‘We’re going to have to work until we drop dead’
Saturday 11th July 2009, 2:30PM BST.
Foreman stonemason Garett Le Noury, 40, might be forced to change careers so that he can continue to work to 67 – or whatever the pension age will be when he retires. (Picture by Peter Frankland, 0804569)
MANUAL workers fear raising the retirement age will see them forced to work to the grave.
Local stonemasons yesterday believed their heavy work meant they would be dead before retiring.
Apprentice stonemason James Woolnough, 19, has seen older manual workers struggle later in life.
‘There’s heavy lifting and bending and it gets harder as you get older. I think the retirement age for manual workers should be 60 at the most. I am worried I’ll die before getting my pension.’
Fellow stonemason Alex Atkinson, 24, feared another rise in pension age before he reached 67.
‘It will probably just go up again. It seems that we will just work and sleep until we’re dead.’
Jonathan Jordan, 24, hoped to be able to retire early. He started saving for his retirement nine years ago.
‘I don’t want to be forced to work as I get older. I want to save. After all, you have to do something. You can’t keep working.’
Foreman stonemason Garett Le Noury, 40, has felt his job taking a toll on his body. He thought he would be forced to change careers as he gets older.
‘I don’t want to have to work cradle-to-grave,’ he said.
‘What will the pension age be in 20 years when I begin to look at retiring?’
Island Life
All about Guernsey
Ambassador of the Year 2011
History & Heritage
Visitor Information
Guernsey's government
Campaigns
Voice For Victims
Voice for Victims is a campaign aimed at promoting the rights of those affected by child sexual abuse.
This is Guernsey
Guernsey Press
Useful Links
It has already started in Europe,work until you are 67.This is mainly brought about by people living longer,falling birthrate,and the inability to preserve funds or raise subscriptions.But if it comes then it must be for everyone,not that certain priviliged classes can retire at 55,then go back to work and deprive someone else of a job!You can drop dead now,and never reap the benefit of all the years you have payed into the pension fund,or you can live to be 100 or more,and really hammer the pension fund.Just the luck of the draw maybe,something you just can’t change!
Report abuse
Can they actually do this. Its like paying £65.00 to fly to Gatwick and then just before the plane lands the pilot tells you that you will have to fork out another £20.00.
When I started work I was advised I would have to make contributions to pay for my old age pension when I was 65. Can they now change the age of retirement halfway or two thirds of the way through. Guess the answer is going to be yes but surely then then they have broken an agreement between the Government and each individual.
On the mainland once you have entered into an agreement, even a verbal one, its binding. Is it because they are the Government they can do as they wish?
I hope enough of our politions stand up and say no to this disgraceful piece of Government.
This Island is being ruined by the people we, the tax payer, are paying to run it on our behalf.
When I get to 65 I wish to retire. I will have worked since leaving school, worked hard and have put aside for the future. This plan of our Government means I will have to rethink my future plans.
Guernsey States you are probably worse now than you have ever been before. I hope that this is a step to far and the Guernsey people stand up and say no to you this time.
Report abuse
Well to each his own; and I do not wish to tread on any one’s toes.
However why always when an interruption comes into one’s life. one looks on the dark side.
Many would love to work till they are 67. or even more: it’s the attitude that is depressing.
I’m getting on a bit, yet I find there aren’t enough hours in the day to do all I want to do.
My dad for an example worked till he was 73, and moaned like mad when he had to give up because of an injured back.
I can understand wanting to retire earlier, yet to carry on is also great, it shows the mettle of some.
Report abuse
i’m a manual worker and it’s unlikely i’ll be physically able to continue in my trade until i’m 65 let alone 67, it’s up to me to train as something else in the meantime. I can stay in the same sort of work but move to a managerial/foreman level if i achieve some qualifications. but i won’t be rlying on guernsey to have anything left for me when i’m 65/67! two years seems like nothing to worry about really,i don’t intyend working full time for that long, life is for living not for working, how much stuff do people want?once the house is paid for you can grow food and raise animals, and don’t have loads (any) kids, that’ll help save money. ss need to raise more, this seems like a sensible way to do it.
Report abuse
Wages and working conditions have grealy changed over the years; so much so that the smart thing to do is to put a few pence each week into a pension fund of your own so that you can retire earlier and/or get a larger pension at 67. Full employment is just one of the things that have made Guernseymen very shortsighted – it show in other ways apart from pensions: land reclamation and waste treatment would name just two ways.
Wake up, Emile!
Report abuse
If it’s that hard working to 67, then these guys should be able to retire on disability allowances until they reach the new retirement age.
The long term solution should be retirement at 70 but with medicals to determine fitness to work from age 60.
Report abuse
People are living longer now so something has to give. In order to maintain pensions there are 3 choices …. raise the pension age, raise pension contributions, or raise general taxation.
Options 1 is the least painful of the 3 surely ….
Report abuse
Manual workers should not have to work until 67 they usually have avery heavy job to do, which may kill them before they can enjoy retirement which after all we are all working towards. What hope will the youngsters have now to fill their places. after all longer working years mean the school leavers won’t have jobs to go to which is a problem now nevermind after prolonging the retirement age, eh!
Report abuse
Having paid in for thirty plus years in the expectation of a full pension at 65, Then 65 it should be. I fall into the forty-somethings category that get the worst of all worlds. I’ll have to wait until 67 for the pension, while once the threshold goes up again, paying in more than the pension each year in contributions.
So 2 years pension lost, and two years extra contributions to make. For the avearge married working bloke, that’s two years pension at £12500 plus two years’ contributions at £1600 – thats a total of £28,200 over two years. Half his likely earnings. Mine is worse, as I pay in at the maximum and am self -employed. My projected loss is nearer £50k over two years. And it IS a loss – over 65s currently have the option of continuing to work and keeping their OAP, whilst not contributing at full rate.
Get this into perspective guys – it’s much, much bigger than it looks at first glance.
Report abuse
Toby
there`s another choice. Stop giving it to the scroungers that don`t want to work,
Andrew
I fear under your proposal there will be a lot of bad backs at 61, actually thats a great idea, i can retire early.
Report abuse
Wel done bcb, surpised that it took 10 comments for someone to mention it.
Ditch the welfare state…. problem solved.
Workers win, non-workers lose
I’d say thats pretty fair.
Report abuse
bcb and The Man – are you completely insane? What about those who can’t work? Would your suggestion be to round up those with Down’s Syndrome and gas them? Or how about those that have serious accidents at work? Or have cancer.
Your suggestion is even more crazy than the solution in Logan’s Run….
Report abuse
Quite right, Belinda.
These points of view hold currency in Guernsey, however, and it is not a big step from the amended States wording for the Social plan to a position where the poor and uneducated are left to rot through no more fault of their own than being born.
No doubt many people would like to see the poor in workhouses and single mothers punished, perhaps selling their children for debt? That’s how the third world works.
Right wing ideology, as espoused by the no-welfare brigade, and differently, by the pro growth at any cost brigade, inevitable leads to at least two tiers in society. Those that live hand-to-mouth, out of sight, unrecorded and those that live at the captain’s table, feathering nests and gorging on their egos.
That creates more problem than building in allowances into a welfare system for those that will abuse it. The problem is miniscule compared to the loss in tax takes from allowances for the rich and corporations.
Report abuse
Belinda- Credit me with some intelligence please.
Look at my comments on the similar article the “retire at 67″ story.
Report abuse
Arnald
Where do you think we are living??
I havent looked out of the window in the last hour, maybe the slums have just appeared out of knowhere.
Relatively speaking there is no poor in Guernsey, certainly not compared to other locations on the planet, such as China or India. Also education here is freely available to ALL. Why is it my fault that some kids cant be bothered to learn.
Try to factor location into your analysis because a lot of your arguement (prior to your rant about snobs… yawn) falls down on that basis.
As soon as welfare was introduced, we had people abusing the system, welfare should eb for the people that genuinely need it, not everyone that can fill in a form or “forget” to use contraception (which as far as I know is free).
I can only assume that you are defending shazza who purposefully goes and gets herself pregnant (I think you’d be surprised how often that happens).
Or perhaps you are defending Baz, the pothead who’s never done a days work in his life and the only hardship he has is to struggle to get up every thursday to get to Edward Wheadon House.
Please see Mrs T’s quote in the other article, she is a single mum who has a job, its not unheard of you know.
The moment we stop making excuses for this drain on society the better.
These people should be given money to attempt to better themselves, not just existing, they should be rewarded for going to college, or getting an apprenticeship, there are also still jobs to be had here.
I’m not saying that there are not issues at the top of the chain also, but as a man in his mid 30′s who has to work his proverbials off to pay his mortgage/ bills/ cadastre rates, I find it a bit galling when I see people drifting through life withou a care in the world because my tax’s paying for their lifestyle.
I’m no elitist, as you seem to be inferring, but I’m an honest hard working individual who earns greater than average wage because I worked myself from the ground up.
There are a lot of apologists around who make excuses for these people, but the reality is they couldnt give a damn about you, as long as you keep paying your tax.
Report abuse
The Man
I read it.
You’re wrong.
Report abuse
Should have known there is no converting the dogmatic.
You stick to your angry about the rich opinion.
I’ll stay balanced and appreciate that there are people abusing both ends of the spectrum, whilst not attempting to make excuses for either.
Report abuse
No Arnald, you are wrong!
The Man has hit the nail on the head. He not a right wing elitist like you so claim, he is correctly pointing out that hard worker Joe Builder is going to have to work longer because the scum of society are too busy getting “accidentally” pregnant or just can’t be bothered.
Welfare for the needy only, and as for the gasing them comment, why is it that wenever welfare is questioned, some leftist has to pretend we are in Nazi Germany….. Honestly, call the Hyperbole Police…..
Report abuse
Sanguine
You are blaming a tiny number of people for the pensions deficit? And you are calling me wrong!!
Scum of society? How will anything improve if the prevailing attitude to the problem of the long term unemployed is that they are somehow inferior?
Isn’t that elitism?
Report abuse
Behind you 100% The Man.
I can’t decide whether Arnald is one of the sandal wearing facial haired lefty brigade or just an idiot having a wind up. I won’t dwell on it. There is little difference.
I begrudge a large portion of my hard earned social security payments being handed out to parasites. Its as simple as that.
Report abuse
The Man
I imagine it is cheaper for the States to pay out benefits to the few that can’t be bothered rather than set up incentive schemes and training allowances. I agree with you on that part. Scrapping benefits will only work if the same people that would be caught in the welfare state had an alternative.
When you leave school uneducated, and you have to understand that that is an absolute state failing, then immediately you have nowhere else to turn. People who have not understood what it is to interact with society and comply with certain ‘norms’ will not automatically know where to ‘better themselves’ and take responsibility for their actions. often there is a history of institutionalisation.
There is no point calling for ‘the scum of the earth’ to be punished, just for existing within their social parameters without providing steps to self improve.
There is little social care that addresses this here. Thatcher did similar when she shut down industry in Northern England. By conveniently creating the benefit class dependent on incapacity payments, a whole section of society has been lost, unproductive and forgotten.
The proceeding governments can tinker all they like with this, but the damage is done. Only massive investment in job creation will ever reset this inbalance. We need to do that in Guernsey if you want to stop this petty vindictiveness.
How will you discern who is genuinely needy?
Report abuse
“You are blaming a tiny number of people for the pensions deficit? And you are calling me wrong!!”
A tiny number? Have you ever passed the SS office on a Thursday?
I know a single mum who is unemployed and she has no intetion of working, she has a flat (on the tax payer), child allowance for two kids and enough money to put her kids with a babysitter and go to Follies on a Friday and Saturday (taxi both ways). Im sorry that is a more than most people earn a week and she gets because she can’t read a condom packet.
SO if she counts as long term unemployed, call me a elitist all you like!
Report abuse
Howard
Repeating Daily Mail headlines does not make it any more correct.
You’re knocking the wrong parasites if you want value for your rage.
Report abuse
Arnald
I said that there needs to be incentives to get people out of the routine of handouts, there has to be a gradual progression for the people already in this loop, but they will have to at some stage have to be knocked out of their comfort zone.
This is the tough step, at which some people would accuse you of being harsh on them by “forcing” them to improve themselves.
The simple fact of the matter is that every contribution, however small, is still a contribution. For example look at the scheme getting people with learning disabilities into work, I have had the pleasure with dealing with a few of these kids, and they are a joy. And they are bettering society in more ways than one.
Why cant the aforementioned shazza do it?? If someone born significantly less physically gifted can??
The only reason is because its made too easy for her not to.
My issue is with the ease with that it is all available. I have a niece in the UK at school leaving age, who’s best friend is failing badly at school (largely from what I gather through not being interested and lazy), who has freely admitted that if the exams go bad she can always get “knocked up”, this was not said in jest either.
This has to stop, and until we stop making the handouts so easy, it wont, and it will only deteriorate as it passes through the generations (which it will).
Tough decisions would have to me made, we both know they wont however, and phrases such as “scum of the earth”, “spongers” etc etc, will continue to be thrown around and the mental divide between the classes will greaten, and when more and more cutbacks have to be made, people will always come back to this issue with growing resentment.
This wont solve all of guernsey’s probelms, but I guarentee that if every able person who is currently a “taker” turns into a “giver”, then the coffers wouldnt look so bad.
Report abuse
Belinda
I cant believe you would come out with such a load of rubbish.
Read my post properly if you can?
All i said was to stop giving it to scroungers that don`t want to work. What the heck has that got to do with helping the ones in need which i am happy to do.
Report abuse
Arnald
So you think giving money to people who dont want to work is a good idea?
Please point me to where i said not to help the ones in need?
and i have no problem helping single mothers.
Try reading the post for the content instead of reaching your (wrong) own conclusion and pqassing it off as my opinion.
Report abuse
The Man
Of course I agree with your ends, if not the detail in the means.
There has to be incentive to be more productive. I sincerely believe that it is a learned trait rather than one that people just ‘fall into’. There is a cycle for people, there always has been, to achieve little and to take more than they give, and I have to agree that the problem is getting worse. I am not an apologist for abusing the contract between state and individual. To receive that benefit one must have either worked in the past to earn it, or enter in a contract to try one’s best to earn it in the future. The fact is that is a naturally acceptable way of thinking.
Somewhere, a few people have forgotten this. Lost in a vague victimisation and a desire to ‘carve an identity’ in an otherwise futile existence, sticking two fingers up at a society that praises greed by ‘optimising’ their income, becomes a raison d’etre.
But by attacking the welfare system you play right into the hands of the anti social poor. Simply cutting off the few quid is unlikely to motivate them into doing an honest day’s work, there’ll just be an expansion of the black market, just as there was in Eighties Britain (fools and horses anyone?).
Instead we need to invest in education to avoid letting the children in these cycles slip through the system. Learning the social skills at school of interaction and cooperation are essential into understanding the ‘you get back what you put in’ thinking that motivates achievement. We need to create dialogue to examine why such engrained attitudes remain, when some self-application could see greater life enjoyment. But a punishment, which is what it will feel like, will be more destructive than positive and will only really assuage those that have an agenda against ‘scum of the earth’.
Remember, we are going to need the children of the hated ‘baby factories’ to be well educated and able to earn top whack in order to provide us with some pension cover. So showing support rather than exclusion would be prudent.
Report abuse
The Man- but what about all the wealthy who “take” and don’t give. You should maybe do some thinking about how our cap on social security payments is contributing to the pensions deficit.
Why should women with children be forced to work? There is no uproar about the stay at home wives (whether or not they have children) of the wealthy, so why rail against the women who don’t have the benefit of wealthy partners? Are people suggesting that you need a rich partner in order to breed?
You are all living in a very warped reality.
However, The Man, following your logic:
I guarentee that if every able person who is currently a “taker” turns into a “giver”, then the coffers wouldnt look so bad.
Let’s send the stay at home wives back to the offices, or into cleaning jobs. Let’s make it illegal to be not contributing to the social security pot.
That would make a big big difference, would it not?
Report abuse
I am in complete agreement with Sanguine, there are far too many long term unemployed people claiming benefits.
Whilst I recognise that there are some people who genuinely cannot work due to health reasons or by caring for an incapable individual, I also know many people who live off benefits because they genuinely believe that they are financially better-off (being provided with accommodation, a regular income, free legal aid, etc).
In a place where unemployment is so low, there is simply no reason for there to be so many people in long-term unemployment. Therefore, the States need to come up with a strategy to combat what is clearly the abuse of the benefit system. For instance, why not offer a system of subsidised child care for all those lazy young mums to enable them to get back to work? (And, before anyone argues on behalf of these young mums, I too am a single parent nut I work full-time, pay the exhorbitant rate of rent locally on the private market, and yet expected to support those who simply cannot be bothered to work).
Until the benefits system is looked at and radically overhauled, it seems that a large chunk of the coffers which are put into the pot by hard working people like myself will disappear before we reach retirement age.
I believe it is high time that pressure is put onto the States to look at the abuse of the benefits system before taking away the benefits that us hard-working individuals should be able to enjoy when (if?) we acheive retirement age.
Report abuse
bcb
The question is; who is a ‘scrounger’? How does the benefits office differentiate between someone with genuine needs and someone who is playing the system? Whatever set up one has, there will always be system abusers.
All the ideas about training and single mother creche incentives are all good and I’d say necessary, but they cost far, far more to implement and keep running. it requires further public sector staff with pensions, more facilities and more admin. I’m all for it because of the long term savings of breaking the cycle.
But really, if these measures were introduced to the tune of millions, would you support it?
The bottom line is that if we want to eliminate the ‘scrounger’ from popular consciousness, society has to pay for the rehabilitation of the parents and the education of the children. Taxes will need to be raised.
Report abuse
Arnald
I think we can safely say we agree in principal, the devil is in the detail. I agree with what you are saying about education, but there is a whole other melting pot to stir if we try broaching that one ;)
This is never an easy subject to tackle because there are are lot of strong feelings about this, and its very easy for people to get the wrong end of the stick about the point you are trying to make.
Which brings me to…
Belinda
You are missing my point and moving the goalposts somewhat.
My ideology is to make it less easy for teenagers to fire kids out because they know they will get a free ride from it. Also to give the people more incentive to get out and work, and to improve themselves.
I also alluded to this in a previous comment that I accept there are people abusing both ends of the spectrum, however that is not what Arnald and I were debating.
I dont agree with stay at home mums/ wifes of wealthy men either, I also think caps for the wealthy are wrong also. The whole system needs a good look, and an overhaul.
But it seems its easier for politicians to target the easiest group, the hard worker “oh they’ll take another 2 years on the chin, dont worry”.
Report abuse
The Man
Yes, they should target the rich first, being most able to shoulder more social responsibility.
The trouble is that if you remove the net for young mothers then those that are genuinely stuck will be left in dire straits. It is not the benefit system that is wrong here, but the thinking behind how having a baby becomes a means to an end. I mean, are these children being brought up in a wanted environment? Who is advising, where is the community? Taking away the state responsibility does not engender personal responsibility. It just removes them from statistics and therefore from any chance of addressing the root problems.
Report abuse
Arnald
You ask who is a scrounger.
To me it`s someone who is taking money from me when there is no good reason to not earn their own, simple really?
Belinda
after looking again at my original comment i can only assume that to you as i stated “scroungers that don`t want to work”
You replied.
Would your suggestion be to round up those with Down’s Syndrome and gas them? Or how about those that have serious accidents at work? Or have cancer.
Why have you put these people in this context? or is it you that is insane.
Report abuse
bcb
The people authorising the benefit payment have to make a call. They look at the information provided and decide either way. It relies on individuals telling the truth.
There are mechanisms already to withdraw benefit if claims are false. To police this effectively you need more staff, more funds and more beaurocracy.
Report abuse
-Belinda
“Why should women with children be forced to work?”
So you are encouraging people who cannot afford children (as they need to claim benefit) to have children? So by that logic, I can’t afford a Bentley, but hell, lets make the taxpayer get me one? On this over populated island why is that different?
“There is no uproar about the stay at home wives”
…because they are living within their means….
“(whether or not they have children) of the wealthy, so why rail against the women who don’t have the benefit of wealthy partners?”
Simple dont bring a child into the world when you as parent cannot support them… If you expect the goverment to pay for all children, stop reading a Brave New World!!!!
“Are people suggesting that you need a rich partner in order to breed?”
No, that would be you now wouldn’t it?
“You are all living in a very warped reality”
No im sorry we are trying to rationalise with leftists, perhaps the hardest thing to do….
Report abuse
Arnald
Whats that got to do with not wanting to give my hard earned cash to scroungers that dont want to work? which was the only point i was trying to make.
I do find that often from a simple comment you have to go on to write a book on the subject. I actually agree with a lot of what you say in other posts but try not to change what i have said into something else, like agreeing with Belinda`s pathetic response.
Report abuse
bcb
Of course we don’t want tax take to be ‘wasted’ on those that are unprepared to contribute, I’m only suggesting that the relevant bodies would need more cash to become more efficient. Since public sector funding will be reduced, it just won’t happen.
Personally, I don’t like the fact that my taxes are subsidising tax caps for the rich. They are more likely to be educated and have less excuses to demand ‘incentives’ from society.
Sanguine
You are not ‘rationalising’. Belinda is highlighting the fact that attacking one section of society without understanding the bigger picture of ‘injustices’ makes those people sound like bigots. The language used is insulting, hence the harsh reactions.
Report abuse
I thought this was about raising the retirement age.
Report abuse
This is yet another thing that proves Guernsey is in financial meltdown…… things have got considerably worse since the introduction of the zero-ten scheme, what a HUGE mistake that was!
Report abuse