Reduce wages & benefits of re-employed workers?

• young1234

  11 Jul 11, 17:10

  ""Some employers offer staff who reach the statutory retirement age an opportunity to keep working on the same terms, but others cut wages and benefits."
  ---ST,PAGE A3, 9 July

  Is it fair to cut the wages and compromise on the benefits of older workers who are working beyond 62 years old? The article says that public sector employees could face a 20% pay cut. Shouldn't we be paying them more for their wealth of experience?

• Taroham

  11 Jul 11, 23:34

  The idea here is cheaper, better, faster. Not slower, older, costlier. Unfortunately

• charlize

  12 Jul 11, 10:51

  Unless you are elite, then your talents and ability goes up with experience regardless of whether you are 60, 70 or 80.

   

  If you are the common folk however, your talents and ability decline from the official retirement age of 62.

   

  That is what they are telling you. 

• Loor

  12 Jul 11, 12:04

  This is where the govt needs to come in.

  If businesses don't want to support them, the the govt need to have some scheme in-place to encourage people to continue working.

  Aging population, Labour crunch.....talk-no action for what?

• young1234

  12 Jul 11, 18:27

  What I feel is that if the 62 years old is still as productive and contribute actively to the company, there is no reason that company should cut his/her wages.

  Work so long for a company but just to be discriminated by age is just unfair. Unless a different work arrangement (e.g. less working hours or lessen the job responsibilities), then I think the pay cut could be justifiable.

• charlize

  14 Jul 11, 13:17

  We are all slaves to the system.

   

  Haiz.

• troublemaker2005

  16 Jul 11, 09:40

  cheaper - yes

  faster - yes

  better? - tan gugu arh!