If you give the possibility for some employees to work more that (35/48) hours a week, they will have to work more. Because their employers will force them. Because they'll lower their wages to the point they need the money. Because those that don't will be considered lazy. The same goes for the pension and retirement ages.
It seems you are over applying the discrimination framework : old age isn't the same thing as disability or maternity. Forcing young workers to pay for the pensions of the elderly should mean the possibility of constraints on pension earners.
Our governments should get a good kicking if they try to reduce minimum pensions - but currently they don't and they won't. So let's not give them ammunitions to make it easier for them. Unions have got to be realists, not idealists. Un roi sans divertissement est un homme plein de misères
As long as careers are determined by the employer, and as long as careers are the only way to the higher paying jobs, the employer is going to require as much investment from the workers as possible, and will find people willing to give that investment. The employer doesn't give a damn about work-life balance. As long as he finds enough employees willing to give up their free time, flexible working time won't develop ; as long as the employer-employee relationship is one of subordination, it is the employer calling the shots.
To change that, you need to change the balance of power between employee*s* and employer*s*. As long as there is an oversupply of labour, the balance is in favour of the employers - compare with say Crazy Horse or Sven, who have very rare and sought after competencies and could easily negotiate terms of employment if they were to seek a permanent "job".
As long as there isn't full employment, increasing the labour supply is a bad idea and needs to be justified by gross discrimination - sex or ethnicity are gross, asking over 65 to leave the labour supply to get their pension isn't. Un roi sans divertissement est un homme plein de misères
