AGE DISCRIMINATION Service Leaving age

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Outstanding, Aug 2, 2006.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. New law on age discrimination will come into force on 1 October 2006.

    This law will make it illegal to treat someone unfairly in employment and vocational training because of their age, without a good reason. It is good news as it will give you more rights and opportunities at work.

    Employers will not be able to enforce compulsory retirement ages below the age of 65 (unless they have specific justifiable reasons for a lower age).

    If your employer has a compulsory retirement age, you will have the legal right to ask to work beyond it, and your employer must formally consider your request.

    How will this effect the Services??
  2. Para 44.4 of the The Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006, states:

    (4) These regulations do not apply to service in any of the naval, military or air forces of the Crown.

    So, legally, none at all. Although doubtless, there will be challenges and questioning of the current policy. TA officers can now serve to 60, providing they remain competent and healthy. I expect in time, we could see an extension of this to the Regular Army and ORs. Big implications for career management of course.
  3. It won't affect the services for the following 3 reasons:

    Firstly, .the control and disposition of the Armed Forces is executed under the Royal Prerogative (I won't bore you with the details and history but essentially after the Civil War the Monarchy was stripped of most of its powers, amongst the ones that were left was the power to control the armed services). In reality this is the function of the Secretary of State for Defence but nonetheless the powers to control (for instance) age of retirement, lay with HM QE2.

    Secondly, the terms of service are made, amongst others, by the Army Act 1955 as amended by the Armed Forces Act 1966 (for further reading go to Part 2, Section 2 Para (1)(a) - that's where it says the Defence Council can specify whatever terms they wish). This is primary legislation (an Act of Pariliament) - which means that it takes precedence over the age discrimination legislation (because it is a regulation and not an Act).

    Thirdly, there is an exception at Section 27 of the relevant age legislation which allows for the stautory provisions of the policy on age within the army to take precedence.

    That is not to say that it not open to challenge , as most things in law are, but that is the party line.
  4. And of course certain senior officers serve until 62 +
  5. I believe it'll impact eventually, further I believe that'll be a good thing. On many different levels.
  6. It just needs a good challenge in the courts, UK and European - i mean have you seen the age of French and Belgian servicepersonell
  7. I agree.

    We can already see it happening in terms of the Versatile Engagement for certain trades/arms and the move to a 37 year package for the AGC. In my view the current policy is open to so many challenges (fitness, intellectual ability, military skill) and it won't (or can't) be long before a sucessful challenge is made.

    It is further my opinion that a 40 year old soldier who can match "pound for pound" a soldier who is younger than him, but is forced to retire in any event, is discrimination on the grounds of age. I personally do not think it will be long before a challenge is made on the grounds that the relevant age legislation was introduced under s.2 ECA 1973, and the current legislation should be set aside, (although that is a whole new argument).
  8. The introduction of the Versatile Engagement for certain parts of the Armed Forces demonstrates the MOD's willingness to employ people in certain trades beyond the 22 year point. Age is also not a factor for soldier employment as the engagement is based on time served not on age.

    It would be reasonable for an employer of a relatively small company to remove people at the top in order to allow opportunities for junior employees. Those employees who are exceptional an dhave demonstrated that they have longer-term potential can be retained at the services discretion.

    Funnily enough the MOD's policy is quite defensible
  9. That will be why there is nearly 1 GENERAL for every 1000 soldiers in the Army :lol: keep on a load of has-been high paid wasters (1/4 of whom have never seen operational service!) jobs for the boys or what :x
  10. I know of those who served past that, we also had a WO who served till 70!
    However his role was a Language instructor. Retention past 55 is also common now in TA units.
  11. Branching out into employment law now are we? After your laughable venture into giving advice on criminal law on this site, I'd have thought you'd have given it all up. Or is this the next OU course?

    Apologies OS for hijacking your thread, it's just that I hate this pr*ck.

    "It is further my opinion......?" F*cking Tube.
  12. Hi Biscuits, No worries. You clearly have previous with Sammy the Cat!!
  13. Agreed. It'll be a long time before they climb down on that one. Besides, could you imagine the bottleneck for promotions caused by middle aged men who have opted to stay on? There would be an exodus downwards from the rank of Sgt.
  14. Some clown doing a law qualification who has been giving 'free legal advice' on other threads.

    It wouldn't be so bad but he hasn't quite grasped the subject yet.
  15. 65 year old platoon runner - the mind boggles.