Some people that having a set retirement age (e.g. 65 years) for everybody, regardless of occupation, is unfair. They believe that certain workers deserve to retire and receive a pension at an earlier age. Do you agree or disagree? Which type of workers do you think should benefit from an early retirement age

 Some people that having a set retirement age (e.g. 65 years) for everybody, regardless of occupation, is unfair. They believe that certain workers deserve to retire and receive a pension at an earlier age. Do you agree or disagree? Which type of workers do you think should benefit from an early retirement age

There is a profound over the age when one should be relieved of the professional duties. While there is a conventional arrangement that allows retirement at 65 years, there is a suggestion that there should be some flexibility and some, engaged in certain occupations be allowed to retire early.   

To start with, those supporting this proposal found their view on the belief that jobs requiring intensive physical labor and that present hazardous conditions, must enjoy the liberty to subscribe to such settings. For example, there are miners who work in challenging conditions or army personnel who risk their life should be relieved earlier since their lives are always at risk. It is a fact that beyond a certain age, the reflexes and the endurance tend to weaken, making people vulnerable to injuries and also ailments. This does not only expose the affected individuals to unsafe conditions but also has the potential to jeopardize the  safety of others. Thus, it is quite plausible to retire such professionals. 

This will help organizations save humongous money spent on reimbursing medical bills of workers and their families in case some were injured or perished on job, and also compensating clients for the loss. Apart from that, this would also help sustain efficiency operations since retiring certain aged staff would also replace with able-bodied individuals who are capable of bearing the stress of a daunting work environment. This method has been successfully tried in jobs like that of crane operators at shipyards that need physical and mental agility.   

In hindsight, this proposal can be easily subscribed to since it will not only help workers involved  in certain demanding jobs to spend their life happily after they become mentally and physically weaker but also assist businesses in conserving resources.  

Some people that having a set retirement age (e.g. 65 years) for everybody, regardless of occupation, is unfair. They believe that certain workers deserve to retire and receive a pension at an earlier age. Do you agree or disagree? Which type of workers do you think should benefit from an early retirement age.

 

Some people that having a set retirement age (e.g. 65 years) for everybody, regardless of occupation, is unfair. They believe that certain workers deserve to retire and receive a pension at an earlier age. Do you agree or disagree? Which type of workers do you think should benefit from an early retirement age.

      

There has always been a tussle between different sections of human resource experts when it comes to defining the age of retirement on the basis of the work. Where a faction favours the uniform retirement age, others vouch for establishing it as per the nature of jobs. 

 There are certain professions, as per commentators, that mandate an early relieving from the professional obligations due to the amount of strenuous labour involved at work such as mining, military, marketing and hospitality. These realms require one to be physically fit to endure heavy work, travelling and spending long hours without seating oneself. 

It is undeniable that as people grow older, their ability to sustain demands of the work occupations reduces considerably, which can expose them to several health hazards, in turn, costing them their health and organisations money spent on rendering medical intervention. Thus, it is a good idea to relieve such personnel of their duties, and let them enjoy their rest of life with their families.  

Nevertheless, the critics to this proposal term it a recipe for disaster that will bring little more than chaos. Confusion will descend on the personnel department which will be (embroiled) engaged overtime in classifying the categories of who will be retiring when. In other words, this may result in contradictions as there could be a mismatch in the definitions of retirable age supplied by concerned departments and human resource. Moreover, such a move may also fuel interpersonal clashes, leaving many disgruntled, thereby adversely impacting work environment and eventually productivity.

Overall, controversies apart, I completely concur with the scheme of relieving people involved in certain types of employment earlier than their counterparts engaged elsewhere. It will help ensure their wellbeing and also keep the medical expenditure of organisations to minimal.