When to re-assign work or cut pay?

Source: Today, 13/1/9, p.16 (letters)
Headline: Still good at 62
Author: By Rick Lim Say Kiong

Quote1:
Employers should also consider productivity as a factor when it comes to negotiating re-employment terms and conditions, especially in job scope and pay.

Comment1:
This states the writer's position.

Quote2:
Why shouldn't a 62-year-old employee continue in his job with the same pay if he has been and will be productive in his current job?

Comment2:
This is another statement of the same position, as applied to a 62-year-old employee. The statement's being presented as a question is a literary device known as a rhetorical question. There is an inherent risk in using this device: a reader may not recognise that it is intended to be a statement and not a question. It is best not to use rhetorical questions. Just make the statement.

Quote3:
The moment an older worker reaches the age of 62, is he suddenly undependable, weak and inefficient in his work? If not, why is it deemed necessary for him to be allocated to another job scope to suit his "capabilities" or for him to take a pay cut?

Comment3:
Here, we have more than a rhetorical question fronting for a statement; we have two rhetorical questions fronting for an argument:

Premiss1: If and only if (undependable, weak & inefficient), then (change job scope or cut pay)
Premiss2: Not-(undependable, weak & inefficient)[at 62]
Conclusion: Hence, not-(change job scope or cut pay)[at 62]

Premiss1 states a biconditional relation; where both terms are simultaneously true or false. Premiss2 states that the first term (undependable, weak & inefficient) is not true. The conclusion completes the argument by stating that we should not (change job scope or cut pay).

This argument form is valid, meaning that the premisses do entail the conclusion. Premiss2 is intuitively true: in general, one does not suddenly become (undependable, weak & inefficient) upon reaching age 62. That leaves Premiss1. Is Premiss1 true? Is (undependable, weak & inefficient) the only reason for (change job scope or cut pay)?

Quote4:
Many employers are keen to use the statutory retirement age [62] as a reason to cut pay or even to demean employees to the point of resignation.

Comment4:
This says that some employers think (age 62) is another reason for (cut pay). Resignation is a new point, not mentioned in the argument.

Quote5:
But in a market where experienced, dedicated and still-productive workers are difficult to come by, losing a long-serving employee is not of any benefit to the company.

Comment5:
This addresses the new point of "demean employees to the point of resignation", which is a point not mentioned in the argument.

END