Ep 276 - New Retirement Rules: Employee Rights and Employer Obligations

Speaker A: Hello and welcome to the HR Room, Ireland's longest running HR podcast, brought to you by Insight hr. I'm Dave Corkery. I'm the content and social media lead here at Insight hr. And today we're talking about retirement. So for decades, retirement has been one, uh, of the more predictable milestones in employment. But from this week, as of 29th of June 2026, that predictability has changed. Uh, new legislation will give many employees the right to remain in employment beyond their contractual retirement age and continue working until they reach the state pension age of 66. So we're going to unpack that exactly today, exactly what those changes mean, what employers need to know, and how HR teams can prepare for what could be one of the biggest changes to retirement practices in recent years. I'm joined as always, by my co host, the founder and managing director of Inside hr, Mary Cullen. How are you today, Mary?

Speaker B: I'm great, thanks, Dave. How are you keeping?

Speaker A: I'm very good, thank you. And uh, we are delighted to welcome to the show Joanne Hyde. She's a partner at, uh, Lewis Silken Ireland and an employment law expert. Joanne, welcome to the podcast. How are you today?

Speaker C: I'm very good, Dave, thank you.

Speaker A: So, Joanne, can you just start, I guess by explaining to our audience what exactly changed yesterday and maybe a bit about why the government introduced this legislation.

Speaker C: Sure. So maybe just start with the wash, and then I'll, um, talk about maybe some of the direction of travel and the. Why. So this is a piece of legislation that was actually enacted last December, um, but wasn't, um, or couldn't come into force until there was an accompanying code of practice which would set out some of the detail that now, you know, overlays that and gives it some practical, ah, operational teeth. So what, this is a law that will apply to people, um, who have a contractual retirement age of under 66. So that's usually 65. That's been the traditional retirement age, um, and now the state pension age is 66. So this will give anybody with a contractual retirement age of less than 66 a right to request to work until that age of 66. Um, there's a lot of detail in the code of practice, a request must, um, be submitted not less than three months before the scheduled contractual retirement age, so 65th birthday, for example, but cannot be put in, um, more than a year ahead of that particular date. And the key difference is that that request to work until 66 must be granted, um, unless the employer is able to justify their contractual retirement age on an objective basis. And that the means of achieving that legitimate aim are, um, appropriate and proportionate. But critically, and this is something that we'll come on to when we talk about what's been here before and what the situation is for those 66 and over who want to work longer. Critically, that objective justification must be by reference to the specific individual. So you can't have a situation where. And this is the situation for over 66 home. We'll come on to that in a little while. You can't have, um, a situation where the organization says, well, we've a retirement policy that says intergenerational fairness, succession planning, health and safety, whatever it is, means that we retire people at age X. You'll now have to say, well, Joanne, Dave, in your case, the objective reason for not giving you this extension to age 66 is A, B and C. So that's a much, much higher bar and effectively means that in most situations where the employer has a contractual retirement age of less than 66, it'll be very hard to refuse a request to work longer. Now there's no obligation to work to 66. Anybody who has an earlier contractual retirement age can still choose to go, um, at 65 should they wish to. But effectively, if somebody requests to work longer, that will almost in most cases have to be agreed to. Um, we will talk about the different regime for those age 66. But just to answer the second part of your question, which is I suppose the why, um, 65 has probably been the default retirement age for since Adam was a boy. And um, it's, you know, we live in a different world. There's much longer life expectancy. A lot of people don't have defined benefit contribution, um, pots, so that their pension may not be very well funded. They people are having, you know, kids going through university until a much later stage in their life does all kinds of things. Life has changed. So that 65 is just, it was an arbitrary date that really doesn't make a lot of sense anymore. Particularly when the state pension age moved from 65 to 66 a number of years ago. You then had for a lot of people a financial gap where they would be forced to retire at 65 but then couldn't access their state retirement, uh, or their state pension until age of 66. And you have, coupled with that, we have consistent, an inc. Consistent increase in poverty levels in older populations. So in 2024, in that older population it was, I think it was a 2.4%, uh, were living in poverty. And within a year, by 2025, that was 3.4, almost a full percentage up. So, you know, you've got all of that, um, and it's just part of a broader narrative and it's been happening for the last 10 years, um, changes in pension laws kind of evolving over, I would say, at least the last 10 years in Ireland.

Speaker A: Brilliant. Thanks, Joanne. That's very clear. Um, Mary, to bring you in here, you've got decades of experience, uh, in the HR world, both with our clients and, um, in house. Do you think this change is significant for HR professionals? And sort of what impact do you anticipate this having?

Speaker B: It is significant in that HR professionals are going to now have to look at their contracts of employment, they're going to have to look at their policy documentation, they're going to have to look at their approach from a practical perspective, having sat across from people who were approaching retirement age and discussed it with them. Never an easy discussion if somebody isn't ready to retire. And I mean, I welcome the code of practice, I welcome the change. Um, both of my parents, uh, worked very late into their lives and you know, neither of them kind of acknowledged their own limitations as they were starting to get older. So it can be quite a challenging area too if somebody's health, physical well being, mental well being is deteriorating and they're not aware of it. So I have sat across the table from people who, you may have objective reasons for why, um, that person can no longer continue to work. But it is a difficult, it's a difficult topic and it's one that I find that employers avoid time and time again because nobody wants to approach someone at the end of their working life and say, um, you're no longer wanted here. Because sometimes that's exactly how that message is received. So it's not a simple conversation. And I think having structure and procedure and processes around something that is so delicate makes it easier for everybody involved.

Speaker A: That makes a lot of sense, Joanne. Let's, uh, dig into it a little bit further then. So I think you've outlined already sort of, uh, what the legislation is, who is covered by it, but what process must employees follow if they want to continue working beyond the contractual retirement age? And what obligations does this place on employers and HR professionals once they've received this notification?

Speaker C: So the legislation simply says that the employee must make a formal written request not less than three months before, um, their contractual retirement age, that they want to work longer. The code, um, of practice. Now, interestingly, this isn't in the legislation, but it is in the code of practice. Um, says that the employee must cite the relevant provision of the legislation, Section 25 of this new act, saying that's the basis on which they want to work longer. Um, I mean, I think the reality is if an employee failed to cite that relevant contractual legislative provision, I think you would be a brave employer to refuse the request on that basis. Um, so that's all that the employee needs to do. And in fact, in the code of practice, there is a template letter, um, um, as to how that formal notification can be made. Once the notice goes in. The employer, um, as I said, cannot enforce the retirement age unless they have an objective justification specific to that employee. Um, and the employer must then give a reasoned reply in writing within one month receipt of the notification. So not less than three months for the employee to put it in. And, um, the employer then has one month to give a reasoned reply, and the reasoned reply must set out that objective justification. So, Mary, picking up on what you said about these are difficult conversations. If you're now going to have to make it, you can no longer rely, or under this particular window, you can't rely on an organizational justification. So you're going to have to say, well, you know, you have had a little bit of an absence history or you've had, um, a greater amount of illness over the last while, and therefore that's why we're refusing that in your case. Uh, and I think apart from the fact that it's going to be legally very difficult to say that that's a legitimate objective justification, a legitimate and proportionate objective justification, I think it's going to make it very personal. If that's the reason that's set out in writing by the employer for refusing the request.

Speaker A: Okay, thanks, Joanne. And Mary, what about communicating these new rights to employ? I know this was published in the Irish Times last week, but do you think that employees are generally aware of these rights coming into effect, or what obligations do HR professionals have to communicate this?

Speaker B: Well, always good practice is to communicate any change in legislation, and you usually do that through policy updates, um, where you're communicating, however you typically communicate in your organization any change to, uh, the policies and procedures that you have within your organization. So yes, there is, is an obligation to notify people. So as we often say here, it's time for you to pull out the handbooks again. It's time for you to pull out the contracts of employment and to look at how well your managers are equipped to have these conversations because they are not easy. They really are not easy. I cast my mind back years Ago, uh, to a client of mine who was in the leisure industry and had um, just acquired a new leisure center and swimming pool and a long term employee was there, he'd worked all his life in the swimming pool and all he was doing, all ah, he was physically capable of doing at that time was sitting, greeting people as they came in the door and having a conversation with that man who got up every single day, came into his workplace, was continuing to be paid. But actually what he was able to contribute to the business had significantly diminished and his own uh, capability had significantly diminished. So that was a really difficult conversation for my client to have with that person. Now you can look back and say, well, who allowed this to happen? How could such a thing happen? That someone would be allowed to continue in employment beyond their own capability. But it did happen. I've also dealt with uh, clients in nursing homes who are saying that some of the care assistants were older than some of the people who they were looking after and they couldn't lift and they couldn't um, support them in the way that they were required to. And again, those conversations were really, really difficult to have because those particular individuals didn't recognize one, their own limitation, the fact that they weren't physically able to do the job any longer. And the employer going through quite long and convoluted occupational health, uh, assessment for these individuals to assess whether or not they were capable of continuing within the role. And look, I found it very sad in all of those cases, uh, when I think about my own parents and when I think about um, all of the, the elderly people that I have known and loved in my own life, to think if they're not ready to go, how at the end of their working life, um, will that impact them if they feel no longer valued or wanted within an organization. So I think from a HR perspective we do need to be very sensitive around this topic, um, and we do need to engage in conversations early. So you're establishing with people what it is their plan is. That's not you pushing them out the door, that's not you saying they're not capable of doing the job. But I think it is important that there's those conversations happening within the workplace at an early stage so you can assess where people are likely to be.

Speaker A: Ah, thanks Mary for bringing uh, this to life. I think with some really human examples to throw over to you then Joanne. And maybe we'll stick with some of Mary's examples there. Say you have an instance, uh, like that where an employee may not be physically capable of fulfilling their duties and an employer wishes to refuse the request, uh, for the employee to remain in employment until the age, um, of 66. You mentioned that the process involves, you know, responding and outlining your justification. I guess. Do we have any indication at this stage of kind of what's within the realms of acceptability here or what are the legal risks if uh, if. If employers uh, uh, don't have a sufficient justification?

Speaker C: I, uh, think it's just worth reflecting that we now have two systems which I think is going to cause some confusion for employers, but certainly also employees. As particularly as we've had a bit of publicity around this legislation. It's important to remember that all this relates to is in most cases one year. So that you know, that um, ability to request and be granted that one year up to the age of 66, um, and the position for anybody over 66 is actually quite different. Um, uh, and involves a different analysis. I mean, to Mary's point about somebody who's not fit to do the job, I think it's a very fair observation that sometimes that's the employer who has allowed that to happen. I mean we have since, you know, for the last nearly 30 years we've had equality legislation that where some. There's no obligation to have somebody doing the job if they're not fit to do the job. There is an obligation to put in place, you know, measures to enable them to do it as long as they're not disproportionate. But I think a lot of employers really struggle with that kind of what's the balance between the normal process of aging and disability and calling that out. I think because this new legislation is only going to relate to one year. I think very few employers will actually go to war on, you know, whether they're really going to take legal risk. And I'll tell you what the sanctions are for the sake of somebody staying on from 65 to 66. I still think a lot of the litigation will be for the post 66 requests. But if you asked about sanctions. So if somebody, if an employer doesn't um, respond with their, uh, with a reasoned reply or doesn't grant this and is found not to have properly not granted it, an employee can bring a complaint to our Workplace Relations Commission and be awarded reinstatement, re engagement or compensation of up to two years remuneration. Um, so, you know, that's quite, that's quite, that's quite significant. Um, there's also the potential for. The legislation provides for a criminal sanction which is unusual and often employment law, um, context. So if an employer doesn't provide that reasoned reply within the one month they potentially can face, there is a potential for a criminal sanction of up to, uh, 5,000 or 12 months imprisonment. Now, very hard to see somebody going to jail for it. But it also just shows that there's, There's a real appetite, I think, to make sure that this gap to. Between that. That has evolved because of traditional retirement ages of 65, state retirement age of 66. That's really all this is trying to do, to make sure that people are in almost all cases, given that ability to work to the state retirement age.

Speaker A: And I think you outlined earlier, Joanne, very well, uh, with your statistics, uh, the why this is needed. Right. I thought that was quite stark, that the, the poverty, um, rates have increased for this age group. Mary, um, what mistakes do you, do you see organizations making around? You know, you spoke about these difficult discussions that, that have to be had. I'm sure, I'm sure you've encountered some, some serious mistakes. What, what's the worst that could happen here?

Speaker B: Yeah, I mean, over the years you, you, you hear a lot of war stories. Um, and, you know, sometime of employers, isn't there, uh, for whatever reason or there may be challenges that are unrelated to the person's age and they're just waiting for the person to reach retirement age and leave. And so there's all sorts of scenarios dependent on the organisation size, sophistication, the level of compliance that there is generally with employment law. And I think we've seen a lot of improvements over the last 10, 15 years in compliance generally. Uh, it's rare these days that you come across employers that have no documentation in place or that have, um, you know, really not complied, uh, with at least the majority of the legislation out there. So I think we have seen a kind of seismic shift in that. Um, but the biggest challenge I see is in avoiding the discussion in the first place and a bit of magical thinking, waiting for the employee to come forward themselves and tell you what they're planning to do, um, and assuming that they're going to retire when they reach their contractual retirement age of 65. And that, to me, is the biggest challenge. I think people generally are aware that it's a sensitive matter, um, to address someone finishing their working life. I only had a conversation the other day with, um, a client of mine about retirement and we were laughing, saying, you know, gosh, how are we at this age now where our peers are talking about their own retirement, um, and the organizations that people are working in may fundamentally change and shift due to that retirement. Um, but again, in having that conversation with that individual, he told me he had no intention of retiring. And it's interesting. If he has no intention of retiring and no one has yet had the conversation with him, bar me, the consultant, um, then you know what's going to happen in that particular scenario. So again, I think it's just a sensitive topic, a lot of assumptions made. Ah, not enough structure around it generally. Um, the larger an organization, the more sophisticated that organization is. But I've also seen significant mistakes made in those organizations too, depending on who's handling the matter. And often we say here your managers are your greatest asset, your greatest strength in an organization. And also they represent a point of risk. Depending on how they approach these kind of matters within their own teams. Uh, usually by the time it escalates its way towards hr, it's coming in the form of some kind of a complaint or a dispute or some form of conflict, some form of entrenched position or hurt position, um, and it gets much more difficult to resolve then. So it's really key that managers understand, um, the policies and procedures. You'd be surprised how many of them just don't have the time to get across to them, don't anything. You know, they get the policy update just like everybody else and the employee comes quoting it to them and it's news to them. You know, they're not aware of it. And so again, it always comes back down to training, does not, uh, general knowledge, awareness and practical application. What do we do? How do we handle this? What's our organization's approach? Um, how structured are we? What do we do when we get, um, this request in writing? And you know, are managers going to be where. Because they're likely to be where the requests come in first, it's unlikely to be coming into hr, so it's likely to go to a manager. And if the manager sits on it and doesn't act upon the, um, request, maybe because they don't want to, then who's ultimately liable for it? And I think that's where these things, that's why there's so many claims all the time in the WRC for one thing or another, whether it's unfair dismissal or quality, whatever it is, handling the management of complaints, the handling management of requests, um, time and time again, it's because the conversation that happens, uh, the procedures applied, the paper trail, um, the acting in line with the legislation hasn't happened for one reason. Or another and it can just be a systems failure thing.

Speaker A: And you heard it from Joanne earlier people, uh, there's a time limit on this, right? One month. You've got one month to reply and there are sanctions. Um, but I agree with you Mary. I mean every business I've ever worked in, I don't think the level of managerial training is everywhere where it should be. Um, so Joanne, how does this legislation interact with um, Ireland's existing age discrimination protections, if at all it does?

Speaker C: I'll take you back to um, 2015 when our employment equality legislation was amended to provide that companies could have a retirement age. Um, but it had to be objectively justified, um, and again to achieve a legitimate aim and that the means must be a port appropriate and measured. So that's there since 2015 that is going to continue to apply to requests to work post 66. So the legislation that we're discussing today only relates to that one year can I stay working till state retirement age? The Employment Equality act will continue to apply to people who want to work post 66. Now in the 10 years or so that that's been there was a kind of a lack of clarity about whether that objective justification had to be an organizational justification or happened to be uh, by reference, a specific individual. But we had a really important Supreme Court case a couple of years ago that said it can be organizational. So what that means is that it's really important for organizations to have a policy um, that says we have a retirement age of 65. Uh, we'll obviously grant them up to 66 under this new legislation but we still have a retirement age by reference to. That's kind of a long list of well trodden organizational reasons like succession planning, intergenerational fairness, health and safety. So employers who have that policy um, will still, with an organisational reason will still be able to justify not giving somebody an extension post 66. And that law has unchanged. But it is really important a to have the policy that sets out what your organisational reasons are and back to some of the things that Mary's been talking about to apply it consistently. Where a lot of the cases have fallen down is yes, we have this lovely policy that talks about, talks about why we have retirement age of particular at a particular level. But hey, we have granted some fixed term contract extensions under that and those have to be objectively justified as well. But we just didn't give it to you Dave. And hey presto, your performance rating has been poor for the last couple of years. So you know, it is important. And I think it could really get lost with this new legislation coming in that the request or how employers deal with requests to work post 66 will be as it has been for the last 10 or 11 years.

Speaker A: Okay, thanks, Joanne. That's very clear. Um, Mary, how might organizations, uh, need to, like, rethink workforce planning, uh, as people are. Well, you know, we've gone up to 66 now. In the coming years, the retirement age might get it pushed out even further. And Joanne mentioned, you know, people are living longer, so, you know, what impact does that have to workforce planning?

Speaker B: It's a good question, Dave. I mean, when it comes to workforce planning and looking at the cohort of employees that you have and the number of them that are approaching retirement age, I guess you have to start thinking about, well, when are they going to retire? And you can't understand that unless, one, you make an assumption that everyone's going to retire at 66. And some organizations will probably just change their retirement age age to 66. That might be the simplest. And you then don't really have much of an issue around requests coming in. But then again, if there's a contractual retirement age of 65 and someone wants to go so on, so forth, you'll end up with some kind of, um, I don't know, dual policy system in place. So who knows what employers will do. They often come with the weird and the wonderful, uh, around how we deal with and approach. But when it comes to career planning, and this is when we come back to workforce planning, we're looking at how many people do we need to do, uh, certain roles so we can achieve our vision, our mission, our strategy, and at what level do we need them, and where are they placed within the organization? And then as part of that process, you're into career mapping and career planning. So the organizations that get this right and do this properly already have those systems and structures in place where they are engaging in discussions with their employees about their future plans, about their training, their education, their ongoing development within their roles and what next for them. And if you're not having those discussions, then it gets even harder to deal with something like retirement and requests for people to stay longer. And I know I come from a long stock of workaholics, probably as you could call it, and they've always worked. My dad, um, died when he was 79, but he was hanging doors. He was in the construction industry. He was hanging doors in a house he was, uh, renovating up to six months before his death. Stopping wasn't in his DNA, he simply wasn't going to stop unless he had to stop. So I do think that for some people the idea of retirement just doesn't sit well with them because they still feel vital and energetic and capable and cognitively capable, uh, of doing a role and having an arbitrary age at which you're expected to stop, um, can be very difficult. So from an employer perspective, I think understanding your people is key. Um, understanding, you know, it is important that the next generation have opportunity for promotion to um, move m forward within the organization. And it is part of a, ah, natural employee life cycle that somebody joins, stays for however long they're going to stay, and eventually leaves the organization either by their resignation or retirement. Uh, ah, and hopefully, uh, there are other means as well. But that's not what this podcast is about in terms of discipline, uh, and dismissal and all of that. But from a normal employee life cycle where there are no significant challenges with the individual, that is typically how it works. So it is a challenge, but the conversations are key. Equipping your managers with the ability to have those conversations is key. And it always comes back down to training, training, training, having your backbone, your policy documentation, your contracts, your procedures for how you deal with these requests. Key. That's the structure and then having the conversations, that's the hard bit.

Speaker A: Just so you know, Mary, I'm very comfortable with the idea of retirement and I don't intend to be doing this podcast post 66.

Speaker C: Just saying a little after just getting

Speaker A: my notice in 25 years ahead of time. Um, um, Joanne, um, do you think like, looking ahead a little bit? Is this legislation kind of just the beginning of broader changes to retirement? I know this is, uh, obviously addressing an urgent need right now, but are there any areas of other areas of retirement, uh, law or practice that require reform?

Speaker C: I wouldn't say it's, it's the beginning. I think we're probably right smack into it, Dave. I think we've seen it. I think it's alluded to at the beginning. You know, we've been seeing this over the last 10 years. So for example, um, public sector workers have now by law have the right to continue working until 70. And that's been there quite a few years. There's also a right for all employees to defer receipt of their state pension until 70 and continue making PRSI contributions so that they can get a greater amount that 70. We have, as far as I know in the UK there's virtually no mandatory retirement age. And we've had a lot of cases you know, at EU level on this as well. So there's, in my view, there's a clear direction of travel and that is probably going to um, end with a disappearance of the concept of a retirement age. And when you think about it, it's very arbitrary that you're 64 years in 365 days and you're well fit to do the job. You're 65 and one day and you know, you, whether you want to or not, or whatever your state of health, whatever your state of capacity, you, you traditionally were excluded from the workforce. So I think, um, I think that there, that I would say we're just banks slap in the middle of a direction of travel. I do think some other things are going to have to be looked at to make this work. So for example, um, a lot of employees, um, as part of their employment, they have the benefit of health insurance, they have the benefit of death and service insurance. And there's a real problem that either some of those are not available or they're available at a significantly increased price for employers. So to provide a continuation of death and service benefit to somebody who the employer is quite happy to have unemployment, that may come with, subject to the person going for medical, and it may come with an increased loading. So that's not really an employment issue, but it is a business issue if employees are really going to not be disadvantaged, and indeed employers are not going to be disadvantaged by continuing to have people post a certain age in the workforce. So I think there are other things in broader society that are going to have to be fixed. An employment law isn't going to fix this, to be honest with you. But that's where, but that is, if you ask me, the direction of travel, of employment law, that uh, I'd say by the time you come to retire, Dave, there'll be no retirement age. Wow.

Speaker A: Maybe I won't retire. Maybe I'll just keep doing this podcast until the day I drop dead.

Speaker C: Focus on the pension. Focus on the pension.

Speaker B: It might be 100 by the time you get there. Dave.

Speaker A: Brilliant. Okay.

Speaker B: With all the advances in technology and

Speaker A: science and Health, episode 3000, I'm definitely going to be replaced by AI. Before that happens, let's, let's be honest. Um, let's bring, uh, this is really fascinating, uh, but I think we do need to bring this to a close. So I'm going to give everyone a chance to sort of share final, uh, takeaways for the audience. Mary, uh, what, what's the key message? You want people to come Away with who are listening today.

Speaker B: Yeah, policies, procedures, contracts, update them, train your people, um, make you have your systems, your processes, your structures in place with all legislation, that's what you need to do. Um, we have pay transparency, we have changes in legislation, we have all sorts of things that it's probably time to whip out that handbook again and look um, at, well, what needs to be updated. How are we going to approach certain things? Uh, you know, and retirement is no different. But above all else, always come at um, retirement with sensitivity. That would be a key message. You know, I've seen my own parents, I've seen, uh, people I've cared about, you know, really not wanting to leave work, really not wanting to end what has been a long and successful life in the workplace. So to me it's key to handle those discussions with care and with kindness and with sensitivity.

Speaker A: Well said. Lovely. Um, Joanne, final, um, final thoughts. Anything you want our audience to, to take away in particular?

Speaker C: Just one thing, I suppose. I mean I'd echo everything that Mary said about the importance of policies, procedures. All of that is going to be, uh, more and more important in terms of retirement policies and procedures. The other thing I would say is for businesses to know their own demographics. So for example, I have tech clients and when I mention, oh, there's been a change in retirement age, they say to me, joanne, we won't have anybody hitting retirement age until they're 30 and sorry, for 30 years. And then there are other organizations who have, um, by virtue of maybe having been commercial semi states or whatever it is that they have very long service us people, very long, very long tenured people who are a big proportion of that age group that might, that this might be relevant for. So again, I think I'd say to employers in particular, don't have your business driven by legislative changes. Use the legislative changes as part of your business. And that means knowing, well what does it mean for the, the demographic that we have in our workforce.

Speaker A: Nicely said, Joanne. Um, thank you for listening. Thank you Joanne, for coming and sharing your, uh, insights on this matter. Thank you Mary, for sharing your personal, uh, wisdom and stories. Um, if you are listening, you've heard several times now, there is no better time to review your contracts and your policies. We have a dedicated HR services team who would love to help you with all of that. You can get in touch with us@infosidehr ie or pick up the phone. 0567-701-0060. In fact, one of the that team, Joe, uh, Redmond, has written a piece on this very subject. So if you want to read up more on this, I'll link to that in the show notes. Um, please do subscribe to the HR Room. If it's your first time here and you haven't subscribed yet, leave us a nice review that really help us. And, uh, you can follow inside HR on LinkedIn. You can message me for any feedback or any topics that you'd like us to cover next, or if you'd like to feature on the podcast. I'm @dcorynsidehr ie. Thanks again to Joanne and Mary, and thank you for listening, and we'll see you next week.