I READ Tuesday's article ("Incentives for firms to re-employ workers past age 65") with mixed feelings.
On the one hand, I am happy for workers over the age of 65 as they will soon have a better chance of being re-employed. Regardless of whether one works to pay the bills, it is important to be able to continue being mentally and physically active as one ages.
On the other hand, I am somewhat disappointed that employers have to be incentivised to rehire older workers. Given our ageing population, employers would be wise to tap this growing pool of experienced workers - it simply makes business sense.
It would be good if more employers walk the talk when they lay claim to being responsible in taking care of their workers.
"Taking care" implicitly means they have to let their workers do meaningful jobs and pay them market-rate wages - as long as the workers have the necessary knowledge, skills and health to continue working.
Allowing qualified employees to continue working must be a given and a moral obligation.
I suggest that employers be given the choice to opt out of receiving the incentives, whatever these may be. Even if financial incentives are given, employers could donate the money to the needy.
Employers that do so are likely to be making a wise business decision, perhaps not so much financially, but building on a "responsible and preferred employer" brand will go a longer way.