Mixed feelings about WASPI victory

[Fauxflowersnoflowers]

Early 40s here, so this doesn't as such directly affect me, but I've been intrigued by the story about the WASPI campaign and done a bit of reading around it and I'm still confused.

The changes apparently were in the public sphere since as early as 1995 and could have been known about. Many women were aware and did take financial steps to address the changes. The current case seems to centre around whether they should have been personally informed, not was the change fair.

WASPI just said on Women's Hour that they don't object to the equalisation of the pension age, but then callers were objecting to having to work longer and not getting a good retirement, so the two arguments seem to contradiction each other

Also, it seems misunderstood that a compensation payment would be a full reinbursement of the "lost" pension, from my reading it's more likely to be a fixed amount to recognise the fact they should have received a letter. Although again, it appears many did, just not everyone, so who gets the compensation? All of them or just some?

I suppose the other question is how do we pay this? Public services are already stretched badly, childcare costs are crippling and there is a bit of a worry for me that the funds to pay this are going to come out of other areas that will just make the loves of younger women harder and push their pension ages even further back, maybe into their 70s.

Feel really conflicted about it. On one hand kudos to the women for getting this far, but in the other it feels like a really clear example of the importance of properly understanding your own finances and educating yourself about your pension planning.

So many of you just don’t understand the issues.
I’m one of the very very few women involved.
It wasn’t the sliding scale that was introduced to gradually increase the pensionable age. We knew about that. It was the second jump without any notification that was the issue. I suddenly had to wait two years longer than women a month or two younger than me. No time to do anything about it and retirement plans in ruins.
If you’re going to comment on this get your facts right.
(I’ve resisted writing all this in block capitals.)

I'm also a bit puzzled about some of the focus in this latest campaign. It may be BBC bias, but one of the women who was prominent in the reports was citing her developing painful arthritis as a reason why she couldn't/shouldn't have to keep on working longer than the retirement age that she'd hoped for.

Obviously, it must be very difficult for her and you would naturally have a lot of sympathy for her; but plenty of people do still have relatively good health at 60, whilst a lot of younger people also have to live with severe disabilities, so it isn't specifically anticipable as linked to age; plus men get arthritis and many other debilitating conditions as well, so I really couldn't grasp the point she was trying to make there, how a woman between 60 and 67/68 would be uniquely affected.

All of this. It really fucked me over, but that's because I had other problems going on by then. Nonetheless, the second change was a massive blow. Had I been aware of it in 1995, I could have made some mitigations. It was far too late to do that in 2011. I was 56 that year (and no longer able to work).

There are deeper issues around female retirement age, many of which apply today. For our cohort, married women often didn't pay full 'stamps' and might still not qualify for pension credit. Thousands of UK women my age are currently living on peanuts, in pain, and with no prospects.

For today's women, the things that render them unable to work in later life are still problematic: childbirth injuries; working double with a full-time job and family duties; career progression falling off a cliff after having DC; shouldering the care of elderly parents; menopause issues; plain old sexism.

It's really important to highlight these issues. Equality doesn't mean sameness and, imo, women are too willing to accept the same as men while not actually getting the same because we aren't male! This fight continues to need fighting.

There's the equally important point that we should never allow our governments to make swingeing changes to our lives without telling us. A decision to award some compensation will, at least, help make this point.

Yes, they would have been ill regardless of when they were told about retirement dates.

X-posted with GiantHornets there.

So, a lot of people think that as long as the Government advise you in good time, that it's perfectly okay to move the goalposts and extend your retirement age, willy nilly? Even though you've been paying NI in good faith, for years?

Can you imagine applying that ethos to other areas of life?

"Yeah, I know we have a contract, but I'm changing my part of it to suit me better, and because I'm giving you a years notice, you can't complain"

But a lot of the complaints (and I have read the full report) do seem to be by women who thought their pension age was still 60 - this issue isn’t just about the accelerated changes.

I know about the first change but not the second. I never received a letter about it.

I was not "living in a cave" which is such a pathetic comment.

I am very pleased about the ruling and hope ALL the woman affected receive a good amount of compensation. Most of us lost out on thousands of pounds.

You are talking absolute rubbish about woman only retiring a year or so late. I didn't get my pension until I was 2 months short of 66 so hardly only a year or so is it?

I was wondering the reason/justification for women's pension age being younger than men in the first place. After all, we live longer.

Having googled, it seems that until 1940, the pension age for everyone was 65, then it was lowered for women to 60, where it remained until the changes over the last couple of decades.

'Background: by operation of the Old Age and Widows’ Pension Act 1940, the pension age for women was lowered to 60 while it remained at 65 for men. This was direct discrimination in favour of women which reflected the circumstances of the day, and created a relative disadvantage for men, thought to be justified by the social conditions then applying'

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Delve-and-Glynn-v-SSWP-media-summary-v-2-002-1.pdf

According to the BBC:

n total around 2.6 million women were affected by the 2011 changes. While some of them had time to adapt to a longer working life, for others the change came as a shock.

In particular, around 300,000 women born between December 1953 and October 1954 and getting close to their state pension age, were made to wait an extra 18 months.

For women who were not aware of the 1995 changes, the shock was more severe. They had been expecting to retire at 60, but discovered that they would have to wait years longer.
They complained they had not been given time to adjust to the new retirement age and also that the changes in 1995 and 2011 had not been clearly communicated.

Women Against State Pension Inequality (Waspi) emerged to campaign over those issues.
Waspi has said it wants compensation for the "unfair" way the changes of 1995 and 2011 were implemented.

It wants payments for those who have already reached the state retirement age, plus extra income for those still awaiting their state pension.
But it has not been asking for women's retirement age to return to 60.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-68624420

Yeah, I know we have a contract, but I'm changing my part of it to suit me better, and because I'm giving you a years notice, you can't complain

AFAIK no one has signed a contract entitling them to a state pension at a specific age?

I was wondering the reason/justification for women's pension age being younger than men in the first place. After all, we live longer.

Wasn't it because men tend to marry women a few years younger than them and there was a worry that husbands might be exppected to contribute to housework if they retired before their wives? Dressed up as allowing couples to retire together.

I'm in my late 50s and when I started work in the 1980s I was told that my state pension would be payable at 60 and that my company pension would be payable at 60. Fast forward a few years and my state pension is now payable at 67 and my company pension (I no longer work there) is no longer final salary and payable at 65. And by the time I get my state pension I'll have paid 50 years of NI contributions. It's quite frankly shit.

I do feel for the Waspi women but of the two that I know one has a very good final salary pension and the other is currently on holiday in a 5 star holiday in Dubai. Not all are hard up.

Lots of us have been shit on. However I do believe they deserve some sort of compensation payout. But not a huge one.

What do you mean when you say you had no time to do anything about it though. You didn't need to do anything apart from continue working for another couple of years. I get why you were not happy but why should current younger tax payers compensate you for the fact that women a couple of years older retired at 60? Younger people would probably love to have a retirement age of 62 years.

I got the first letter telling me I would not get my pension until I was 63 which I accepted but never got another letter telling me that I would be almost 66 before I got my pension.

I think it is disgusting to make such a drastic change even if I had been informed of it.

I'm 50 now, and assuming I'll get the State Pension at age 60.

I've never has a letter from the Government telling me what age I will get my pension. But, someone down the pub, told me its definately 60. If they don't pay me at 60, do I get compansation ?

No I think its a divide between those who know what was actually happening and those who have only read the government versions.

The acceleration of the process meant women were not able to plan for the late changes in retirement age and the fact that DWP was regularly giving women the wrong information meant they did not know they were affected if they went to check.

It doesn't matter what announcements are made - if as an individual you put your NINO into the official DWP assessment tool and it lies to you how are you supposed to know?

If you are concerned about women giving up their pensions to pay for childcare then making that a decision between younger women and older women is a failure to recognise that the unfairness is between men and women, not women of different ages.

The default assumption that childcare comes out of the woman's salary is often seen on here. That is what you should be challenging - not relative degrees of unfairness between different groups of women. Divide and rule has always worked for men because so many women by into it.

Do you never read the news?

Even if it is worse now you all have plenty of time to sort things out. Changing my age to 63 and then almost 66 is just not on.

I hope we all get huge compensation and then posters like you will have something to be unhappy about

It is so depressing how some are making this a younger women versus older women on this thread. Where is the solidarity? We are not in competition with each other, we should be campaigning together against discrimination.
(I am in my thirties)

It was introduced gradually. The original change commenced in 2010 for those born in 1950 and was due to end in 2016 for those born in April 1953.

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

In 1995 when the Act became law those born in 1953 were 42 so had 18 years notice before they reached 60.

As pp have said the 1995 changes were fair and it appears the ombudsman has not found any problem with the law.

The issue was poor communication and that is what the proposed compensation is for.

Like pp I was aware before 1995 that the state pension age would be equalised at 65. It had to be under the sex discrimination act. I was late 20s/early 30 so had the majority of my working life to plan.

I have always thought the 2010 changes were harsh as they gave far less notice.

My MIL entered the workforce in the late 60s and married a few years after that. Even back then, she understood the consequences of only paying the married woman's stamp, so she insisted on paying her full stamp. She was laughed at for being a fool 'throwing away money' at the time, but now she is in a significantly better financial position as a direct result.

I think one very negative consequence of this campaigning is that it risks infantilising women - particularly those of a certain age/generation - making it appear that women's pretty little heads are incapable of understanding how government works or of taking a little personal responsibility and making the most basic financial plans and checks for themselves, without waiting to be spoon-fed.

Of course, it was a smaller jump, because men had never been able to get their state pension before 65, but I can't see why a large number of men in the relevant age group wouldn't have also experienced similar financial difficulties if they'd quit at 65 without checking first and then been in financial penury for two or three years. Not all men are in well-paid jobs with decent private pensions. That's still a significant change in the status quo and a clear demonstration that you just cannot rely on government policy being set in stone forever. I can't recall seeing a single campaign group of men complaining of rank injustice about this and demanding compensation.

The only information which counts is the information sent by a government department to you. The original government statements all said that affected women would receive official letters - many didn't or letters were sent to the wrong people and the wrong places.
Women were also being given wrong information when they went to DWP to check for themselves.

You won't get far with DWP by saying "but the news said something different".

Not one person here has said it's fine. Most of us are indeed complaining about the fact that our SP age keeps rising and rising.

But that doesn't mean the government can't do it. Of course it can. There's no contractual (or constitutional) right to a SP, let alone a fixed and never-changing age at which it can be taken.

Recognising a fact is not the same as thinking it's OK.

They did actually lie about the second change. I phoned the pensions service THE WEEK AFTER I got the letter. They told me my pension age was 65 (it was 66).

In 1995 they didn't even send out letters, they ran newspaper advertisements and a short TV campaign. I read newspapers, a lot of people don't.