing population at work we do need to give thought to the issue of older people who are driving for work. With around one third of road crashes involving people who are driving for work this will become a bigger issue as we know that age has an effect on injury severity

    More information from AIRSO contact Graham at the email address given

  4. I completely agree with Bernard Angus and wish to point out that many employees over 65 years are more commited to their Company, than younger employees are.

    No wonder 43% of employees approaching pension age will want to work over 65, with pensions being as they are what are supposed to live on?
    A complete overhall is required.

Post Comment

Please rate this article

Help us improve our coverage by telling us what you thought about this article.
Click a star to rate: 1=Poor, 5=Excellent. PoorOkayGoodVery GoodExcellent (No Ratings Yet)
Loading...Loading...