Mandatory retirement - Age limit is unfair and must be axed

IT IS ridiculous that former Garda Assistant Commissioner Martin Donnellan had to go to court to try to hold on to his job because he had reached a mandatory but irrational retirement age of 60. It is even more ridiculous that his case was dismissed.

Mr Justice Liam McKechnie ruled it “was clear that the regulation did not lack logic and that it was necessary for a sense of renewal and motivation throughout the Force, and to generate movement, motivation and dynamism within An Garda Síochána”.

Let us hope the implication that “renewal... movement, motivation and dynamism” are not as important for the judiciary is untrue, even though judges regularly sit on the bench well after their 70th birthday.

Has Mr Donnellan all of a sudden, or anyone else at that relatively moderate age, crossed a Rubicon that makes him unable to do his job? Of course not. We cannot use a person’s race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, politics or devotion to dark chocolate to deny them work so why do we imagine a person can be discarded because of what it says on their birth certificate?

There is a tragic irony about this case being dismissed at the very moment America’s Republican Party is about to nominate John McCain, who will be 72 on August 29, to run for the most powerful job in the world. A look at the McCain websites is instructive. There is no reference to his age, just his achievements and policies, because they are all that matter.

Naturally, his opponents will contend that age is an issue but as another Republican, Ronald Reagan, said when he was confronted by a much younger opponent — Walter Mondale in 1979 — he would not hold Mondale’s lack of experience against him. Barack Obama is in the same bind and is trying to counter that weakness by his whirlwind world tour.

If Mr Donnellan was a football manager he would have another decade in gainful employment to look forward to. Giovanni Trapattoni will be 70 next St Patrick’s day. If Mr Donnellan were a politician his career could go on as long as the electorate had faith in him no matter what his age.

Earlier this week the Equality Authority reported that discrimination on the grounds of age, disability, gender, race and cultural background continues despite the existence of protective legislation for over 10 years. They pointed out that the largest group of complainants under the Equal Employment Acts related to discrimination on age grounds.

Mr Donnellan was forced to end his police career before he wished because of a 1996 provision which could be easily reversed. Of course, if that was done, mechanisms — and the will — to remove individuals who were not performing would have to be found. Much easier to have a blunderbuss approach and an illogical cut-off point for everyone irrespective of whether they are valuable employees or amiable duds getting in everyone’s way.

However, as we live longer, healthier lives, it is only a matter of time before mandatory retirement at 60 is seen in the same light as the civil service veto that forced women to retire once they married.

The bill to end that foolishness, coincidentally, got its second reading in the Dáil 35 years ago yesterday. Let us hope that we do not have to wait another 35 years to see the removal of mandatory retirement based on age.

Once again the judiciary has shown that they are out of touch with the world around them.