As a group we choose to give up massive amounts of career earnings on our own, so it's more than a little disingenuous to use it as an argument against eliminating mandatory retirement.
The only thing dishonest is to deny the fact that we all balance lifestyle with pay. So, for example, one chooses to wait until 50% on any list, if you and your brethren plug up the top jobs, it will take longer to get to that next position at that ratio, ergo loss of earnings. This holds true all the way up the list, REGARDLESS of one bidding the best job one can hold to the bottom OR waiting until some magical percentile on the list. There is a limited number of jobs for us to choose from, and by not honouring your contractual retirement, you WILL be holding people up. Logical, undeniable and you know it. You are NOT fooling anyone.
There are no doubt excesses like requiring a flower shop to hire someone who is allergic to flowers, and there is a point where individual rights cross the boundry of absurd.
Can't but agree with you there, plenty of absurd and even disgusting rulings out there. To say nothing of the process itself.
outa here