1950s women "Fight Back Rally"

VioletSky

The act came about because women were being discriminated against

That's just the truth

Not sure what else I can say

Yes it was realised that discrimination was wrong. It still exists but normally not so blatently. I go by the rule if I have to think what gender a peron is before I can decide how I am going to treat someone then that is discrimination. There are a few exceptions like medical or sport but very few.

Women can, do, and always have looked after their own well-being when they could, but the fact remains that the law was stacked against women for years, and it is this, IMO which made it fair that women got state pensions earlier than men.

Women were not always allowed to join in occupational pensions. Until the EA, women and men were paid different rates for the same jobs, and for years afterwards it was easy to employ women and girls in jobs with different titles to mean and boys so they still earned less. Many women gave up work to look after children. Working part-time meant that many were excluded from occupational pensions for years, so their contributions were lower on retirement. The law allowed women to pay in less (the married women's stamp) which meant that they had smaller pensions - it goes on and on.

Yes, men have grievances too. Let them fight for them, and there is a good chance that I will support them. But those grievances are not what women are talking about. And critically, it is not the 'equalising' of the SPA that WASPI is about, (although other women's groups are fighting for recognition of the inequality that led to the differential in SPA to be recognised - as I keep saying, WASPI is only one pressure group amongst many. It is the lack of notice given to so many women, who were left with insufficient time to get their affairs in order and plug the gaps that suddenly opened up before them.

Callistemon21

So coercive, controlling husbands were the ones preventing these women opening bank accounts, not the banks?

Most banks seemed quite happy for women to open accounts in their own names for very many years before 1975.

The 1975 Act ensured that banks could not refuse women opening a bank account, by law.

Women fought for equality for many reasons.

Agreed.

In point of fact, men don't cause all the problems assumed to be their fault by many people. Women look after their own well being. I do.

I missed out on getting my pension by just 6 months and was not a happy bunny at all. I had friends just a few months older than me who got it years before me. they had no sympathy for me though and said “there has to be a cut off point.” (I’m alright Jack!!

However, now I will get the full NEW state pension of just over £200 a week and they will get the old pension which is about £40 a week less. Of course they are up in arms about that.

The act came about because women were being discriminated against

That's just the truth

Not sure what else I can say

So coercive, controlling husbands were the ones preventing these women opening bank accounts, not the banks?

Most banks seemed quite happy for women to open accounts in their own names for very many years before 1975.

The 1975 Act ensured that banks could not refuse women opening a bank account, by law.

Women fought for equality for many reasons.

Women did not have the legal right to open bank accounts until 1975.

Other posters have described their experiences and also the other issues they faced

Something talked about often by the women in my family, especially those stuck in awful marriages who would have been severely disadvantaged had they tried to leave.

Women fought for equality for a reason

VioletSky

I probably should have said some women, because some women indeed could not and did nit have the legal right to till 1975

Sorry, but the meaning seemed quite clear.
We queried which women were not allowed by law to have their own bank account until 1975.
some women is rather vague.

I think we need to remember women weren't even allowed to open their own bank accounts till 1975

I think we should remember and make it clear that they could open their own bank accounts and many of us did, way before 1975.

The 1975 Act ensured that it was illegal to refuse a woman's right to open a bank account.

Thanks Dizzyribs

I didn't have a bank account until I was on a monthly salary which was in 1972 even though I began working in 1968; got paid weekly in cash in a little brown envelope. I could not have a credit card when they came out in 1972 either, but my boss had one as it was such a big deal, he told everyone.

During this time period my friend and colleague couldn't get a mortgage as she was not married, had no male relative to vouch for her. She was left the money in her father's will but it took 10 years before she finally move into her own home.

I also remember earning less then my male colleague, who was doing exactly the same job. I also remember being refused a position because of my age of 25, just in case I got pregnant. The good old days hey.

I also remember in my late 40s early 50s, in early 2000s not able to get a teaching job because I had no experience even though I had a masters degree and taught aboard for 40 years.

Just heard a friend has been made redundant at the age of 55, job being sent to India. Little chance of getting another job until she can retired, Will have to go on the dole I suppose as she is not married, so no one to support her. Sound familiar?

Now we have to justify and fight for our pensions, even though we have worked hard for it.

Somethings never change

Maybe I just need a holiday, oh Happy days if you can afford it.

Sorry yet again for repeating things others have said so much more clearly. My internet was playing up and my post just didn’t send last night when it should have.

Violet sky didn’t say it was illegal for a woman to have a bank account before 1975, they were pointing out that there was no legal right - a bank was legally allowed to refuse a woman’s application, purely on the grounds of her gender.
If the bank turned down the application then the woman could find another bank that was willing to accept her as an independent customer, or ask her male next of kin to sign for her (usually her father or husband). Not all banks refused women's custom - but some definitely did.

That's what I'm trying to say

Badly it seems

maddyone

I was informed by letter whilst I was still working that I would receive my state pension at 61 (I think it was 61) but was not informed at all that I would then not receive my state pension until I was 63. I found out by doing a search on my pension benefits. I was never at any stage told that because I contracted out that I would receive a reduced state pension. It isn’t because I worked fewer years as one poster upthread suggested, it was because I contracted out. I didn’t choose to contract out, it just happened and I didn’t know it was happening because at no was it time explained to me by anyone. I then missed out on the new, higher state pension by three weeks. Not as suggested because I worked fewer years but by virtue of my birth date.
The whole debacle has been a mess. I’m sure it could have been done more fairly, but it wasn’t and it’s left many people feeling short changed.

This is typical of the stories I've heard. Not stupid women or people with their heads in the sand, but women with good jobs who were just not told what was going on. How did the clever ones who knew all of it know that they should look it up (or how to do so pre-Internet), or was it more that they were just lucky enough to have an employer or union who bothered to tell them? As often as not we don't know what we don't know.

Yes, that's what I was getting at. It wasn't that there was no legal right to do so, but that there was no protection against being refused.

I think the difference was that it was not illegal for for women to open their own bank account or have a credit card in their own name before 1975 but some banks probably made up their own rules.

The 1975 Act made it illegal to discriminate against women therefore it was illegal to prevent them from opening their own bank account.

Therein lies the difference.

I can't imagine why 'some' women would be subject to different laws from others. Individual banks could possibly have imposed rules before the Sex Discrimination Act, made it illegal, but why would they do so?

I have known women (mostly of my mum's age) who could not get a mortgage or credit card without a male guarantor, but this was before 1975, which is when the Sex Discrimination Act came into force. At one time, men were legally responsible for any debt that their wives accrued, so needed to sign for any credit they wanted; but this did not include a bank account, as a current account would not necessarily have an overdraft facility.

I had a Barclaycard as well, they used to give points and I was saving them for a dinner service but they devalued them and I never got my dinner service.

I think it must have been largely ignored VioletSky. I never knew it wasn't legal. Which women weren't allowed accounts?

Even in 1967 I can remember having a Barclays account because sums of money were being deposited into my account each month (not my salary). The money came from overseas and today I might be investigated for money laundering.
It turned out to be a woman with a similar name who was transferring money prior to returning home from Africa. Barclays Bank put it into my account by mistake but I was honest and told them.
We only got bank statements every six months so I had a tidy sum

We all had bank accounts with cheque books - our salaries were paid into them.

I probably should have said some women, because some women indeed could not and did nit have the legal right to till 1975

VioletSky

I think we need to remember women weren't even allowed to open their own bank accounts till 1975

It's not supposing to me that pensionable age women aren't as aware of their rights and expectations...

It's also probably why the divorce rate is so much bigger

Really! I opened my bank account in 1969 when I went to teacher training college. My mum also had one before 1969, my dad didn't have one.

Callistemon21

^Add to this the fact that those WASPI women born before April 1953 both waited longer for their pension and received a lower pension, and I think it’s a disgrace.^

You woz robbed twice over maddyone.

I won indeed Callistemon but no use being upset about it even though it’s disgraceful because I can’t do anything about it. It is, as my son would say, what it is.

I feel that as so many different versions of what actually happened have been discussed on this forum is the reason for the rally and protests. We are not complaining about the rising of the retirement age but the speed in which the law changed, not enabling those really effected time to adjust.

The lack of clarity and clear information about the changes not just for those women of 60, born after April 1953, but their employers too. It was criminal leaving many women like myself , who had to retire because they were 60, without an income with no recourse to find alternative employment, to tied them over until they could get their pension.

I was lucky I had my husband's pension to support me but not everyone is so fortunate. We did struggle and was relieved when I finally got my pension but once again I was not independent of a man, even though I worked my ticket for 30 years. So where is the equality?

That should read 36 full years. Sorry for repeating myself and getting my 9's and 6's confused.

Gabrielle56

Dizzyribs

I read the papers and always have. I agree with equalising the pension age between genders. This should follow a working life of equality. You may have forgotten, but women born before 1959 DID NOT experience equality in their working lives.

I didn't know that the age had equalised "decades ago". I did not receive any letter or see it advertised. I have a print out from the pension agency, dated 2016 saying my pension will be paid on my 60th birthday.
The financial ombudsman has found that I am one of many thousands of women who were not informed. It was NOT well known.
When I started work (1974) women were not allowed to join the company pension scheme. It was legal to pay us a different rate for the same job. Not all jobs were available to us, it was perfectly legal to refuse a woman a job on the basis of being female. Most jobs had a "women's rate" and were lower paid. It's just the way it was. But we were promised that we would have a state pension earlier than men, at 60.
If I had had sufficient notice, I would have made different arrangements for my financial future.
If I had sufficient notice, I wouldn't have given up work to care for sick elderly parents, using my savings in the belief that I would get a pension at 60.
I'd happily go back to work, if someone would employ me Obviously social services would need to take over the over the caring role that I currently do full time. I'd have to live with that, but guilt over such things is fairly normal for women.
I'd rather work outside of the home and contribute to getting a full pension. Obviously, I haven't enough contributions as I have not been employed since I left a well paid professional role at 58.
Getting work in your 50s is hard, it's almost impossible in your 60s. No-one wants older workers, especially ones with caring responsibilities. And I have tried!
Waspi women do not want the pension age changing. They do want compensation for fact that they were not informed in time to make preparations for their financial future.

Why haven't you got enough contributions? Did you take an extended break for family? I took 8 years,' break but I didn't pay the ' reduced contributions ' and maintained the full stamp as it was known despite pressure from employers to make me accept the lesser rate which would have virtually slashed my pension in half now! I know many who did fall for that one to their utter despair now. Also many many dreadful employers were not paying the stamp when they should unbeknown to the women concerned.

I always paid the full contribution. I have 39 full years. I was contracted out for the latter half of my working life but knew I'd get a lower pension because of that. My retirement age is now 66.
I took two maternity leaves, at 8 months each. Does that count as extended leave?
I also went back to education and did three years degree then teacher training. The time spent on the degree etc meant 4 years without contributions.
Each of the maternity leaves fell between two tax years, so, unbeknownst to me that meant another 4 years of incomplete contributions. I'm sure you all know that the contributory years are binary - you either have full contributions and the year counts or not enough and it doesn't count at all (one day short and it's not counted)
As I stopped work at 58 to care for my parents I haven't any NI contributions from aged 58 to 66. I don't get carers allowance and I'm not entitled to any credits for those years.
So 8 years in which I "should" have contributions. Plus these last 8 years that I will have been "voluntarily unemployed" and not entitled to credits. (16 years in all) But they say I should be paying NI until I am 66 anyway. I have 36 years contributions
I'm currently fighting the 4 years loss from on maternity leave as technically I should have been credited but apparently its too late. It wasn't done automatically as I had quite a lot of contributions for each of the tax years and there was some sort of clerical error ... that they just "can't correct this far on".
I don't have enough savings now to pay the £800 for missing years.