B.C. Professors Fight To End Mandatory Retirement

Faculty association aim to change provincial Human Rights Code

TIM LINDSAY THE MARTLET (UNIVERSITY OF VICTORIA)

VICTORIA (CUP) — With baby boomers starting to retire, university professors in B.C. are calling for more flexibility in the timing and terms of their retirement.

The Confederation of University Faculty Associations of British Columbia (CUFA/BC) is leading a campaign to change the B.C. Human Rights Code so that it no longer permits forced retirement at age 65 regardless of ability.

Protection against age discrimination under the Human Rights Code is currently limited to people aged 19- 64.

“Sixty-five has become a rather arbitrary limit when what [professors and other faculty] are doing is using their minds,” said CUFA-BC executive director Robert Clift. “They don’t feel that they automatically lose their minds at the age of 65.”

Mandatory retirement rules also give employers the ability to change the pay of a worker when they hit 65.

“If you’re paying someone a certain salary on one day, he or she turns 65 and you’re paying them half the salary the next day for the same work . . . it just doesn’t sit right,” Clift said.

University faculty associations have a particular interest in changing the Human Rights Code due to difficulties negotiating alternative retirement arrangements with individual university administrations.

“Rather than negotiating in an atmosphere where the university still wants to have tight control over who stays after age 65, when this should be the right of people to choose,” said Clift, “we figured it was time to deal with this where it belongs, which is [to change] the law which makes this possible.”

Clift said there are a lot of preconceived notions about retirement, pensions and what it means to be an older worker, and thinks that somebody needs to “shake up the apple cart” with new ideas.

In “Times Up! Mandatory Retirement in Canada,” a report by the Canadian Association of University Teachers, the authors say some unions argue that mandatory retirement creates employment opportunities for younger workers and that if people increasingly work at older ages, it gives governments and employers leverage to reduce pension payments. They claim eliminating mandatory retirement could lead to increased monitoring and evaluation of older professors.

Analysts observe that jobs subject to mandatory retirement tend to be characterized by higher wages, pensions and retirement plans, more job security, and collective agreements, while employees with lower wages and fewer benefits are not usually subject to the rule.

The large number of retiring baby boomers will open up plenty of employment opportunities for younger workers, said Clift. He thinks that it is possible to have both flexible retirement options and a strong pension system, but said the existing retirement system often doesn’t meet the needs and lifestyle expectations of some.

“In fact there’s a whole lot of people out there who don’t have access to a pension plan,” he said. “Essentially we’re opening them up to exploitation because all of their rights as workers can be abridged because of their age, given the way the legislation is currently written.”