I think it was a pretty widespread practice across Europe, with the explicit Social Democratic aim to push down joblessness upon entering the workforce. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
What would it do to stats collection and measurement of employment figures if 65 was no longer a default retirement age? Ad astra per aspera
In both countries, there are age limits for specific jobs, but not general age limits. In Germany, a forced retirement was introduced for jobless old people only with Harz IV, though there was lack of jobless support for retirement age persons earlier.
I found that there are such laws in Spain, and that there was a case at the European Court when the Court approved it:
Age law fight will go on, says charity | This is Money
Europe's highest court, the European Court of Justice, ruled that European Union countries can force people to retire at 65 to make room for younger workers, without violating a European Union directive barring age discrimination. The court, which sits in Luxembourg, said it 'does not appear unreasonable' for a country to require compulsory retirement at a particular age, adding that forced retirement 'may be appropriate and necessary' to promote 'full employment by facilitating access to the labour market'. It ruled in the case of a Spanish man, Felix Palacios de la Villa, employed as a manager by a retailer. He was forced to retire in 2005 because he had reached the age of 65.
Europe's highest court, the European Court of Justice, ruled that European Union countries can force people to retire at 65 to make room for younger workers, without violating a European Union directive barring age discrimination.
The court, which sits in Luxembourg, said it 'does not appear unreasonable' for a country to require compulsory retirement at a particular age, adding that forced retirement 'may be appropriate and necessary' to promote 'full employment by facilitating access to the labour market'.
It ruled in the case of a Spanish man, Felix Palacios de la Villa, employed as a manager by a retailer. He was forced to retire in 2005 because he had reached the age of 65.
(The full verdict is here.) *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
What about older workers who wish to go part time? It could create those highly sought after part time vacancies at higher levels in an organisation for women with children who wish to work part time or as a job share in positions that aren't below their skills and qualification level. Thus reducing the pay and career penalty for women who have children. And older workers who need/want to keep working and have the skills and experience that is useful for an organisation, would still be able to contribute.
I understand the need to get younger workers into the workforce too, but slashing older workers out won't do much good for that. Ad astra per aspera
EUobserver / EU court accepts forced retirement due to age
The European Court issued its opinion after considering a case first brought before the British High Court by Age Concern England, a charity working for the well-being of older people, which argued that a British law allowing an employer to sack somebody because they reached the legal age of retirement - 65 years - was discriminatory. "National legislation may provide, in a general manner, that this kind of difference of treatment on grounds of age is justified if it is a proportionate means to achieve a legitimate social policy objective related to employment policy, the labour market or vocational training," the ECJ ruled. It said that "by their public interest nature," certain social policy objectives are "legitimate" and "distinguishable from purely individual reasons particular to the employer's situation, such as cost reduction or improving competitiveness." The ECJ left it to the UK courts, however, to decide whether the UK legislation "reflects such a legitimate aim and ... whether the means chosen were appropriate and necessary to achieve it."
The European Court issued its opinion after considering a case first brought before the British High Court by Age Concern England, a charity working for the well-being of older people, which argued that a British law allowing an employer to sack somebody because they reached the legal age of retirement - 65 years - was discriminatory.
"National legislation may provide, in a general manner, that this kind of difference of treatment on grounds of age is justified if it is a proportionate means to achieve a legitimate social policy objective related to employment policy, the labour market or vocational training," the ECJ ruled.
It said that "by their public interest nature," certain social policy objectives are "legitimate" and "distinguishable from purely individual reasons particular to the employer's situation, such as cost reduction or improving competitiveness."
The ECJ left it to the UK courts, however, to decide whether the UK legislation "reflects such a legitimate aim and ... whether the means chosen were appropriate and necessary to achieve it."
Age Concern saw the positives:
We're fighting on to scrap forced retirement say Age Concern and Help the Aged (05.03.09) | Age Concern England
European judges confirmed this morning that the UK government has to overcome a high hurdle to justify forced retirement and so will struggle to show that its national default retirement age of 65 satisfies European Union age discrimination rules when the case returns to the British courts. Age Concern and Help the Aged have called on the UK Government to scrap the default retirement age immediately, by-passing the need to return the case to the High Court which would cause further delay to the right to work past 65 being clarified in law. ... The ECJ addressed the issue of mandatory retirement in the Spanish case of Felix Palacios de la Villa v Cortefiel Servicios SA in 2007. In that case, which concerned mandatory retirement ages in collective agreements, the ECJ decided that the Spanish law could be justified. There were a number of significant differences between the facts and context of the Spanish and UK cases which meant that the outcome of the Age Concern case could not be predicted as a result of that decision. However, the questions on national retirement ages and the scope of the Directive that were referred to the ECJ in the Age Concern case (Questions (i), (ii) and (iii) above) were answered by the ECJ in the Palacios case In Age Concern's favour. It was decided that laws allowing mandatory retirement do fall within the scope of the Directive, and that any such law must therefore meet the justification test.
European judges confirmed this morning that the UK government has to overcome a high hurdle to justify forced retirement and so will struggle to show that its national default retirement age of 65 satisfies European Union age discrimination rules when the case returns to the British courts.
Age Concern and Help the Aged have called on the UK Government to scrap the default retirement age immediately, by-passing the need to return the case to the High Court which would cause further delay to the right to work past 65 being clarified in law.
...
The ECJ addressed the issue of mandatory retirement in the Spanish case of Felix Palacios de la Villa v Cortefiel Servicios SA in 2007. In that case, which concerned mandatory retirement ages in collective agreements, the ECJ decided that the Spanish law could be justified. There were a number of significant differences between the facts and context of the Spanish and UK cases which meant that the outcome of the Age Concern case could not be predicted as a result of that decision. However, the questions on national retirement ages and the scope of the Directive that were referred to the ECJ in the Age Concern case (Questions (i), (ii) and (iii) above) were answered by the ECJ in the Palacios case In Age Concern's favour. It was decided that laws allowing mandatory retirement do fall within the scope of the Directive, and that any such law must therefore meet the justification test.
