86 year old Secretary sacked

[furryjammies]

There is an article in the DF today about a now 88 year old woman who sacked from her NHS Secretary job for I think fairly spurious reasons at the age of 86. She has won her case for unfair dismissal. Do you think there should be a cut off point for retirement or should you be able to work as long as you want? She wanted to work until 90.

I know someone well into her 80s who is still working full time in the voluntary sector. Her mind is as sharp as a razor and she has frightening amounts of energy. No-one would so much as dare to suggest she stops one second before she decides she wants to.

Well, the retirement age keeps getting pushed up and up so this will slowly become the norm.

There's also fewer benefits and worse pensions combined with higher costs of living so I bet it'll be more and more of an issue.

I know someone well into her 80s who is still working full time in the voluntary sector

That’s great! Living on her pension and using her free time to do good and keep her mind and body active. I absolutely think that the elderly have value in the workplace. I just don’t think they should be hanging onto paid positions in their 70s and 80s thus preventing younger people getting on the career ladder.

I’ve forgotten the statistics, but drug errors increase quite sharply in older registered nurses.

My guess is the Surgeon defended her because she did things the way he liked them done.

I’m all for people working into older age if the wish to so long as they remain competent and adapt to new procedures.

My MIL still works 3 days a week in a fairly manual job and she’s in her late 70s, she had to have a few weeks off after an operation last year and she hated it, she went back to work before she was properly better because she missed it. I don’t think she’ll retire until I’ll health makes it impossible for her to work.

Secretaries don't, but an 86 y/o would be unlikely to be a wizz on Excel, or other technology. She was probably sacked because she was bloody hopeless.

Craft1905. What a lousy post. It makes me sick that casual ageism is so prevalent on MN. Every other ‘ism’ has posters falling over each other to demonstrate their right-on, ‘woke’ credentials, but ageism? Carry on regardless.

When I'm elderly I won't need to eat much or go many places

Did you mistake being elderly for being dead? I plan to eat what I like once I retire and go to visit as many places as I can. Just like I do now, but without the constraints of having to go to work Monday-Friday. Retirement is hopefully going to be great - which is all dependant on having a reasonable pension, which at the moment, I haven’t got. So I may well have to keep working till I’m 80 to afford the lifestyle I want, but I can dream!

The answer for some people might be to allow older workers past retirement age ( so getting some pension payments) to reduce their working hours if they wish. This would allow the social contact and financial advantages of work,. I would have thought this could easily have been done for a secretary in the NHS, however training can be pretty variable in the NHS. It’s just assumed every one is fully computer literate with the huge range of systems in use.
I ( a few years from pensionable age) already work reduced hours due to caring commitments and my own health needs.

She was the surgeons secretary? For how long? 50 years. She did things the way he liked things being done. He was old school himself, I suspect.

Some nice age is on this thread!

I absolutely think that the elderly have value in the workplace. I just don’t think they should be hanging onto paid positions in their 70s and 80s thus preventing younger people getting on the career ladder.

Patronising arse.

I retired aged 65, I would have preferred to work longer but part time. I was a quite capable hardworking, well regarded member of staff, but I couldn't cope with the commuting any longer (1.5 hours+ each way). The getting up and out to be at the station for the 6.30am train, the late nights and having to run the home as well.
What I could cope with 5 years previously was taking it out of me, and I admit I was knackered, and too tired to enjoy life.
No one has written on their headstone anything extolling their occupation/work, and unless you really have to for economic reasons you shouldn't carry on longer than you can cope with.
If you've worked all your life you deserve to take life a little more gently.
I feel sorry for people who feel they have nothing in life other than their job/occupation.Retirement is a huge adjustment (believe me) and the older you are the harder it is to cope with that adjustment.
There are plenty of things you can do when older to make a contribution to your communiy and society in general using the skills and insight that your age has given you.
I personally don't think anyone should be employed beyond the age of 70.

@maggiso, her job description now would read 'fully competent in all microsoft applications'. I doubt it said that when she applied. She's learn on the job, as much as she needed to know for her particular role. When he job role has changed its all collapsed and she's reverted to paper and pen.

I'm in HR and private sector contracts I've worked with this all say you'll retire from your position at the age of X .

If you're in HR then you know it's unlawful to write that in an employment contract. If they are old contracts written before the law changed then fine, but it can and should be ignored.

There are a few roles where that can be justified for safety reasons but each employer does not get to decide that, it's set in the legislation.

As long as people can do the job then they should be able to carry on working, age is irrelevant.

She worked for the NHS if she's been there 50 years she's on the old style pension she wouldn't only have 600 a month to live on, she would be much better off than that.
Some people are still sharp at that age, and others much younger are not up to it. Its all dependant on the person. I worked with an RN who was sharp as a tack and just retired at 74. We have another RN who at 60 is as slow as anything and seems older than the one who retired.

My friend has a secretary who is 80 this year. She's very capable. And you'd think she was only about 65. But I see posts about very elderly nurses still working and I do wonder how capable they are, and how much their team have to carry them. My colleagues in their 50's really struggle.

My grandad is in his 80’s and a whizz on excel, word, etc. Very skilled in finance and does great things with a computer... I don’t know anyone else who could come close! He manages portfolios, stocks, shares, data...
I know a lot of absolutely useless 30 odd yo’s who need help to type a line into a computer let alone anything else.

Where are all the young people queuing up for jobs that older people are selfishly hogging? I'd love to see the evidence for that. Also, younger people on MN are always complaining about the older generation being able to retire far younger than they'll ever be able to. It seems to me you can't have it both ways.

The longer older people work, the less of a financial burden they are on the state. As a manager, I've had many more problems with the standards of work / timekeeping / attitude of younger rather than older staff. Just my experience of course.

No one has written on their headstone anything extolling their occupation/work,

This is such a trotted out trope - people DO have that written on their headstones if their family want them to. Not least of all, military people often have their occupation on their headstone.

She was the surgeons secretary? For how long? 50 years. She did things the way he liked things being done. He was old school himself, I suspect.

Oblomov19. Nope. He qualified in 1991 so is probably around 50. In addition to which he is an onco-plastic surgeon to likely to be very up to date. Not the doddering old man you wish to portray.

She was probably sacked because she was bloody hopeless.

If that were true they would have had enough evidence to successfully defend the tribunal, which they clearly didn't.

Most people. Should be retiring at 67. Christ, they've worked 40 odd years. That's not ageism.

Where are all the young people queuing up for jobs that older people are selfishly hogging?

For example. Not one of my university lecturers was under 40. Quite a few of them were very old and past retirement age. PhD students were graduating but there were no lecturers jobs for them. And quite a number of law graduates in my year couldn’t get entry level solicitor jobs but there were ancient solicitors everywhere.

For example. Not one of my university lecturers was under 40. Quite a few of them were very old and past retirement age. PhD students were graduating but there were no lecturers jobs for them. And quite a number of law graduates in my year couldn’t get entry level solicitor jobs but there were ancient solicitors everywhere.

Not one lecturer was under 40? Jesus, is that your starting point for old-age? Does it not occur to you that experience counts for something too?

I think the only job with a compulsory retirement age is firefighter, but they have excellent pensions and I can see the reasoning behind the compulsory retirement, I don’t agree with it for any other job.