Page 14 | AIBU to think that WASPI women should not be entitled to compensation?

mugglewump · 2025-02-24T10:11:01+00:00

They've been on the news again marching for compensation in a climate where the government is having to make very difficult decisions about funding to stop our debt ever increasing. I think there are far more deserving cases for goverment money than women who didn't act on information at the time and sort their pensions out or keep working (p/t or f/t) until retirement age. Moreover, the people paying this compensation are those who will be working until they are 67 to 70 to claim a state pension. Surely, it's a bit ick to expect them to bail out women who retired at 60?

TwentyKittens · 24/02/2025 15:13

many were given one years notice of a 6 year pension age increase, whereas men were given 6 years notice of an increase of a year. The list goes on.

No they weren't. The changes from 60 to 65 were announced at least 15 years before they happened.

It was the change for both sexes from 65 to 66 which didn't have adequate notice. These are the people deserving of comp if anyone is.

Beekeepingmum · 24/02/2025 15:14

Fairyliz · 24/02/2025 15:12

Yes a bit like those people who have children without planning if they can afford them. Perhaps we shouldn’t bail them out if they are too stupid to think about it?

Show quote history

Well we do don't we - all the time.

Sahara123 · 24/02/2025 15:15

sillybillydh · 24/02/2025 14:56

It most definitely was on the news, on TV and in newspapers etc. i remember it well.

Show quote history

Me too.

SineJoanie · 24/02/2025 15:15

RosesAndHellebores · 24/02/2025 13:59

What era are you? I started work in 1980 aged 20. Admittedly I couldn't join the workplace pension until I was 24 but I joined it then. Because I couldn't I whapped £50 a month into a ten year savings plan. And took out another a couple of years later. They each paid out £10k which was very handy when I started a family.

Show quote history

When I started work around the same time there was no workplace pension that available to me at all. Private sector.

LBFseBrom · 24/02/2025 15:17

SineJoanie · 24/02/2025 15:15

When I started work around the same time there was no workplace pension that available to me at all. Private sector.

Show quote history

That was not uncommon, in fact still happens. What people do is contact insurance companies for quotes and take out a private pension.

AlexP24 · 24/02/2025 15:20

Anxioustealady · 24/02/2025 14:58

How if loads of you were SAHM's, can you expect younger women who have to work full time for decades, whilst looking after children, and still doing most of the housework, to pay for your compensation that you didn't get to retire early?

Young people will either not get any state pension or it will be means tested so if we have worked, we won't get one. Retirement age is nearly 70 already.

Show quote history

And there it is...putting down women for raising their own children instead of working full time (not that many women even had that option). You do know that the government (all of them) will do anything they can to get women into full time work and away from the home because then they can tax more and you payout for childcare..who also get taxed... Let's not pit against each other. It's the patriarchy you should really be angry at...😏

AnnaFrith · 24/02/2025 15:20

Diningtableornot · 24/02/2025 15:13

Oh, forget it. You presumably also think that the ombudsman was stupid to say that the government should have informed us properly.

Edited

Show quote history

I think the ombudsman was stupid to say you should have compensation.
I still don't understand what you are being compensated FOR? The disappointment of having to work another five years? When everyone younger than you is going to have to work longer?
The lack of notice is irrelevant. if you couldn't afford to retire at sixty as you planned, the answer was to keep working. Just like the rest of us.

MoreDangerousThanAWomanScorned · 24/02/2025 15:21

Perseimmion · 24/02/2025 15:04

Last year the parliamentary ombudsman recommended payouts of up to £2,950 each because of a 28-month delay in writing to inform the women affected of the changes.

I have read the Ombudsman's report and fundamentally disagree with it. It accepted the DWP's argument that they were not obliged to write to all women affected individually because there is no such requirement for policy changes but then decided that because they did eventually send letters it was maladministration not to do it sooner. I think that's a flawed argument and actually will mean that governments will be careful not to send individual communications about changes in future. But in any case, the amount of compensation suggested is essentially a goodwill payment, which seems to me to be really hard to justify as a use of public money.

VindiVici · 24/02/2025 15:21

Diningtableornot · 24/02/2025 15:13

Oh, forget it. You presumably also think that the ombudsman was stupid to say that the government should have informed us properly.

Edited

Show quote history

The Ombudsmen was guidance. They aren't able to implement anything. I also fail to see how they reached their ruling based on a handful of women who said they didn't know. How can they prove they didn't know?

Completelyjo · 24/02/2025 15:22

Ignorance is not an excuse for many other aspects of UK law or benefits. If I “don’t know” the child benefit threshold and claim money I’m not entitled to I still have to pay it back, if I’m not informed of a tax change I still have to pay.

The reality is very very few women were negatively affected other than I don’t want to work longer and well, too bad.

The list on the waspi website is farcical.
Waspi women are humiliated having to claim JSA. - is this unique to women? Or women in this age bracket??
Waspi women lost their independence and forced to rely on husbands - presumably if they have no other income except their pension then they’ve never been financially independent
Retirement plans with husbands and grandchildren have been shattered
Many women forced to accept zero hours, temporary or low paid contracts which offer no financial security - not remotely unique to waspi women and hardly relevant!

LBFseBrom · 24/02/2025 15:22

I got my state pension at sixty, I had always intended to work until 65 but various things happened which made it sensible for me to give up work at sixty. I have a small occupational pension and cannot now remember whether I started getting that at 60 or 65.

However I used to wonder why we women were considered to be beyond employment (for the most part), at sixty and men not. It didn't seem right to me. We are capable of working as hard and as well as men, surely.

Perseimmion · 24/02/2025 15:22

AlexP24 · 24/02/2025 15:04

This thread is upsetting to read - the callousness of women towards each other. We should absolutely be supporting the WASPI women, and I am gobsmacked that any women would disagree. In fact, I am in no doubt that a smear campaign (and it is a smear campaign) has been started on social platforms because I have recently read similar threads on Reddit and X, all designed to stir up a campaign of mistruths and misunderstanding. Perhaps you should all actually go to the WASPI website to find out the truth.

WASPI women are of an age when many were unable to join pension schemes (many women weren't allowed to join company pension schemes until the 1990s), and in any case, many stayed at home to raise children so this would not be an option for them, many were given one years notice of a 6 year pension age increase, whereas men were given 6 years notice of an increase of a year. The list goes on.

The same thing is happening now. Stay at home mums have to either apply for child benefit or, if their partner earns over a certain amount, they have to 'opt' out of the child benefit. Both claiming and opting out mean the women's state pension is protected during that time. Thousands of women are said to be raising their children without either claiming or opting out - for a myriad of reasons - thousands of women set to be without a state pension in years to come. And they will be the women at the bottom of the pile, the most vulnerable and from the poorest backgrounds - as it ever was - who will suffer the most.

Edited

Great post. 👏👏👏

Gruttenberg · 24/02/2025 15:22

Aweecupofteaandabiscuit · 24/02/2025 12:41

That’s preventative expenditure in my eyes. Child poverty is mushrooming and it’s not about bailing out the parents - it’s about bailing out the kids on whom free state education would be wasted if they were continually starving (not to mention the future costs to the NHS of all these malnourished kids). If the government ever wants to “waste” money, they should waste it on the youngest members of our society and we will all be the better for it down the line.
Unlike paying the WASPIs compensation. I was aware of this even as a child so I’m baffled as to how so many of my elders could possibly not have known.

Show quote history

Rubbish! What's your definition of child poverty? Where I live we don't see it mushrooming, it's simply not true. Why are these kids continually starving? Is it reasonable for parents earning in excess of 50k a year to not have to bother feeding their kids because the state is picking up the tab? A bag of porridge costs 75p near me - it's not expensive. They shouldn't be wasting our money at all - if the WASPI women can't have the compensation they were promised then the feckless and greedy parents shouldn't be grasping at free food, unless we're going to go down the food stamps route of course.

MrsBennetsPoorNerves · 24/02/2025 15:23

AlexP24 · 24/02/2025 15:20

And there it is...putting down women for raising their own children instead of working full time (not that many women even had that option). You do know that the government (all of them) will do anything they can to get women into full time work and away from the home because then they can tax more and you payout for childcare..who also get taxed... Let's not pit against each other. It's the patriarchy you should really be angry at...😏

Show quote history

If you're going to argue for female solidarity, you would do well to recognise that we all raise our own children, whether we work full time or not.

Serpentstooth · 24/02/2025 15:23

This is a shameful thread. If women can't support other women then we are all fucked. Those of you who think 'the country can't afford it' are simply sucking up the Treasury line. The day will never dawn when 'we can't afford' to pay the pensions of Truss or Johnson or Cameron or any of their kind. Please imagine, we 'can't afford' the plethora of royals and their expensive entourages per household. It's just more 'bugger the plebs, they'll take it'. Bloody sickening.

AlexP24 · 24/02/2025 15:23

LBFseBrom · 24/02/2025 15:17

That was not uncommon, in fact still happens. What people do is contact insurance companies for quotes and take out a private pension.

Show quote history

Oh for God's sake...no one does that, as if anyone could afford it then (let alone now). These comments are so ridiculous....

sillybillydh · 24/02/2025 15:23

AlexP24 · 24/02/2025 15:04

This thread is upsetting to read - the callousness of women towards each other. We should absolutely be supporting the WASPI women, and I am gobsmacked that any women would disagree. In fact, I am in no doubt that a smear campaign (and it is a smear campaign) has been started on social platforms because I have recently read similar threads on Reddit and X, all designed to stir up a campaign of mistruths and misunderstanding. Perhaps you should all actually go to the WASPI website to find out the truth.

WASPI women are of an age when many were unable to join pension schemes (many women weren't allowed to join company pension schemes until the 1990s), and in any case, many stayed at home to raise children so this would not be an option for them, many were given one years notice of a 6 year pension age increase, whereas men were given 6 years notice of an increase of a year. The list goes on.

The same thing is happening now. Stay at home mums have to either apply for child benefit or, if their partner earns over a certain amount, they have to 'opt' out of the child benefit. Both claiming and opting out mean the women's state pension is protected during that time. Thousands of women are said to be raising their children without either claiming or opting out - for a myriad of reasons - thousands of women set to be without a state pension in years to come. And they will be the women at the bottom of the pile, the most vulnerable and from the poorest backgrounds - as it ever was - who will suffer the most.

Edited

I've just had a look at the website. There's lots on there about why moving from 60-65 is bad. Things like not being able to work because of health issues, having caring responsibilities, employers not wanting to take on older people.
All of which I agree with. And all of which will affect everyone coming up after them.

I work for the NHS so have a workplace pension. It's linked to SP age. So even though I lucky to have something other than SP when I do retire, all my goalposts have been moved. No way will I be able to do my job till I'm 70.
(Those WASPI's who worked for the NHS would have had a workplace retirement pension age of 60. Where's my compensation?).

If I was a WASPI yes I would be upset and angry. But everyone else after them is going to be in the same situation or likely worse. So I agree with the government on this one.

VindiVici · 24/02/2025 15:23

MoreDangerousThanAWomanScorned · 24/02/2025 14:55

I find it so interesting that there seems to be two main claims being made by those in favour of compensation, and that both are so obviously not factual but seem to be so widely believed:
That retiring earlier than men was intended to be compensation for sexist discrimination in working life and that they were therefore owed it as a quid pro quo.
That the intention of raising the retirement age was that the women affected would then privately fund still stopping working then and so needed time to do this. This obviously wasn't the intention, it was that these women would indeed work longer. The only preparation needed was to not quit your job at 60.

I have never even seen any evidence that early retirement was compensation of lack of earnings/ discrimination.

Delphiniumandlupins · 24/02/2025 15:25

I have a problem with the government deciding not to follow the ombudsman's ruling because it hasn't gone their way.

AlexP24 · 24/02/2025 15:25

Serpentstooth · 24/02/2025 15:23

This is a shameful thread. If women can't support other women then we are all fucked. Those of you who think 'the country can't afford it' are simply sucking up the Treasury line. The day will never dawn when 'we can't afford' to pay the pensions of Truss or Johnson or Cameron or any of their kind. Please imagine, we 'can't afford' the plethora of royals and their expensive entourages per household. It's just more 'bugger the plebs, they'll take it'. Bloody sickening.

I agree - it is an absolutely shameful thread - I can't believe some of the comments, really upsetting. I don't know anyone is real life who doesn't agree and support the WASPI women - if we don't support each other then what?

SovietSpy · 24/02/2025 15:25

MoreDangerousThanAWomanScorned · 24/02/2025 14:55

I find it so interesting that there seems to be two main claims being made by those in favour of compensation, and that both are so obviously not factual but seem to be so widely believed:
That retiring earlier than men was intended to be compensation for sexist discrimination in working life and that they were therefore owed it as a quid pro quo.
That the intention of raising the retirement age was that the women affected would then privately fund still stopping working then and so needed time to do this. This obviously wasn't the intention, it was that these women would indeed work longer. The only preparation needed was to not quit your job at 60.

Fully agree. I was listening to 5 Live this morning and most of the arguments in favour of compensation boil down to this. Most of the women were angry they had to work longer, which is understandable but that was the outcome of the change to the state pension age. One of the women who phoned in was demanding 45k in compensation as that was pension she had ‘lost’ which is basically the same as saying I wanted to retire at 60 and be paid from that age.

The waspi campaign claims it is not against the change to state pension age, but when you delve into the arguments many women are, because they didn’t want to carry on working to the new age. I mean, at least be honest and say it with your chest!

People claim not receiving a letter is the problem but realistically we know lots of people don’t read letters and wouldn’t have taken any different action anyway. Which for a lot of these women was to carry on working but many chose to retire and then complain they didn’t have enough money to do so…. Um seems pretty reckless to make such a big life decision without checking how you are funding your retirement!

I also think many of the women who have gone to the press/radio with their stories are middle class women who are angry they didn’t get the state pension to fund their decision to leave the workplace early. They bemoan having to survive on their private pension or savings for a few years. Working class women more likely to wearily accept having to work to state pension age as no luxury of a private pension sufficient enough to retire any earlier.

All in all, it does also show our society has a lack of personal accountability these days (the state must nanny us from cradle to grave) and the lack of understanding around pensions generally (people assuming NI pays into a specific pot for them, not understanding private pensions).

Completelyjo · 24/02/2025 15:26

Serpentstooth · 24/02/2025 15:23

This is a shameful thread. If women can't support other women then we are all fucked. Those of you who think 'the country can't afford it' are simply sucking up the Treasury line. The day will never dawn when 'we can't afford' to pay the pensions of Truss or Johnson or Cameron or any of their kind. Please imagine, we 'can't afford' the plethora of royals and their expensive entourages per household. It's just more 'bugger the plebs, they'll take it'. Bloody sickening.

I don’t remotely subscribe to the notion that I need to agree with another person because they also have a vagina. Really odd outlook imo.
You can be a woman and also be wrong.

VindiVici · 24/02/2025 15:27

Diningtableornot · 24/02/2025 14:58

The retirement age had been 60 for women, 65 for men all our lives. This was a big and unexpected change and really needed a proper letter.I'm not looking for compensation for myself, but I think it's very unfair to say that we should have known. I found out several years after it had been decided.

Edited

Show quote history

You must never have listened to the news on radio, TV or in newspapers.

Kahless · 24/02/2025 15:27

crossstitchingnana · 24/02/2025 10:41

I have heard of women living in their cars as they retired not knowing they would not have state pension for another two years. Some had to sell their houses. Ofc those that were single got shafted the most.

Tbh I feel for them, a lot of their work pensions would have kicked in at 60.

Why would you retire without checking what income you would have coming in? I mean, seriously.

thepariscrimefiles · 24/02/2025 15:27

twistyizzy · 24/02/2025 13:57

All these MC, educated women saying they were fully aware of the changes etc. Many women weren't in that position eg my MIl who is a WASPI.
Mining town in NE England. Left school at 13 to work in a mill, got married at 19 and left all financials up to her husband. Worked 2 hours per day as she was at home raising her kids + carer for her parents. She would never have even opened a letter, let alone understand the content. She doesn't watch news or read any paper other than the local rag. 1000s of women were in a similar position.

Very easy to judge from a position of education and awareness.

Edited

How could your MIL be a WASPI woman if she left school at the age of 13? The school leaving age was raised to 15 in 1947. It was raised to 14 in 1918, so I'm not sure how old your MIL must be. Working in a mill at the age of 13 sounds like something from the Victorian era and surely wouldn't be legal in the 1960s or 1970s. Her situation sounds fairly uncommon, in particular her never opening or reading a letter so I'm not sure that thousands of WASPI women (born between 1950 and 1960) are in a similar position.