Goverment looking at compensation for WASPI women after new evidence

theworriedwell

Sarnia

I hope the WASPI women get their compensation which was backed by Labour before they were elected but it is probably a forlorn hope.
A forgotten group who have lost out and are not even being considered for a pay-out are those born before April 1950. The old State Pension which these people get is over £50 a week less than the new State Pension for women born after April 1950. How is that fair?

I wish people understood how the pensions work.

I am early 50s born so I can get either the new it the old pension, I get the old because it is worth more as I always worked and wasn't contracted out.

I am on old pension, and it is gradually being eroded as it was split into SSP and SERPS neither of which are included in the triple lock, only the basic element, whereas DH get all of his new pension increased.

As to WASPI, I knew many many years before that I would have to wait (post office posters, TV adverts about checking, new reports, payslip notifications, tax code notifications notes), so all these folks who claim they did not know must have been sleepwalking. But reading FB posts, it is clear that many need to look at other benefits open to them that they are not taking up (e.g. general belief that PIP is means tested)

Only those born between 1/4/53 and 1/4 /55 were not given the sudden further change and have cause for complaint.

Wouldn’t have not wouldn’t of

Well said @stripeygran

I think what a lot of people forget is that women were treated differently in the past, and there wasn't the legislation there is now to protect women and people like part-time workers or those on short-term contracts (usually women). I wasn't allowed to pay into an occupational pension as I was on term-time contracts until my late 30s, even though I worked as many hours as FT staff, and paid full NI. It was only when I got a permanent FT job that I was able to pay into the pension scheme, so I lost out on years of pension contributions.

There were private pensions, but without the Internet they were more difficult to set up than now, and it would have been risky and expensive to set one up with an IFA or similar. Also, mortgage rates were high so there wasn't spare money (or not in our house at least), and there would have been no employers' contributions anyway. Women retiring a bit earlier than men went some way to compensate for this sort of thing, as well as for the fact that many women took breaks to have children etc. Saying that pensions were 'equalised' by raising the women's pension age is just not true - we were unequal in ways that would not be countenanced today.

Things may have varied all round as to what one got told by employer and/or union.

The point, however, is it was up to the Government to tell us all. Add in that a lot of women wouldnt have been working or only doing a pretty minimal wage part-time job or something - and hence it was the Governments responsibility to tell us all.

So - the ball does go bouncing back to the Government for their inefficiency (whether "one of those things" type inefficiency they are so "good at" or deliberate inefficiency - that they're also pretty good at).

I worked in the NHS CariadAgain, and we were informed by Payroll, not by the Unions. I would think the same applied to all public sector employees.

One didn't have to read a "quality" newspaper to find out for oneself in the event. I had picked up reading the "Daily Mail" at that point from Mr Businessman Boyfriend - I believe it was jokingly referred to as "the paper that the wives of those that own everything read". That about fitted imo - and, counting out the fact that the new pension age table was in that one even and I duly swore madly, then cut it out and stashed it in my personal filing system = that paper was also pretty useful at that point in history financially in other respects (not the same these days I'm afraid!).

But the knowledge of a couple of other things I picked up from it if I sit and think about it either saved or earned me a 5-figure amount of money in total - that I was very much in need of (as a poorly-paid single person).

67notout

I worked for my local county council and, together with my union, I was kept fully informed of the pension changes for women.

Hmmm....that's the first that that thought had struck me - as in I don't think my work union informed us either as far as I recall.

Though that's not a point of concern - given it was the Government's responsibility to inform us and not a Union responsibility.

What’s very poor eazybee 😡

Aelfrith

I would also like to add that while I have sympathy for those who are busy with children and caring for others it doesn't take long to read a newspaper article or listen to a radio programme etc.
I brought up a child and worked full time. It doesn't mean I could pretend the world didn't exist, or that I didn't have a responsibility to think about the future."

But with respect, I think you may not have realised that there was a world very different from yours going on around you, inhabited by women who did not listen to the radio or read financial pages. I wouldn't say you are pretending not to be aware, as I consider that rude, but I would say that I am surprised at your surprise.

I advised a lot of women who had no idea - sometimes until after they had put in their notice - that their pension age had changed. Telling them that I knew about it would have been crass. The reality was that they did not, and it wouldn't occur to me to disbelieve them. For one thing, there was absolutely nothing to be gained by pretending they didn't know, and for another it was very clear from their distress that they were shocked.

67notout

I worked for my local county council and, together with my union, I was kept fully informed of the pension changes for women.

It may astound you to find out not everybody was in the same fortunate position as you, some worked very poorly paid jobs with no unionisation.

In same boat as you !

Jessie14

Not everyone bought The Times/Telegraph, I was raising three children & caring for aging parents, unfortunately I must have missed an amimated government advertisement.
This wouldn’t of happened to men, I rest my case

It wasn't actually relevant to men who had been working 5 years longer than women for decades. What a daft comment

I worked for my local county council and, together with my union, I was kept fully informed of the pension changes for women.

Jessie14

Not everyone bought The Times/Telegraph, I was raising three children & caring for aging parents, unfortunately I must have missed an amimated government advertisement.
This wouldn’t of happened to men, I rest my case

Well said. I spent many many years caring. My head became fuddled.

Eazybee, Yes, very poor. A very poorly paid job where no-one ever discussed a pension with me. Ever. What a decadent luxury that would have seemed to me at the time. I worked long hours and wasn't interested in looking at pension forecasts in newspapers and didn't understand the implications of it if I ever heard it on a television that I didn't have. How wonderful if it had been discussed at one of my many places of work. I'm not jumping on anyone's bandwagon but a lot of women seem disgruntled by this. Should they not speak out? Should they just feel trodden down and back off because of the Governments lack of responsibility. I for one look forward to a payout. They owe me five years and I struggled! Every day of those five years, and to boot being an unpaid carer as well. It'll replace the five years I went without. The heating allowance I don't get any more. The tv licence which I was never going to claim anyway......and so on. Perhaps you would like to offer yours to someone who needs it should you get it. It must be fantastic to be so well informed and versed in peculiarities of pension rules.

nightowl

The cutoff date of 6th April 1953 meant that women born after that date received the new pension. Those born before that date received the old pension but still didn’t get it at age 60. The age at which it was paid increased gradually to bring it in line with men. Can we please stop saying there was a sudden jump from 60 to 65. The attached table shows there was no such thing. We have all lost out, I didn’t get my pension at 60 but I’m stuck on the old rate for the rest of my life.

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7f02e640f0b62305b84929/spa-timetable.pdf

Good that someone presents the true picture instead of a lot of misrepresentations on this site.

StripeyGran

eazybee

I fail to see why a group of women who apparently never opened a newspaper, listened to the news, heard discussions at work or failed to attend pension information meetings think they are entitled to compensation because they were not able to retire five years earlier than everyone else, and nobody told them personally.
Very poor.

Is that because you are loaded?

Long established rules were changed very quickly.

It impacted and impacts many older women.

The sisterhood? Not for you then?

I agree Stripey. also we must factor in the fact that for us Waspis at least half of our working life was during a period where women were paid less than men. So we weren't equal then when it was against us but suddenly we are now when it's also against us. I am lucky that I can afford to not rely on the state pension but unlike some I have enough imagination and lived life experience to see that is a massive burden for some. Empathy folks, that fatal flaw according to Herr Musk!

I also think that a government pension age of 63 or even 64 for both men and women would be fairer.

The problem is that the people who decide on these issues have usually never done a physical job so have no concept about how hard that is as you get older.

I would also like to add that while I have sympathy for those who are busy with children and caring for others it doesn't take long to read a newspaper article or listen to a radio programme etc.
I brought up a child and worked full time. It doesn't mean I could pretend the world didn't exist, or that I didn't have a responsibility to think about the future."

nightowl

The cutoff date of 6th April 1953 meant that women born after that date received the new pension. Those born before that date received the old pension but still didn’t get it at age 60. The age at which it was paid increased gradually to bring it in line with men. Can we please stop saying there was a sudden jump from 60 to 65. The attached table shows there was no such thing. We have all lost out, I didn’t get my pension at 60 but I’m stuck on the old rate for the rest of my life.

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7f02e640f0b62305b84929/spa-timetable.pdf

Yes, I was born in 1952 and am also stuck on the old rate. I went back to work when my youngest child was 5 and from then on I worked constantly, but I still get less pension than others I know who are younger and get the new pension. Some of then did not work after marriage though I assume they must have paid a basic rate of NI.

I'm 70 and knew all about the changes long before I retired. It was reported widely and I believe made clear in my pension forecasts.
I'm puzzled by how unaware the Waspi women were.

Allira

Grantanow

I recall that those all began because a woman took the UK government to the European Court as she thought it discriminatory that women retired at 60 whereas men retired at 65. The Court agreed so the UK had to equalise the retirement age. It was obviously cheaper to raise 60 to 65 and that's what they did. I'm really surprised that women at the time didn't get the message.

I did always think the pension age should be equalised at 63 but presumably that is just not affordable.

The French are currently fighting against having their retirement age raised from 62! At the time I too thought a compromise of 63 would have been better, and probably more easily accepted Allira

Grantanow

I recall that those all began because a woman took the UK government to the European Court as she thought it discriminatory that women retired at 60 whereas men retired at 65. The Court agreed so the UK had to equalise the retirement age. It was obviously cheaper to raise 60 to 65 and that's what they did. I'm really surprised that women at the time didn't get the message.

I did always think the pension age should be equalised at 63 but presumably that is just not affordable.

Not everyone bought The Times/Telegraph, I was raising three children & caring for aging parents, unfortunately I must have missed an amimated government advertisement.
This wouldn’t of happened to men, I rest my case