To what extent should older workers be able to carry on working? This is becoming an increasingly delicate issue in countries such as the UK, where the population is ageing and in many cases cannot afford to retire.

The number of individuals in their mid-sixties willing to carry on working looks set to rise, so employers will find themselves under increasing pressure to employ older workers.

In many cases, this will be mutually advantageous, but often companies seek to shed older workers for two different reasons.

The first reason is prejudice, the second is financial.

In a country where Liberal party leader Ming Campbell was portrayed as an electoral liability at 66 and youth culture is king, older employees are all too often victims of age discrimination.

Some companies believe their image is requiring of younger workers, while some managers believe an individual’s skill levels and drive decline with age.

The financial disincentive to employ older workers in the UK comes about because life cover for employees increases sharply from age 65.

Life insurers are, at present, entitled to increase their charges with age, so employers are hit in the pocket for keeping on older workers.

The move from final salary to money purchase pension schemes has exacerbated this cost too, as the cost of cover was often met from final salary funding, whereas money purchase schemes are not built to meet this type of additional expense.

In order to redress the balance and give older workers more rights, anti age-discrimination employment rules were introduced some time ago in the UK.

However, the rules mean that employers can still operate a mandatory retirement age.

Employees can make a request if they wish to carry on working, but companies can decide whether or not to keep an employee and don’t have to give reasons for refusing an employee request.

This somewhat messy compromise is unlikely to survive indefinitely.

The government has announced a wide-ranging equality bill to tidy up existing legislation and there are a number of cases heading towards the European Court of Justice from workers who say they were discarded on the grounds of age.

At present, the employer’s lobby has preserved the right of employers to operate a compulsory retirement age for staff, arguing this is good for business.

But over time, as increasing numbers of older workers seek to carry on in the workforce, it will become harder for employers to resist the rights to work claims from seasoned citizens.

Insurance companies too, could be under pressure to justify higher premiums for older workers on actuarial grounds, or face accusations of profiteering.

It may not be much compensation for the 68 year-old teacher who is told now that his school no longer wants him, but in time he and his contemporaries look like winning more rights to carry on working.

Older individuals will need to carry on to boost their pensions, while companies will find their skills and experience a useful counterweight to more fickle recruits from university or school.