Retirement at 55.....or later?
Thread Starter
Retirement at 55.....or later?
Evenin' all. Apologies if this has been thrashed before but here goes anyway.
In days gone by in HM Flying Club, if a WRAF got pregnant she was promptly shown the exit and that was that, no return to the Service, game over. If it was discovered that somebody was a homosexual they were out on their ear without question. Both situations have changed vastly since HMG have had to toe the line in the same way that civvy businesses have had to for far longer. It's the law, so there. Similarly, you didn't get a Married Quarter unless you were married (I recall having to show my marriage certificate to the Families Officer before the paperwork to secure a quarter was even taken out of the drawer). These days they're called Families Accomodation and marriage is not necessarily a factor in getting into one. Times change and we move with them (eventually.....sometimes). Yes, I'm getting to the point. I've signed on the dotted line to serve to age 55. Why should it end there? Public sector workers have been told that they can't retire at 60 any more, they have to push on to 65. Private companies and businesses have been told that they can't legally make their employees retire at 65. If I'm in good health, reasonably fit and still able to do my job to the required standard, why shouldn't I say to the powers that be that I'd like to continue doing that job until such time that I'm no longer able to or don't want to - even if I am, say, 60.
I know there'll be a can of worms opened over pensions and bronze handshake entitlements. Not to mention the point that I'll be filling a post and so causing a log-jam in the promotion stakes amongst the ranks below me. For all those barrack room lawyers out there, do you foresee anyone taking a legal stance on this and saying to the RAF, "Your 'contract' which says I must leave at 55 is not in line with other employers and I'm going to challenge you through an employment tribunal"?
At this stage I don't see myself doing any more than perhaps another 5 years beyond the 55 point; I'm simply looking at employment options to take me beyond that age.
Your opinions and comments, thank you.
In days gone by in HM Flying Club, if a WRAF got pregnant she was promptly shown the exit and that was that, no return to the Service, game over. If it was discovered that somebody was a homosexual they were out on their ear without question. Both situations have changed vastly since HMG have had to toe the line in the same way that civvy businesses have had to for far longer. It's the law, so there. Similarly, you didn't get a Married Quarter unless you were married (I recall having to show my marriage certificate to the Families Officer before the paperwork to secure a quarter was even taken out of the drawer). These days they're called Families Accomodation and marriage is not necessarily a factor in getting into one. Times change and we move with them (eventually.....sometimes). Yes, I'm getting to the point. I've signed on the dotted line to serve to age 55. Why should it end there? Public sector workers have been told that they can't retire at 60 any more, they have to push on to 65. Private companies and businesses have been told that they can't legally make their employees retire at 65. If I'm in good health, reasonably fit and still able to do my job to the required standard, why shouldn't I say to the powers that be that I'd like to continue doing that job until such time that I'm no longer able to or don't want to - even if I am, say, 60.
I know there'll be a can of worms opened over pensions and bronze handshake entitlements. Not to mention the point that I'll be filling a post and so causing a log-jam in the promotion stakes amongst the ranks below me. For all those barrack room lawyers out there, do you foresee anyone taking a legal stance on this and saying to the RAF, "Your 'contract' which says I must leave at 55 is not in line with other employers and I'm going to challenge you through an employment tribunal"?
At this stage I don't see myself doing any more than perhaps another 5 years beyond the 55 point; I'm simply looking at employment options to take me beyond that age.
Your opinions and comments, thank you.
I guess the kids won't be finished private education by the time you turn 55 then!!
Banter aside you have, IMHO, a fixed term contract to age 55. Beyond that it is the decision of the MoD to offer an extension not for you to demand one. This would also be the case as someone in the 'outside world' who has a fixed term contract. Guys who do not get offered extensions, or service, beyond their 38/16 or 22 point have no 'right' to work to 65 either. In much the same way as the '30 day rule', the EU working directive etc do not apply to the Armed Forces I fear trying to take a legal stand will just pass your gratuity straight to the legal profession.
Having said that, provided you still meet the MES required for your branch/trade then why not apply for an extension? They can only say no. And if they do say no I really don't think you'll have a cat in hells chance of legal redress. Take up a good hobby and enjoy your retirement instead!
Banter aside you have, IMHO, a fixed term contract to age 55. Beyond that it is the decision of the MoD to offer an extension not for you to demand one. This would also be the case as someone in the 'outside world' who has a fixed term contract. Guys who do not get offered extensions, or service, beyond their 38/16 or 22 point have no 'right' to work to 65 either. In much the same way as the '30 day rule', the EU working directive etc do not apply to the Armed Forces I fear trying to take a legal stand will just pass your gratuity straight to the legal profession.
Having said that, provided you still meet the MES required for your branch/trade then why not apply for an extension? They can only say no. And if they do say no I really don't think you'll have a cat in hells chance of legal redress. Take up a good hobby and enjoy your retirement instead!
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: In the State of Denial
Posts: 1,077
Likes: 0
Received 146 Likes
on
28 Posts
We have a few guys working beyond 55 on extensions because their skills were deemed important to retain. But in some (not all) cases these people are on restricted med cats which don't allow them to deploy etc. With RAF numbers reducing & the aim being to have a 'lean deployable force' can we really afford to have older people filling a place?
There are other issues about fitness for operations - do we really need somebody in his 60s having to escape & evade after being shot down? If they can't deploy then that reduces the pool for operations. I realise that there are plenty of unfit youths in the RAF but hopefully you get my point?
Not a blast at the oldies, I'm getting close to being one myself!
There are other issues about fitness for operations - do we really need somebody in his 60s having to escape & evade after being shot down? If they can't deploy then that reduces the pool for operations. I realise that there are plenty of unfit youths in the RAF but hopefully you get my point?
Not a blast at the oldies, I'm getting close to being one myself!
Service past 55? How about FTRS where you can work to 60? There is also rumour that this will be extended to 65 in the near future...
Here's a link RAF Reserves - FTRS Vacancies
Also, you start to earn a new pension under RFPS05 which is 1/70th of your final FTRS salary for every year you work. Most FTRS contracts are 4 years long.
Good hunting
LJ
Here's a link RAF Reserves - FTRS Vacancies
Also, you start to earn a new pension under RFPS05 which is 1/70th of your final FTRS salary for every year you work. Most FTRS contracts are 4 years long.
Good hunting
LJ
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Cambridge
Age: 62
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you had told me 31 years ago that at the age of 50 I'd be running around Sangin and Kajaki in full battle rattle, I'd have laughed at you. Now, I'm by no means the oldest here! Bring on the pension at 55.......maybe!
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Scotland
Posts: 367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In days gone by in HM Flying Club, if a WRAF got pregnant she was promptly shown the exit and that was that, no return to the Service, game over. If it was discovered that somebody was a homosexual they were out on their ear without question. Both situations have changed vastly since HMG have had to toe the line in the same way that civvy businesses have had to for far longer. It's the law, so there. Similarly, you didn't get a Married Quarter unless you were married (I recall having to show my marriage certificate to the Families Officer before the paperwork to secure a quarter was even taken out of the drawer). These days they're called Families Accomodation and marriage is not necessarily a factor in getting into one. Times change and we move with them (eventually.....sometimes).
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In an attempt to play the honest broker...
The examples you give are a trifle spurious...
Homesexuality was just institutionalised discrimination...nothing to do with anybody's fitness to carry out a task. In a modern, civilised society such discrimatiion has no place. End of.
Similarly the old rules on WRAFs and pregnancy were gender discrimination. Men and women are different and therefore the rules on employment and military service have to reflect those differences within the bounds of fairness and common sense. Booting out a career WRAF forever because she has had a sprog is not just bang out of order, it is stupid beyond belief...not much more enlightened than the leaders who subscribe to the following mentality:
... see those fortified machine gun posts over there...have ten thousand men run at them in daylight tomorrow, pass the cheese board please...
That said the point is valid. Retiring people at a set age is illogical, dull and unfair. The military love fitness tests and health checks....use them with a bit of creativity. If a 57 year old is fit enough to carry out the full range of his military tasks, he/she should not be forcibly retired on age grounds.
If a chiselling porker is not fit enough to do their full range of tasks at 47 they should be forcibly retired.
Gotta say though...why anybody who has qualified for a full service pension would want to stay for one second longer than their fifty fifth birthday is an utter mystery to me. I mean, I know despite all the aggro and b*ggeration, for many of us service life is/was a total blast, but, believe me, retirement on a large wedge....f**ing awesome!!!
The examples you give are a trifle spurious...
Homesexuality was just institutionalised discrimination...nothing to do with anybody's fitness to carry out a task. In a modern, civilised society such discrimatiion has no place. End of.
Similarly the old rules on WRAFs and pregnancy were gender discrimination. Men and women are different and therefore the rules on employment and military service have to reflect those differences within the bounds of fairness and common sense. Booting out a career WRAF forever because she has had a sprog is not just bang out of order, it is stupid beyond belief...not much more enlightened than the leaders who subscribe to the following mentality:
... see those fortified machine gun posts over there...have ten thousand men run at them in daylight tomorrow, pass the cheese board please...
That said the point is valid. Retiring people at a set age is illogical, dull and unfair. The military love fitness tests and health checks....use them with a bit of creativity. If a 57 year old is fit enough to carry out the full range of his military tasks, he/she should not be forcibly retired on age grounds.
If a chiselling porker is not fit enough to do their full range of tasks at 47 they should be forcibly retired.
Gotta say though...why anybody who has qualified for a full service pension would want to stay for one second longer than their fifty fifth birthday is an utter mystery to me. I mean, I know despite all the aggro and b*ggeration, for many of us service life is/was a total blast, but, believe me, retirement on a large wedge....f**ing awesome!!!
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Scotland
Posts: 367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
employment contracts within HM forces
We don't have one......
employment contracts within HM forces
We don't have one......
I am well aware of that (try using your imagination Mr Wensledale and call it conditions of employment or whatever), but perhaps there should be one...you know to bring HM forces in line with the rest of the employed. There may be others who also don't have a contract...ditto.
I retired a long time ago at my 38/16 point and consequently had time to do other things, but that's not the thrust of the debate.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: North Yorkshire
Age: 82
Posts: 641
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As reckonable service is/was from age 21 and as I entered the Army at a later age from university, I would not have earned the full pension if I had retired at 55. I was directed to serve on until I was 57 and then got the full whack.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Much-Binding-in-the-Marsh
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Contract?
Those on FTRS or Additional Duties Commitment (ADC) terms of service do in effect have an employment contract. Its is called a 'commitment' rather than a contract but I suspect an Employment Tribunal would say if it looks like a contract and smells like a contract - you can call it what you like, but it is in effect a contract!
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Belgium
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wrath I would disagree with your fixed term contract point. If it was a 24 year contract on the principle that you join at 21 then fine but it isn't. Whether you join at 18, 21, 25 or 30 you still have to leave at a set age, not after a set contract period, so it is age discrimination pure and simple. The only question is how long it will last.
Given that it would save the treasury a lot of money if it could get the mil to serve to 60, I suspect it won't last that long.
By the way what is a "full military pension". Does it ever get full?
Given that it would save the treasury a lot of money if it could get the mil to serve to 60, I suspect it won't last that long.
By the way what is a "full military pension". Does it ever get full?
A full military pension is when you can accrue no further benefits, normally at your retirement date after 34 years service for Officers, 37 years for OR's to a maximum age of 60 for both.
Say red backwards.
Say red backwards.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 419 Likes
on
221 Posts
That said the point is valid. Retiring people at a set age is illogical, dull and unfair. The military love fitness tests and health checks....use them with a bit of creativity. If a 57 year old is fit enough to carry out the full range of his military tasks, he/she should not be forcibly retired on age grounds.
At least the military can and do use their discretion to keep someone in employment.
Not quite correct ST my old china, you can continue to fly for hire or reward over the age of 60 in a 2 crew aircraft provided the other crewmember is below age 60 to a maximum of age 65. It therefore follows that you are correct with regards to solo pilot ops.
TOFO,
Similarly the old rules on WRAFs and pregnancy were gender discrimination. Men and women are different and therefore the rules on employment and military service have to reflect those differences within the bounds of fairness and common sense. Booting out a career WRAF forever because she has had a sprog is not just bang out of order, it is stupid beyond belief...not much more enlightened than the leaders who subscribe to the following mentality:
I respect your opinion on this matter but I would disagree. When the regulations for WRAF to leave on pregnancy were in force, it wasn't discrimination, it was the rules. It is very easy to judge yesterday's rules by today's standards. My sister was one of those who had to leave.
Men and women are equal in today's military, but I am not sure if being a new mother in today's expeditionary fighting force is the right thing. There have been too many examples where I have been proved right.
Before I get slated, I have been married to a serving female for 29 years. having children is a lifestyle choice.
Similarly the old rules on WRAFs and pregnancy were gender discrimination. Men and women are different and therefore the rules on employment and military service have to reflect those differences within the bounds of fairness and common sense. Booting out a career WRAF forever because she has had a sprog is not just bang out of order, it is stupid beyond belief...not much more enlightened than the leaders who subscribe to the following mentality:
I respect your opinion on this matter but I would disagree. When the regulations for WRAF to leave on pregnancy were in force, it wasn't discrimination, it was the rules. It is very easy to judge yesterday's rules by today's standards. My sister was one of those who had to leave.
Men and women are equal in today's military, but I am not sure if being a new mother in today's expeditionary fighting force is the right thing. There have been too many examples where I have been proved right.
Before I get slated, I have been married to a serving female for 29 years. having children is a lifestyle choice.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ken Scott
The Oldest recipient of the Victoria Cross was Lt William Raynor aged 61 Years and 10 months at the time of the action which resulted in the award. The Youngest recipient was Andrew Fitzgibbon - a 15 year old Hospital Apprentice.
The Oldest recipient of the Victoria Cross was Lt William Raynor aged 61 Years and 10 months at the time of the action which resulted in the award. The Youngest recipient was Andrew Fitzgibbon - a 15 year old Hospital Apprentice.
Last edited by cazatou; 7th Nov 2011 at 15:00.