The end of mandatory retirement
In Saskatchewan, mandatory retirement ended on November 17th, 2007. I am interested in hearing from USFA members about this, as soon as possible.
Next week, Richard Julien and I will be attending a conference discussing the response to similar legislation elsewhere. The abolition of mandatory retirement does not necessarily imply that everyone will be able to continue working after age 67. The legislation (at least in some jurisdictions) contains exceptions (no surprise there), for instance, if age is a bona fide occupational requirement. Legislation can change. In some quarters, employers may seek competence tests, which might or might not be applied before the usual retirement age. What implications are there for those interested in early retirement?
For USFA members, many of the responses to the Saskatchewan legislation will be discussed at the negotiating table. Let me know your specific concerns before I attend this meeting, so that I can bring back answers. Post your comments to the blog, or email me directly. USFA hopes to organize a meeting around this subject early in the New Year.
Comments
The Collective Agreement between the USFA and the U of S Board of Governors contains other age-related requirements, most notably within the reduced appointment plan articles.
What is the impact of the new provincial legislation on that article and any others with age-limitations?
Competence tests are simply another form of performance review, and if they are linked to age, will be in violation of the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code.
The USFA should plan to negotiate incentive packages that assist/encourage people to make the transition from a working employee to a retiree. These sorts of "carrots" are very effective and much better than "sticks" like performance review.
Unfortunately, it is predictable that this version of the administration will insist on adding sticks to our Collective Agreement. Just like they are doing with CUPE 1975.
Perhaps the USFA should organize a "send a bag of carrots to the president" campaign to start reinforcing our negotiating position now.
Posted by: Tracy Marchant | November 20, 2007 06:00 AM
Hi Eric
The end of mandatory retirement is immaterial to me. With the directions the University of Saskatchewan (along with other universities) has taken over the last decade, I suspect many of us are looking forward to leaving the academy at the earliest possible date. Now if we could only negotiate some nice early retirement incentives . . .
Posted by: Ron Cooley | November 20, 2007 07:55 AM
I understand and respect Ron's point of view--and would have shared it at his age, and especially a decade later in my career. However, as the end approaches (I was up for enforced retirement July '08) one's priorities can change:
1. I have some research going now, rather unexpectedly, that is gaining international interest, and I like having what university support for it I can get, like an office and students to discuss it with.
2. And psychologically and physiologically, it's better to hang on to what you know how to do, since without that structure one tends to decay a bit earlier in mind and body than would happen otherwise. In fact, enforced retirement from this point of view is kind of like a gentle death sentence--I remember in the early 70s, when I came here, watching men die usually a couple of years after they retired and wondering what this seemingly inevitable end process would be like for me by the time I reached it.
I recommend carrots, of course, being now among the target horses and not liking sticks very much. I recommend we also use carrots ourselves, however, as I am contemplating doing:
I am looking over negotiating to use part of my overly large salary (overly large for a person who will soon be dead, that is--no reflection on the salaries of my juniors, which should always increase!) in future years for the development of a special Catholic Studies and Medieval Collection over at the STM library, a sizable annual charitable donation, if all goes well--maybe as much as 40,000 per annum. I'll still have all my students and my office, and far more money than I'd have if they were to succeed in pushing me out--about half the donation comes back as tax rebate. The future of STM as a religious insitution, which I think is important for our campus, seems rather insecure to me just now and if my plan works I hope it will help strengthen the college's situation at a time when various predators would have other plans for it.
What sort of carrots others might have to offer, I've no idea--hard to want to contribute to our greater institution these days, when we all feel about it much as Ron feels, I expect.
Posted by: Richard Harris | November 20, 2007 10:21 AM