Can I be forced to retire? | Work & Learning | Age UK
Forced retirement is back
Forced retirement has never been free of discussion.
For some, it was a disguised dismissal without compensation.
For others, it was a painful, though necessary, measure to allow generational relief.
If we add to this the weakness of our public funds and the new demographic challenges arising from low birth rates and the prolongation of life expectancy, the return of this disputed measure is, today, a real chimera.
The government has again established forced retirement as "an appropriate instrument to promote generational change in the labor market.
However, employment is not a zero-sum game: the expulsion of older workers does not necessarily imply an equivalent recruitment of young employees.
Royal Decree-Law 28/2018, of 28 December, reintroduces the concept of forced retirement for the fulfilment of the legally established age.
En el IV Acuerdo para el Empleo y la Negociación Colectiva, suscrito por las asociaciones empresariales CEOE y CEPYME y las organizaciones sindicales UGT y CC.OO. el 5 de julio de 2018, las organizaciones firmantes instaron a la Administración laboral a promover los cambios legales necesarios para habilitar a la negociación colectiva a prever cláusulas de jubilación obligatoria por edad ligadas a objetivos de política de empleo y relevo generacional.
It seems as if the legislator is in constant doubt about the appropriateness of such clauses from the point of view of the needs of the labour market and even their suitability for constitutional principles, in particular freedom of work.
We are now abandoning the prohibitive approach, justified by the need to prolong working life and keep older employees on the labour market (both to encourage active ageing and to try to alleviate the social security bill for retirement pensions), to move to a permissive approach, which is based on the requirements of the fight against youth unemployment and the desirability of promoting generational change.
In a first approximation to the rule, it is necessary to reflect both from the point of view of employment policy and from the point of view of strictly legal policy.
From the point of view of employment policy, the first thing we must emphasise is that concern for youth employment (unemployment) openly takes precedence over the sustainability of social security and the prolongation of working life.
The explanatory statement of the Decree-Law is clear in this regard: compulsory retirement is established "as an appropriate instrument to promote generational change in the labour market", providing a solution, at least in part, to youth unemployment.
There is no mention of active ageing, longer working lives and the sustainability of the pension system.
The Government seems to think that since it was a proposal that was "discussed and agreed with the social partners", it is blessed and should not be questioned further.
However, I believe that a reflection is necessary.
Apart from the specific, perfectly legitimate and enforceable interests (although not always aligned with the general interest), which may prompt the social partners to support this compulsory retirement measure, it should not be forgotten that, through it, the approaches of "division of labour" reappear.
And, with this, the naivety of believing that employment is a zero-sum game and that each job vacated (by this way, or by others such as those of reduction of working time) immediately becomes occupied by another person becomes clear again.
No empirical evidence so far supports the thesis of the distribution of work.
To think that the forced expulsion of older workers from the labour market results, immediately and automatically, in the equivalent increase in the recruitment of unemployed young people, is to ignore the complex functioning of labour markets.
The experience of the partial retirement and relief contracts (many of which are terminated when the full retirement of the relieved worker takes place) should suffice to banish simplistic approaches.
And the state of our social security system would require at least greater attention to policies of longer working lives, active ageing and ultimately delayed access to retirement.
As far as the legal interpretation of the new regulation is concerned, certain questions arise in this first approximation.
The decree-law returns to the text of the additional provision in force before the 2012 labour reform, but introducing some changes that deserve attention.
First of all, the change of order of the requirements contained in subparagraphs a) and b);
The previous paragraph a) becomes b) and b) becomes now a).
Is it a mere game of the legislator to entertain the interpreter or does this have any meaning?
From the point of view of the judicial application of the precept, I believe it does.
Whereas in the past compulsory retirement was primarily subject to employment policy objectives, now they are in second place and the first condition for the forced retirement of the worker is that he or she must have the conditions to qualify for 100% of the retirement pension.
That is the main point: in order to be forced to retire, a worker must be entitled to receive 100 per cent of his or her pension.
It will then be necessary to check that the regulations on the collective agreement are consistent with the employment policy objectives expressed by the agreement itself.
Apart from extreme cases, it does not appear that, once the first condition has been met, the second condition will have a virtually binding effect on the agreed compulsory retirement.
But there are a few other important nuances to be noted: we are now talking about retirement for the fulfilment by the worker of the legal age, not, as before, the ordinary retirement age.
The legal age may be lower than the ordinary age, and the question should therefore be asked whether, in these cases, the retirement of the worker should also be enforced (provided that the requirement of having matured the right to 100 per cent of the pension is met).
On the other hand, as I have said, it is now required to have matured 100% of the pension, not as before to have a minimum contribution period that allows applying a percentage of 80% to the regulatory basis for the calculation of the retirement pension.
And here other questions arise: could the worker oppose his right to continue working to mature a pension of more than 100%, under the terms of Article 210 of the LGSS?
Could the provision of the collective agreement on forced retirement annul the right to mature a higher pension?
Finally, with regard to employment policy objectives, the previous reference to "support for employment" is replaced by the reference to "generational change", with emphasis on the work-sharing approach to which I have already referred.
Although it does not appear that this paragraph will serve to call into question the forced retirement agreements reached in collective bargaining.
In short, the new regulation seeks to address relevant problems of business management, allowing the termination of contracts of workers who have reached or exceeded the retirement age, without the need to resort to layoffs or other extinguishing measures.
But it does so by establishing overly simplistic regulation, which can have harmful consequences.
And it will raise interpretive problems:
Does the reference to clauses that "enable" the termination of the employment contract mean that such termination is not automatic but depends, to some extent, on the will of the employer, and that the employer may freely decide to terminate or maintain the contract, logically counting on the will of the worker, if he reaches or exceeds retirement age? Could the termination of the employment contract by forced retirement be discriminatory when another or other contracts are maintained, without sufficient motivation?
Bearing all this in mind, as well as the approaches to active ageing and the sustainability of social security, it might have been preferable not to establish a compulsory retirement but to allow the continuity of employment contracts, while providing that the termination for objective reasons does not give rise to any right to compensation when the worker has matured the right to 100% of his retirement pension.
11 Ene 2019
Federico Durán López, of counsel of the Garrigues Labor Department.
***
The pension system was created at a time when life expectancy was around 67 years.
In colloquial language, one could say that a person retired at age 65 and died at age 67.
Economically, the system had no problem.
In fact, it was very surplus and could provide money for other social benefits.
The current 9 million pensioners are expected to increase to 15 million in 30 years.
All this with a system of pensions of distribution (what is collected a year serves to pay the pensions of that year), and practically without generating savings.
Some see immigration as the solution to the birth problem.
It is not unreasonable, because the population of North Africa in 30 years will be young and outnumbered by Europe.
But if one looks at the low level of training that migrants have, it becomes difficult to consider them as a solution for pensions.
Others point to the "destope of contributions", forgetting that this measure increases the cost for companies of the most qualified personnel (which will undoubtedly have an impact on the least qualified).
There is also talk of the self-employed paying more, but many of them are technical unemployed who try to get ahead without burdening the welfare state protection system...
The fact is that a person will have to be kept out of work for at least 20 years (considering the life expectancy of many pensioners in the near future).
So the rest of the solutions that arise around increasing savings are not in themselves a solution.
Saving to keep a person out of work for twenty years seems an impossible mission in the wage environment in which Spain moves.
Expelled from the company by age at any cost
Companies activate redundancies over 50 and accelerate retirements despite the punished pension system.
The rule does not oblige all workers to retire at a certain age, only those who are entitled to a pension that is 100% of the regulatory base.
So, it seems as if the fact of accessing a pension under these conditions is the prize that everyone wants to get, forgetting the options contained in the general rules such as increasing this percentage of the base through the continuation of working life beyond the legal retirement age or the use of the different formulas for compatibility of retirement with work as a vital choice.
In any case, the fact that it reaches 100% of the regulatory base does not ensure that the amount of the pension is adequate, given that, if the worker contributed for low contribution bases, 100% does not guarantee an adequate amount.
In any case, the constitutional right to retirement should be seen as a full right without any limitations, without giving preference to one age group (young people) taking it away from another (senior workers).
In addition, there are more arguments.
The compatibility of salary and pension is being extended as an instrument of financial sustainability of the pension system within the European principle of extending working life beyond pensionable age and with this re-edited clause of forced retirement is breaking this decisive line of improving the sustainability of the system.
Finally, the expectations of the ageing of the labour force in the coming years, encouraged by the general ageing of the population, will lead to the minimisation of the youth unemployment rate and the need for labour, So it is to be hoped that not only will this type of compulsory retirement clause have no place in this employment context, but on the contrary it will undoubtedly be necessary to encourage the continuation of working life beyond the legal retirement age as the only way forward.
In the meantime, it does not seem appropriate for us to deprive older workers of their right to retire when they decide within the rules of the system, which must be absolute and without individual or collective limitations.
Retirement is a right, not an obligation, and more so in the 21st century. It’s a right.
The role and skills of older workers need to be valued.
"They may have less use for new technologies, but they have a much broader background in soft skills such as communication or leadership".
At the same time, they have practical and specialized knowledge acquired by years of experience, an ability to manage and resolve conflicts and crises, and a critical and reasoned talent.
"If we look at 2008, when unemployment rates were quite similar to those we have today [around 14%], unemployment among those over 45 was around 28%. Today, it is close to 40%. Spain cannot afford this".
Rethinking and rethinking human resources policies, mainly related to staff cuts and age management, should be urgent for companies.
***
Forced dismissal is unconstitutional
Title I. Fundamental rights and duties
Chapter Two. Rights and freedoms
Section 2.The rights and duties of citizens
Article 35
All Spaniards have the duty to work and the right to work, to free choice of profession or profession, to promotion through work and to remuneration sufficient to meet their needs and those of their family, without discrimination on grounds of sex. (and neither can you discriminate by age, with 64 you can work and with 65 you can no longer)
THE COMPANY ALREADY HAS MECHANISMS TO DISMISS A WORKER BECAUSE OF HIS AGE
The Workers' Statute establishes objective grounds for dismissal:
Ineptitude of the worker, which may be supervened.
Lack of adaptation to technical modifications of the position.
Causes for collective dismissal affecting a reduced number of jobs.
Lack of assistance.
Lack of funds in non-profit organizations.
As can be seen, the Workers' Statute does not contemplate retirement age as an objective cause for dismissal. Therefore, the employer who fires his employee because of his age must pay the corresponding compensation.
Dismissal on the grounds of the employee's age is deemed to be null and void
Please note that if the worker manages to re-enter the company as a result of the court decision, your company must pay him the processing fees.
Of course, a very different case would be one in which the worker is impaired in his physical or intellectual capacities, or is unable to adapt to the new production processes.
These cases form the objective causes of dismissal known as "supervening ineptitude".
When can a worker whose skills have deteriorated be dismissed
According to Article 52.a) of the Workers' Statute, the company may dismiss a worker when there is supervening ineptitude. This means that the cognitive, intellectual or physical deterioration of the worker may determine that he can no longer carry out his functions and may lead to dismissal.
In this sense, one must be very careful, because the employer should adapt the position and functions as much as possible. Therefore, in order for the dismissal to be appropriate without presenting problems, it will be essential that the employer has tried, without success, to keep the worker in the job.
Ningún
derecho constitucional tiene fecha de caducidad. El artículo 35 de la
Constitución, que garantiza el derecho al trabajo, no estipula que ese
derecho se pierda al cumplir una determinada edad. Lo mismo se puede
decir del artículo 10 de la Constitución, que establece la igualdad de
derechos de todos los españoles, sin que puedan prevalecer
circunstancias sociales o personales. La edad es claramente una
circunstancia personal.
En la imposición de la jubilación
obligatoria por edad, el Estado español viola de un modo flagrante y
sistemático dos derechos fundamentales de los ciudadanos: el derecho a
la igualdad y el derecho al trabajo.
El trabajo «es uno de los aspectos más fundamentales en la vida de una persona
...
es lo que le asigna un papel de contribuyente en la sociedad. El
trabajo retribuido es un componente esencial del sentido de identidad de
una persona, del sentido de valía que tiene de sí misma y de su
bienestar emocional».
Entre las razones de carácter psicosocial,
apuntan los expertos al efecto profundamente negativo y depresivo que
produce en un considerable número de personas la sensación de inutilidad
y el exceso de tiempo libre improductivo.
Para
muchas personas el abandono forzado de su profesión constituye el
equivalente social de la muerte, y de hecho contribuye a acelerar la
muerte de muchas de ellas.
Es una insensatez condenar a
la improductividad permanente a partir de una edad arbitraria de
jubilación a un sector social cada vez más amplio compuesto por
individuos con un alto nivel educativo que, gracias a unos hábitos de
vida sana y práctica regular del deporte, llegan a esa edad con un grado
óptimo de energía y con deseos de mantenerse en su puesto de trabajo.
En
cuanto a las razones de carácter práctico para la eliminación de la
jubilación obligatoria por edad, la más evidente es que ello aumentaría
las contribuciones a la Seguridad Social en un momento en que se ciernen
serias dudas sobre la viabilidad del sistema, al tiempo que reduciría
el número de pensionistas.
La
obligación de jubilarse se debe basar exclusivamente en pruebas
individualizadas de aptitud. Una vez eliminada la jubilación obligatoria
por edad, cualquier persona, al alcanzar al edad de jubilación
establecida por la ley, podrá elegir entre jubilarse o continuar
trabajando hasta que quiera, siempre que demuestre competencia para su
labor. Más aún, quienes ya se han jubilado podrían volver si lo desean
al mercado de trabajo, lo que supondría dejar de cobrar su pensión y
pasar a cobrar un sueldo y contribuir de nuevo a la Seguridad Social.
La
ignorancia combinada con los engaños electoralistas han transmitido a
los más jóvenes la falsa idea de que en el mercado del trabajo tienen
que salir unos para que entren otros.
Es
decir, se les inculca la noción de que el mundo laboral es como una
pecera rígida en la que para que entren unos peces tienen que salir
otros. Si así fuera, la economía nunca crecería. Lo que ocurre es todo
lo contrario, la economía es como un globo, cuantos más entran en él más
se expande y más beneficio reporta para todos. Precisamente es en los
países sin jubilación obligatoria por edad donde hay menos paro juvenil.
***
Telefonica fires people over 65
There are
two very eloquent proven facts: the hiring of 242 indefinite employees
until July 2020, of whom 82% are under 35 years of age and in the whole
year 2019 has been destroyed employment in 2,223 people.
In large
numbers and unspecified, the result does not favour the defendant,
which, obviously and in view of its Consolidated Management Report, is
destroying employment, surely in order to adapt its staffing structure
to the new needs of the market, which is legitimate. However, it cannot
rely on Article 12 bis to compulsorily retire the plaintiff, and there
are other measures to achieve the intended purpose, such as dismissal
for objective reasons, in the event that the plaintiff has no
accommodation in the new organizational structure of the company.
In
summary: the system of compulsory retirement under Article 12 bis the
convention cannot protect fraud in the dismissal of workers over the age
of 65 without compensating them for objective dismissal, which seems to
have happened with the complainant.
And this other paragraph is blunt:
..
it makes no sense for a worker to be forced to retire in order to
promote employment and create more jobs, but for the suspension of the
employment relationship of 2,636 employees of the company....
The
judgment faithfully reflects what we have all known for a long time:
transformation of the company and reduction of staff. There is no
maintenance and much less job creation, so the application of forced
retirement is not justified.
We have taken a step
forward, two more are missing, but I think we are approaching what
already previously sentenced the supreme with the phrase:
"the
only thing we can appreciate is a drastic reduction in the workforce of
'Telefónica' and the undeniable rejuvenation of it, with obvious
reduction of final costs for the respondent employer; this may certainly
be justified in terms of economic and competitiveness, but in no way
can it be supported by the already repealed 10th ET , which subjected
the collective provision on forced termination on account of age to
stringent requirements, which do not exist in the present case."
"La senda de Telefónica que empezó Alierta" es la destrucción de empleo.
 |
letters of dismissal
|
Según los cálculos del sindicato, la operadora ha
recortado más de 31.500 empleos en apenas quince años a través de los
sucesivos ERE aplicados.
According to union estimates, the operator has cut more than 31,500 jobs in just fifteen years through successive EREs.
EREs - It is the collective dismissal and means the definitive cessation of the labor relationship between the company and the workers. These workers would be entitled to unemployment benefit and severance pay, among other rights.
El primero, ejecutado entre 1999 y el 2000 afectó a 10.800 trabajadores.
Tres años más tarde se aprobó otra regulación de empleo que se cobró
13.870 empleos más hasta el 2007, a los que hay que añadir la
amortización de otros 6.830 puestos de trabajo en el ajuste laboral, que
se realizó entre el 2011 y el 2013.
Un ERE, este último, que provocó gran enfado en el Gobierno y motivó un
cambio legal, bautizado como enmienda Telefónica, que obliga ahora a las
empresas de más de 500 trabajadores a abonar los costes que suponen
para el Estado las regulaciones de empleo que aprueben mientras se
encuentren en beneficio.
Quizá por ello, el último ajuste pactado entre la empresa y los
sindicatos mayoritarios ya no tiene forma de ERE, se cambia el nombre a
PSI y se aplica a los mayores de 53 años.
(PSI) En el marco de su nuevo Convenio Colectivo la empresa pactó un Plan de Suspensión de Empleo Individual (PSI) que mantiene el 68% del salario para quienes se apunten.
(PSI) Within the framework of its new Collective Agreement, the company agreed on an Individual Employment Suspension Plan (PSI) that maintains 68% of the salary for those who sign up.
***
Junto con el convenio que introduce la cláusula de despido forzoso de 150 trabajadores mayores de 65 años (que querían seguir trabajando), se ha firmado un plan de suspensión individual de empleo (PSI) para los empleados mayores de 53 años que ya no quieren trabajar, lo que le supondrá un gasto de 1.600 millones.
(cada sueldo anual de 60.000 euros por 68% durante 12 años = 498.600 euros)
Como
condición estos trabajadores privilegiados en suspensión de empleo YA
NO TIENEN QUE TRABAJAR NI APARECER POR LA EMPRESA durante los próximos
12 años.
Se supone que con esta sacrificio se mejorará el valor de la acción y habremos salvado "al soldado PALLETE".
Al igual que Dorothy, el Espantapájaros, el León cobarde y el Hombre de hojalata
los empleados de Telefónica de 53 años que pueden acogerse al PSI corretean felices por la senda dorada donde podrán ver los amaneceres desde la cama cobrando el 68% de su sueldo,
sin tener que ir a trabajar hasta los 65 años y a partir de allí
a
vivir de la seguridad social que pagarán los 300 jovenes empleados que
promete contratar Telefónica en compensación por los 150 mayores de 65
años que despide con la falsa idea de que en el mercado de trabajo para
que entren unos tienen que salir otros.***
Tal vez convenga aprender de otros países donde se valora y respeta a los mayores
El líder en los sondeos, Joe Biden, tiene 76 años; el segundo, el
senador izquierdista Bernie Sanders, tiene 77; y la tercera en
discordia, la senadora Elizabeth Warren, también ubicada en el ala más
progresista del partido, tiene 70.
