Former Federal Labour Minister Franz Müntefering has cautioned against overly broad statements regarding increased and extended working hours, while simultaneously acknowledging the value of the public discourse surrounding the topic. He dismissed remarks made by Economics Minister Katarina Reiche in “Der Tagesspiegel” as “paucity and generalization.
Müntefering emphasized that blanket solutions are insufficient, stating, “It depends on the individual”. He pointed to the changing demographics of the workforce, noting that people are entering the profession later in life, living longer and often maintaining better health for longer periods. “That is why we introduced the retirement age of 67 in 67. Possibly, we need to build on that” he said, adding that a discussion about extended working lives is undoubtedly worthwhile.
He suggested a focus on “more flexible transitions into retirement” as a productive avenue for discussion, insisting that the debate itself is “not improper, but indispensable.
Müntefering criticized the tendency toward generalizations, asserting that the call for more and longer working hours “oversimplifies the issue”. He stressed the diverse nature of the workforce, highlighting differences in talent, abilities and health. “Some people cannot work at 45 or 60 years, others want to work at 63, 65, or 70.
He observed a growing desire among individuals to continue working beyond the statutory retirement age, noting that “15 to 20 percent of people in retirement age currently want to work longer”. This reflects a trend among both employees and civil servants who desire greater agency in determining their working lives beyond 65 or 66. Furthermore, he highlighted a burgeoning appreciation for the skills and experience of older workers, with more employers actively seeking to retain or even recruit them.
Müntefering predicted a move away from standardized approaches, asserting that greater flexibility is needed to address increasingly individualized needs.
He also expressed disapproval of the term “retirement” deeming the concept itself problematic. “We routinely assign the label ‘retirement’ to people at 65 or 66”. He argued the term carries negative connotations, implying that individuals are being discarded or deemed no longer needed-a significant misjudgment.
