Christn
I am completely at a loss as to why you would continue beyond 55 on reduced terms. Times change, civiised society moves on. Laws affecting contracts change.
"Well guv I signed up to go down chimneys and I'll bloody well keep doin' it despite those toffs makin' it illegal"
" Sir, I know that being female doesn't make me inferior, but I signed a contract that pays me less, so despite the Sex Discrimination Act (1975) I refuse to be paid the same as my male counterparts"
Come on people, lets get real. I am all for compromise but in today's society force me to retire at 55 or reduce my terms after 55, Shove it.
The European Convention on Human Rights will prevail. Should we be arguing about whether Cathay Pacific Airways should be taken to court by our Union for discriminating against employees because of their age when every other civilised employer on the planet has woken up to the modern world. its Cathay management that "SFO motion proposer" should be targeting.
I would bet my house, pension, future lottery win , that anyone of the peeps backing the anti RA65 lobby or refusing to back Charlies, case would not, repeat not, refuse a change to their contract including RA65 after all the the pre 1993 employees have departed. (Yes when we joined it wasn't called "A Scale, it was the going rate for the job)
Mr "SFO motion proposer". if your contract is changed after I am forced to retire at 55 I want half your earnings post 55.
Yeah..... I didn't think so.
