One of the lead stories in the newspaper today - the NSW government has rejected a submission by its judges to be able to work on until 75 rather than 72. The editor opines quite correctly (I can't believe I'd actually find myself agreeing with a Murdoch press but stranger things are happening these days!) - that the judgement should be made on ability rather than age - here, here!!
I'd be very pleased to hear from US readers on this matter, I've read that US Supreme Court Justices, once appointed, can stay on the bench until they so desire to step down, or mother nature takes its course. Is this appropriate? or not?
The news article claims age precedence in pilots here in Australia where a cut off of 55 applies owing to the physical nature of the job duties are deemed to excessive - I guess just the same as it would be in the Armed Forces and possibly many other very physical professions.
Yet again I ask though? Is this limitation appropriate or borne of a bygone era that assumed frailness in all once they reach a certain age.
With London 2012 looming, I was called to note by my daughter who was aghast upon learning that women runners in the early Olympic games were prevented from competing because of "their fragility and tenderness" - they obviously hadn't heard of the grunting female tennis players of the new game had they!
Till next time...
Dom
No comments:
Post a Comment