Volume 31, No. 3		Editor: Bob Rupert		September, 2000.



			  Mandatory Retirement Should Go

					Deborah Gorham, Department of History



Is mandatory retirement at 65 justifiable, or does it represent age

discrimination?  Is mandatory retirement at 65 wise social policy at the

beginning of the 21st century?  These two separate but related questions

have been in the news lately. 



For example, the final communiqui issued by the Group of Eight leaders at

their recent summit at Okinawa includes a section on aging. The G8

Communiqui states that "the progressive aging of our populations compels

us to rethink the conventional concept of a three-stage life cycle of

education, employment and retirement.  As the vitality of our society

increasingly depends on active participation by older people, we must

foster economic and social conditions hat allow people of all ages to

remain fully integrated into society, to enjoy freedom in deciding how to

relate and contribute to society, and to find fulfillment in doing so."

(From the Kyushu-Okinawa Summit Meeting, 2000, G8 Communiqui, Okinawa, 23

July 2000.  See www/G8kyushu-okinawa.go.jp/e/documents/commu.html).



Here in Ontario the Ontario Human Rights Commission has recently launched

a public policy review of age discrimination. Ontario Human Rights

Commissioner Keith Norton has stated that, given the longer life

expectancies and improved health of Canadians, mandatory retirement is

both shortsighted and discriminatory.  While he acknowledges that Canadian

courts have consistently upheld 65 as the mandatory retirement age, he

predicts that this will change.  "I believe it is going to be challenged

as a violation of the rights of those over 65.  I believe older workers

ought to be protected the same as other workers".  ("Mandatory retirement

at 65 called "obsolete", Globe and Mail, Friday, July 7, 2000, p. A2). 

Keith Norton's aim is to have provisions against age discrimination

(including mandatory retirement) included in the Ontario Human Rights

Code. 



Here at Carleton, as CUASA and management begin negotiations for a new

contract, we need to rethink the provisions in the current contract that

force all members of our bargaining unit to retire at 65.  I urge CUASA

members and our bargaining team to consider the following reasons in

favour of change.



First, mandatory retirement at 65 is not in the best interest of the

university. Many academic staff members do wish to retire at 65 or even

earlier, but those of us who do not wish to do so should be encouraged to

continue working.  We wish to do so because we love our work, because we

consider our commitment to teaching and scholarship to be life-long, and

because we have much to contribute.  We represent the institution's

memory.  Too many of Carleton's academic staff members are scheduled to

retire in the next five to ten years.  Carleton will be the poorer for it.



Second, I would argue that mandatory retirement does indeed represent age

discrimination.  I am aware than not all CUASA members are convinced of

this, but please consider the flaws in some of the arguments made in

favour of forcing people to retire at 65.  It is often said, for example,

that older academic staff members need to retire in order to make way for

younger people.  When I was a young married woman, I was often told that I

shouldn't aspire to a full- time job because I'd be taking a job away from

a man, who needed it to support a family.  Barriers to employment erected

on the basis of gender and marital status are now recognized as

discriminatory.  In the same way, the notion that at a certain fixed date

I count less and have fewer rights than a younger person represents

discrimination on the basis of age. 



Again, it is sometimes said, even in public, that we need mandatory

retirement to get rid of the deadwood'. Remarks of this kind represent 

prejudice against older people.  At 35, some people have an enormous amount

of talent, vitality and commitment and make outstanding contributions to their

professions and to society.  Other people of 35 are able to contribute

less.  The same is true of people at 65.  Eventually, of course, death catches 

up with all of us, but it is catching up with us later and later projected

average life expectancies for Canadians in the middle of this century will 

reach 85. ("Old age going to last longer, cost governments more", Globe and

Mail, Thursday, June 15, 2000, pg. A5.)  Many older people retain their 

vitality, energy, and capacity to contribute well into their 70s and 80s. 

Aging is clearly a variable process. 

 

Assigning people a fixed age of employment death, as the present CUASA

contract does, is discriminatory and represents prejudice against older

people.  It is also not in the best interests of the university. 

Moreover, it may soon be against the law.  Let's get it out of our

contract in this round of negotiations. 





Editor's Note



Since the time Professor Gorham submitted her opinion piece to the

Communique, the Final Report of the Canadian Human Rights Act Review Panel

has been released (http://home.netscape.com/bookmark/4_5/tsearch.html). 

The Panel concluded that it was time to eliminate the Act's blanket

exemption for mandatory retirement policies, noting that they have a

particularly adverse effect on new immigrants and women who may have

shorter periods to build up their pensions.  It was not convinced that

there was sufficient evidence to support the idea that mandatory

retirement opens jobs for younger workers, nor was it satisfied that there

was a strong connection between advanced age and negative job performance.

 The Panel then concluded (speciously, in my judgement) that universities

and hospitals were properly accorded, by Supreme Court rulings, a "special

need for mandatory retirement" due to their need for staff renewal and the

supposed connection between aging and job performance.  It will be

interesting to see what, if anything, transpires from this report and the

proposed change to the Ontario Human Rights Code that would extend human

rights protection to employees who work beyond the age of 65.



Have you signed a post card?



CUASA is currently participating in CAUT's Fund The Future postcard

campaign.  The goal is the campaign is to urge the federal government to

increase its core funding  for post-secondary education. To participate in

the campaign, simply drop by the CUASA office and sign a postcard. 

 

CUASA COMMITTEES AND MEMBERS



JOINT COMMITTEE TO ADMINISTER THE AGREEMENT	PARKING APPEALS COMMITTEE

A. Tilson, S. Lipsett-Rivera, 			C. Elwood

 E. Lai, B. Jarosz



GRIEVANCE SUB-COMMITTEE				PENSION COMMITTEE

K. Bell, F. Montgomery, G. de Montigny		B. Lawson, G. Kardos



CUASA GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE			SENATE ACADEMIC PLANNING CMTE. OBSERVER

A. Tilson, P. Finn				K. Marwah



SALARY RATIONALISATION COMMISSION		CAMPUS SAFETY COMMITTEE

S. Mills, K. Marwah, D. Forcese			F. Klodawsky



BENEFITS COMMITTEE				JOINT OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY COMMITTEE

J. Callahan, P. Finn				P. Currie, C. Gordon



FINANCE COMMITTEE				PRESIDENT'S ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RIGHTS

S. Jackson, E. Lai, B. Jarosz, P. Finn		A. Carr



RECIPROCAL FREE TUITION				PRESIDENT'S ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO THE COORDINATION 

P. Finn						FOR THE STATUS OF WOMEN

						G. Woods, P. Walton

ELECTORAL COMMITTEE

G. de Montigny, P. Finn					



MID CAREER OPTIONS ADVISOR			CAUT DEFENCE FUND TRUSTEES

P. Finn						M. Langer, A. Tilson



PUBLIC RELATIONS COMMITTEE			EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

B. Rupert, P. Finn				L. Weckler-Advokaat



ERGONOMICS COMMITTEE				STATUS OF WOMEN COMMITTEE

B. Burns, D. Westwood				F. Cherry, F. Montgomery, P. Rankin, P. Swan



PARKING COMMITTEE				JCAA SUB-COMMITTEE ON ITV/ELECTRONIC TEACHING

F. Hampson					D. Westwood, M. MacNeil, P. Finn