Should you be paid less if you continue working after normal retirement age?

L

LDFerguson

Registered User
Messages
4,823
Interesting piece by Glenn Gaughran of ITC about the idea that perhaps some people are pricing themselves out of being asked to stay on after the usual retirement age. If the employer can get someone younger for a lower salary, it might be hard to justify keeping the grey-hair on with their higher wage. It's far from a black-and-white issue but it's thought provoking.

https://thefmreport.ie/time-to-rethink-working-after-retirement/
 
Last edited:
The lack of employers’ PRSI is a big bonus for keeping someone on after 66.

My mother is in her 70s and does occasional part-time work on an hourly basis. She’s ≈10% cheaper to employ than her younger colleagues.

TBH I think a lot of employers and older employees don’t realise this.
 
Last edited:
Where I worked the retirement contract said 65,
the company position was provided your attendance record was good leading up to 65 and you could still do the job
you could work on, The Company pension contract also said 65 so Contribution stopped but you could still pay AVC
The were saving on the pension and PRSI along with getting good work attendance leading up to age 65 from people who wanted to work on,
 
She’s ≈10% cheaper to employ than her younger colleagues.
Not necessarily so.
Typically older long serving employees tend to be on higher salaries.

Having to restart at the bottom of the scale was one of the reasons that civil servants worked diligently to change the rules and keep their current salary as they worked on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top