Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

AIBU in thinking the government have made the correct decision not to blanket pay all WASPI women £3k? This goes against the Ombudsman recommendations to pay between £1k-3k to every WASPI women.

583 replies

caringcarer · 17/12/2024 13:35

At the time it was in every newspaper for weeks, in the radio and on the TV news a lot of coverage via the media. Most women of this age agree they knew about pension age changes. At the time it was huge. I fail to understand how any women could not have known unless they lived off grid. No individual letters were sent out to the women who would be affected. The Ombudsman's recommendation was that a blanket payment of between £1k-3k be paid to all WASPI women. Labour have just announced no money will be paid out at all. It would have cost the taxpayer up to £10.5 billion pounds on top of the huge amount of my ney it has cost to review it for several years. It is money that the government just don't have. Assuming lessons have been learned and any future changes will see DWP send out letters to any individuals who it will directly affect. The only worry is that it sets a precedent of ignoring what the Ombudsman's recommendations.

OP posts:
fiftiesmum · 20/12/2024 12:07

wombat15 · 18/12/2024 10:53

Women currently in their 60s weren't routinely sacked for being pregnant. That may have happened in the 1950s but not the 1980!!

I was - or rather it was dressed up as resigned (under duress) and that was in the 80's

wombat15 · 20/12/2024 12:15

fiftiesmum · 20/12/2024 12:07

I was - or rather it was dressed up as resigned (under duress) and that was in the 80's

It still happens today but doesn't mean it is routine.

wombat15 · 20/12/2024 12:16

Tryingtokeepgoing · 19/12/2024 22:12

Where I have I said they lied? I was actually referring the photo of Rachel Reeves (2019?) with the banner supporting them, and her statement last week that we couldn’t afford it. I don’t disagree that we can’t afford it - but she didn’t care about the cost when (a) she was in opposition and (b) not even shadow chancellor, never mind chancellor. So what she said then and now are different.

But she’s not alone. The tories are making a noise about it now, though we all know if they were still in power they wouldn’t be paying them either. Albeit, growth would be higher, interest rates lower and a recession wouldn’t be looming ;)

Oh yes, the economy would be fantastic if the Tories were still in power. 😂

BIossomtoes · 20/12/2024 12:18

wombat15 · 20/12/2024 12:15

It still happens today but doesn't mean it is routine.

But you said it never happened in the 80s. 🤷‍♀️

wombat15 · 20/12/2024 12:30

BIossomtoes · 20/12/2024 12:18

But you said it never happened in the 80s. 🤷‍♀️

I said it didn't routinely happen. That is not the same as saying it never happened.

MereDintofPandiculation · 20/12/2024 13:11

DdraigGoch · 19/12/2024 22:31

Not full time once the kids are in school though. Laundry now involves sticking it in a machine and pressing a button. You aren't having to scrub clothes against a washboard and wring them through a mangle. You're not cooking over an open fire (and cleaning up the soot). You aren't scouring the step with a donkey stone every week. Household chores don't take anything like the time they used to. My mother (born late fifties) worked a three day week until she retired. Yes, some of that time involved cleaning and laundry. It also involved going swimming, lunch out with her sisters, watching TV, suduko etc.

Chores for one household are not a full-time job by a long way.

Well, I"m older than your mother, and I cannot recall a time when washboards and cooking over an open fire were anywhere near mainstream. My mother did both, but she was born in the 1920s, and was among the rural poor.

Laundry was more time-consuming in the 50s, with a single purpose washing machine and a separate wringer or a spin dryer. There were no microwaves, not everyone had a fridge, deep freezes were very rare. There were no supermarkets, although more traders delivered. But it wasn't quite as dire as you suggest.

NewName24 · 20/12/2024 15:58

Tryingtokeepgoing · 19/12/2024 21:41

One could take the view that the Ombudsman found that 90% of people affected did know, and that spending £10 billion because of minority (only 10%) is wildly disproportionate. Particularly as it’s not at all clear that the 10% would have done anything different. After all, if they couldn’t be bothered to keep abreast of the situation, how likely is it they’d have actually done anything if they had been told?

I agree with this.

As someone just a bit younger than the WASPIs I know this was common knowledge and discussed by people of my age and people older than us.

Anyone who chose to never chat to people, listen to radio, TV, or read papers ever, are unlikely to be the people who would have done anything different if they had known.

Tryingtokeepgoing · 20/12/2024 16:41

wombat15 · 20/12/2024 12:16

Oh yes, the economy would be fantastic if the Tories were still in power. 😂

Who said it’d be fantastic? 🤷‍♀️
But no one credible is saying that the budget hasn’t resulted in lower growth and slower base rate cuts. And with Q4 growth numbers revised to 0% already the actual, when it’s published, is likely to be negative. With Q1 almost always worse that Q4…

DdraigGoch · 20/12/2024 17:02

MereDintofPandiculation · 20/12/2024 13:11

Well, I"m older than your mother, and I cannot recall a time when washboards and cooking over an open fire were anywhere near mainstream. My mother did both, but she was born in the 1920s, and was among the rural poor.

Laundry was more time-consuming in the 50s, with a single purpose washing machine and a separate wringer or a spin dryer. There were no microwaves, not everyone had a fridge, deep freezes were very rare. There were no supermarkets, although more traders delivered. But it wasn't quite as dire as you suggest.

Edited

The point is that for the last 50 years, household chores have not been a full time job. Whatever some of the martyrs on here say.

WeWillGetThereInTheEnd · 20/12/2024 17:17

Are you assuming that everyone who disagrees with WASPI women receiving compensation is a net beneficiary and all the people who agree with compensation are net contributors,?

No, but pp keep making comments like WASPI women should have known from radio, tv, etc and planned accordingly. As I have said before, unpaid carers could not make plans - of which I was one. I had two disabled children and I knew one was never going to be able to live independently - so how was I supposed to plan for only getting carers allowance between 60 and 66?

I did in a way - I decided I wasn’t going to only get carers allowance. DD1 lives in a care home, costing way more than it would have cost to pay me the state pension for 6 years to look after her. I can earn more doing 8 hours work a week, than I did from looking after her 147 hours a week on 3 hours sleep a night.

ACynicalDad · 20/12/2024 17:20

I heard about it several times, many of those that demand compensation knew about it, you can never prove who knew and who didn't. Also many who didn't know wouldn't have known if you'd sent them a letter as they wouldn't have read it. There was no legal requirement to send it, there was a big campaign. The thing that was wrong is Labour saying in opposition that they would fund it to oppose for oppositions sake.

BIossomtoes · 20/12/2024 17:29

It’s not about knowing about it, the women who want compensation are those whose retirement age was pushed back with virtually no notice in 2011, saving the coalition government £181 billion. The notice - or lack thereof - is the issue, not knowing it was happening.

wombat15 · 20/12/2024 18:02

BIossomtoes · 20/12/2024 17:29

It’s not about knowing about it, the women who want compensation are those whose retirement age was pushed back with virtually no notice in 2011, saving the coalition government £181 billion. The notice - or lack thereof - is the issue, not knowing it was happening.

The ombudsman didn't rule that they should be compensated for that though did they? While the lack of notice wasn't great it wouldn't have made a financial difference to most people. I.e. They would have been in the same position if they had been given notice in that they just had to carry on working.

Dahliasrule · 20/12/2024 18:06

I was just old enough not to be a waspi woman so I was not affected. However, amongst my colleagues that were, they were all well aware of what was happening. The change was phased in so those who just missed it only had a sliding scale of more months to work. Those that were born after April 6th 1953 get a much bigger pension than me so it will even out. The ones I feel most sorry for are those who were born just before this date and had to work a lot longer.
There are always anomalies and inequalities. I had my first child young and waited five years for the next. In those days you did not get family allowance for the first child. My friend had her children later and got family allowance for both children and because she did she could count those years towards her pension, whereas I couldn’t.

BIossomtoes · 20/12/2024 18:07

wombat15 · 20/12/2024 18:02

The ombudsman didn't rule that they should be compensated for that though did they? While the lack of notice wasn't great it wouldn't have made a financial difference to most people. I.e. They would have been in the same position if they had been given notice in that they just had to carry on working.

No, that wasn’t what the Ombudsman ruled on but it was the main WASPI gripe - that and the grossly inequitable transition arrangements.

wombat15 · 20/12/2024 21:18

BIossomtoes · 20/12/2024 18:07

No, that wasn’t what the Ombudsman ruled on but it was the main WASPI gripe - that and the grossly inequitable transition arrangements.

I know it was their main gripe but few people agree they should be compensated for it including the ombudsman. Everyone understands why you are unhappy that your pension age was increased but funnily enough people with an equal or higher pension age don't want to compensate you for it. Claiming that you deserve the money by taking credit for women's rights and/or claiming women born in the 1950s have had harder lives than younger women is not going to go down well either for reasons many posters have explained.

BIossomtoes · 20/12/2024 21:57

wombat15 · 20/12/2024 21:18

I know it was their main gripe but few people agree they should be compensated for it including the ombudsman. Everyone understands why you are unhappy that your pension age was increased but funnily enough people with an equal or higher pension age don't want to compensate you for it. Claiming that you deserve the money by taking credit for women's rights and/or claiming women born in the 1950s have had harder lives than younger women is not going to go down well either for reasons many posters have explained.

You haven’t read my posts, have you? I never expected to get any compensation and I don’t want any. I’ve certainly never Claimed that anyone deserves the money by taking credit for women's rights or that women born in the 1960s have had harder lives than younger women - some have, some haven’t. Generalisations about entire generations are always ridiculous.

If the government had a spare £10 billion kicking about I’d like to see it used to help alleviate the poverty of the millions of children currently living in poverty.

Gingertam · 21/12/2024 10:08

DdraigGoch · 20/12/2024 17:02

The point is that for the last 50 years, household chores have not been a full time job. Whatever some of the martyrs on here say.

Agree. Always makes me roll my eyes when people pretend whizzing the hoover around and shoving clothes in an automatic washing machine is a full time job. All whilst the kids are at school. Of course that's your choice and totally fine, but don't pretend you're run ragged.

ObelixtheGaul · 21/12/2024 10:57

EmmaMaria · 17/12/2024 14:30

It doesn't affect me directly, although I was (just) born within the range affected, because I do not depend on my state pension and because I have always worked, so have a full state pension. However, I do think that people today often fail to realise the degree of social change that has taken place over my lifetime, especially for women. Where I grew up - an urban environment so not in the sticks! - most women did not stay in education past 16, few had careers and those that did often had massive interuptions in their working lives due to parental responsibilities. They didn't get to worry about the cost of nursery or how many free hours they could get and when they got them, because there were few nurseries and no free hours at all. If I am brutally honest, educated, thinking working class women were pretty rare. The normal expectation was leave school, work for a few years, court, marry and have babies (preferably in that order, but often not). News was something that many men and women paid scant attention to - the big stories, yes, but being "well informed" wasn't often an agenda item. And thinking about pensions was like the far distant future anyway.

So many of these women really didn't know about or understand pensions, eligibility and all the rules that were associated with them. Remember that their parents were amongst the first to ever see a state pension. It wasn't until 1946 that the universal state pension was introduced.

I think it is wrong, although unsurprising, that the Labour government has decided to refuse any payments after the ombudsmans recommendation. But after taking fuel allowance from the elderly, what is leaving many women in poverty? Thank God the Labour Party are on the side of the working men and women of the country. Otherwise we might blink and think the Tories got back in.

I am 14 years younger than youngest of the women in the WASPI cohort. My sister is 9 years younger. Yes, there were a lot of social changes going on, but those of us slightly younger still experienced a lot of the sexism, etc. Compulsory workplace pensions for all wasn't actually introduced until 2012. The first time I had any sort of workplace pension was in my 30s but ONLY because I changed jobs. Many people working minimum wage factory jobs as I was before then would have continued without workplace pensions. Many women were still not getting pensions when their male equivalents were.

It's not just the 20 somethings who grew up in a different world who aren't fans of paying this money out. I have to work until I am 68 (at least). Knowing that was likely to be the case didn't mean I was in a much better position than the WASPI women to do anything about it. I wasn't thinking about my pension in my 20s either. I had bills to pay on a low income, private pension companies were absolute sharks, who used bullying sales tactics and anyway, I didn't have the money to invest. Many of the women fussing about this had better careers and were/are brighter than me, but my tax money would be contributing to a blanket payout, when they could have just carried on working, as the rest of us will have to.

Nanny0gg · 21/12/2024 11:43

MoreDangerousThanAWomanScorned · 17/12/2024 16:09

Women have always worked. Only middle class women didn't, and no, tbh, I don't think a few years caring for preschoolers is a lifetime of work.

Back in the 50s and the 60s to a degree, women had family around who'd care for the children

After that more people moved away from their families so the support network vanished

I went back to work at a very low paying weekend job so my DH could have them and then when they went to school I had a better part time job

But I never could go back to my original high-paying career

CurlyhairedAssassin · 21/12/2024 16:11

ObelixtheGaul · 21/12/2024 10:57

I am 14 years younger than youngest of the women in the WASPI cohort. My sister is 9 years younger. Yes, there were a lot of social changes going on, but those of us slightly younger still experienced a lot of the sexism, etc. Compulsory workplace pensions for all wasn't actually introduced until 2012. The first time I had any sort of workplace pension was in my 30s but ONLY because I changed jobs. Many people working minimum wage factory jobs as I was before then would have continued without workplace pensions. Many women were still not getting pensions when their male equivalents were.

It's not just the 20 somethings who grew up in a different world who aren't fans of paying this money out. I have to work until I am 68 (at least). Knowing that was likely to be the case didn't mean I was in a much better position than the WASPI women to do anything about it. I wasn't thinking about my pension in my 20s either. I had bills to pay on a low income, private pension companies were absolute sharks, who used bullying sales tactics and anyway, I didn't have the money to invest. Many of the women fussing about this had better careers and were/are brighter than me, but my tax money would be contributing to a blanket payout, when they could have just carried on working, as the rest of us will have to.

I think you must be a similar age to me, maybe a couple of years younger. Can I ask what the reason was that you only started a workplace pension in your 30s? I started work in 1995, in a low paid job not much above minimum wage even though I was a graduate, and my workplace pension was opt in, not as it is now. The best advice my dad gave me was to start paying into it from the off, no matter what salary I was on and then I'd never miss it. I also had bills to pay, a tiny basic flat, second hand furniture, couldn't afford even an old banger to get to work for the first couple of years and had very little money indeed but I have always paid into a pension since my first job and never saw the very small amoutn of money I paid in as being otherwise disposable income.

I think the government had no choice but to bring in compulsory workplace pensions because some people just chose not to join them. I had friends who didn't. On higher salaries than me. They saw retirement as being years away and kind of buried their head in the sand about it all and just thought of a pension as being something the state provided rather than thinking about providing for themselves in any way.

NewName24 · 21/12/2024 21:12

Back in the 50s and the 60s to a degree, women had family around who'd care for the children

Something of a generalisation.
My parents didn't, and nor did so many of their friends.

Also, WASPI women are younger than those who had small children in the 50s. They were being born then, not being parents then.

ObelixtheGaul · 22/12/2024 09:06

CurlyhairedAssassin · 21/12/2024 16:11

I think you must be a similar age to me, maybe a couple of years younger. Can I ask what the reason was that you only started a workplace pension in your 30s? I started work in 1995, in a low paid job not much above minimum wage even though I was a graduate, and my workplace pension was opt in, not as it is now. The best advice my dad gave me was to start paying into it from the off, no matter what salary I was on and then I'd never miss it. I also had bills to pay, a tiny basic flat, second hand furniture, couldn't afford even an old banger to get to work for the first couple of years and had very little money indeed but I have always paid into a pension since my first job and never saw the very small amoutn of money I paid in as being otherwise disposable income.

I think the government had no choice but to bring in compulsory workplace pensions because some people just chose not to join them. I had friends who didn't. On higher salaries than me. They saw retirement as being years away and kind of buried their head in the sand about it all and just thought of a pension as being something the state provided rather than thinking about providing for themselves in any way.

I had three jobs between the age of 18 and 32. Nursing home and two factories. None of them offered a pension at all. I would have paid into it if they had. The first job I was offered the pension in was an office job. Workplace pensions were a much better option for those of us on low incomes, but they simply weren't offered at every employment place.

Like you, my father advised a pension if I could get one. I took advice from a private pension provider in my early 20s, who advised me to contract out of Serps. When my partner and I applied for our first mortgage together, we were assigned a financial advisor by the building society, who asked us about our general finances. He told me I never should have contracted out of SERPS as I didn't earn enough for my contributions to be doing anything more than paying the pension company and I would get nothing back. I contracted back in again pretty sharply.

Barleycat · 22/12/2024 09:34

As both these pension changes were made by Tory administrations, why is it that it's a labour government getting it in the neck? The tories had plenty of time to resolve this if they wanted to. No one cares about these women, its just been seized upon by the right wing press as another stick to beat the labour Party with.

Meadowfinch · 22/12/2024 09:43

wombat15 · 18/12/2024 10:53

Women currently in their 60s weren't routinely sacked for being pregnant. That may have happened in the 1950s but not the 1980!!

Actually 25% of pregnant women or those with new borns are unlawfully discriminated against. Check with Pregnant Then Screwed.

I was 'made redundant' first morning back after maternity leave. My employer had given my job and my team to the sales director's wife. That was in 2008.

It happens all the time. And because there is no legal aid, and women who have just spent a year on maternity leave can't afford a solicitor and a barrister, employers get away with it.