Employment Law

Mandatory Retirement The issue of Mandatory Retirement in Ontario is a controversial one. Implemented as a method by which employers may terminate or refuse to employ workers who have reached the "normal age for retirement in similar positions" (DOJ, 2004), the practice was designed to promote safety in certain occupations (those that may involve a compromise to public safety due to age-related performance factors), allow for staff renewal, especially in "tenured" positions, as well as reduce the cost of health care costs for employers.

Unfortunately, however, the practice has been extremely detrimental to those workers who do not wish to (or feel that they economically are unable to) retire at 65. Although there are many issues to consider as to how the Ontario and its economy might be affected by the ending of mandatory retirement, among the most interesting are how the change might impact social and human rights issues.

The Ministry of Labor specifically poses the questions in its consultation paper, "Providing Choice: A Consultation Paper on Ending Mandatory Retirement," What social pressures or benefits may result from ending mandatory retirement?," "If people choose to continue to work longer, are there certain workplace characteristics, conditions, policies or practices that need to be re-considered?," and "What quality of life issues may arise as a result of ending mandatory retirement?" These questions, among others raise the extremely important question of just how the quality of life for older Ontarians might be affected by the change.

Of course, there is little question that the ending of mandatory retirement will open new avenues for continued workplace involvement in the aging population. However it is also important to consider the possibility that some may feel socially pressured to continue working as a reflection of their work ethic, that certain job environments and responsibilities may need to be modified toward the needs of the aging employee.