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

[mugglewump]

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?

Completely agree @mugglewump These women were informed at the time and need to roll with the punches. They're acting like they're not going to quit til they get their own way though. I feel that may be never.

Some claim they didn't hear about it at the time. Of course they did! Unless you have been living in a cave all your life, there's no WAY you wouldn't have known about this. As some posters have said, it was all over the news for several years!

Plausible deniability ain't gonna work with this one! No way did these women not know!

@BatchCookBabe so the ombudsmen that ruled in their favour was wrong?

Simple! I would have carried on working. Nobody can force you to retire!

Did people really think that, following the equal pay act and all other harmonisation of workplace entitlement between men and women, a large inevitable part of the deal wasn't going to be an equal pension age before long?

Or did they just always hope that they'd squeak through and it would only affect younger women?

How could it possibly be justified enduringly as equality if a woman had the absolute right to the same salary, employment rights and terms as an equally-qualified man doing the exact same job - but somehow could still get a state pension 5 years before her male colleague, purely on account of her sex?

How could that possibly work? You can't just pick and choose (and fight) to end all discriminatory circumstances that work against you, but then also keep the ones that work in your favour.

Honestly, I'd argue yes. The Government has set out its arguments as to why the PHSO is wrong too.

Some of the Ombudsman's arguments are flimsy in the extreme and the mental gymnastics to try and skim round the 2019 High Court ruling that the Government didn't have any legal duty to contact people affected by the changes at all are borderline incomprehensible.

But the campaigners are threatening to have another crack in the courts. Can't imagine on what grounds but we'll see if they do.

AlexP24 ·
" I don't know anyone is real life who doesn't agree and support the WASPI women -"

I don't know anyone in real life who does agree and support the WASPI women and most of us are WASPIs .

The amount this country pays in pensions is crippling. In general it shocks me that people would rely purely on a state pension. I definitely am not doing so as I bet by the time it’s my turn to retire there won’t be a pension anymore, or it’ll be much reduced.

It doesn't matter what the law was, she left school at that age! Not sure how else I can phrase that

I'm from the North of England and can corroborate that regardless of the law, there were people who left school at 13 to bring some money into the house.
Hard for some people to believe it appears.

Many women were in jobs where their contract said they had to retire at 60.

And we know how hard it can be for older women to get employment at the level they were used to.

They have to keep you in your current role, it's the law. You cannot be forced into a different role just because of your age. Any employer trying to get rid of older staff can be taken to an industrial tribunal and sued for wrongful dismissal. You can get help from ACAS but in all honesty, most people could fill in the forms and do the process themselves. Especially those capable of a senior management role.

It's been illegal for many years to force someone to retire.

Between 2010 and 2020?
Yeah going to need to see you back up that claim.

It sounds very much like the government of the day shot themselves in the foot by attempting to send out letters and failing to do so adequately.

Had they not tried to notify people personally in the first place, and had - very reasonably - relied on people keeping themselves abreast of current affairs through the many campaigns and news media and societal avenues for dissemination and sharing important information, as well as being able to contact the authorities for assistance and advice they needed - the same way they do with multiple countless changes in government policy - they would not have been found wanting.

Had they trusted adults to take responsibility for their own basic financial wellbeing and not tried to help in the first place, they would have been fine.

People might have been forced to retire in the past, but I'm fairly sure the law was changed on that many years ago.

I'm 58 so I'm only a few years younger than these WASPI women. I've always known what my retirement age is and was also fully aware when they changed the age to 67. My employer (local authority) then also changed our work pensions so I can't claim my work pension until I can claim my state pension. It's shit but I accept it because it's the only way for them to make the numbers work.

As a feminist I'm appalled at the number of women on here who were very happy to benefit from the Equal Pay Act but who think they should still be able to retire 5 years earlier than men.

Same here. I had one letter saying I’d get mine at 62 years and 3 months, so that’s what I worked towards. Then it was announced as 66. I had no
letter.
I know there’s no money and I expect no compensation as I totally get the knock on affect it would have. But please stop calling us thick, entitled, etc. Along with the not interested grandparents thread there is such rudeness towards us women over 60.
I don’t think there has been another generation of women who have been so scathing towards a group of women of a certain age.

Agreed. I'd never be honest about my feelings with someone in this category IRL as I'd never bloody hear the end of it about how awful I was.

We weren’t told in time to do anything mitigate it private pension-wise. I anticipated working till 60, as for the duration of my working life that is the age women retired. Then it went up by a couple of years, quickly followed by more rises to age 67.

My husband is 2.5 years older than me and he retired at 65. I had to wait till 67. So it didn’t adjust women’s retirement to the same age range as men it went above it.

It is grossly unfair.

Did you think it was grossly unfair when you thought you could retire 5 years before your husband?

And it did align it to men, not make women’s retirement layer. When it changed to 67 for women it changed to 67 for men.

I struggle with the WASPI women's cause. I remember hearing about it on the TV as a young teenager so it must've been well discussed. I can see that some women may have missed it, but not many - if you didn't own a TV or buy a newspaper, you'd of talked to people or maybe listened to the radio or walked past newspaper headlines on billboards. It also wasn't something brought in overnight.

I also think it's a separate issue to posters saying about multiple discriminations that women had to face. I don't doubt that, but that doesn't mean it wasn't fair to increase the women's pension age to be equal to men's. And because, as a woman, I don't support the WASPI cause, that doesn't mean I don't appreciate or empathise with other difficulties women born in the 1950s (or earlier) faced.

But I'm guessing that if your husband was the same age as you, he would have needed to wait till 67. Or vice versa you at 65. I certainly haven't heard any claims that women were given their SP later than their husbands.

He had an earlier retirement age because he is older than you. Not because he is a man. Being a bit selective with the truth there

When I started work at 16 I was going to retire at 60.

Then they equalised the retirement ages in my 20s, so I was going to retire at 65.

Then they raised the retirement age to 66 in my 30s, so I was going to retire at 66 and five months. I was born in a transitional year.

Then they raised the retirement age to 67 in my 40s, so I was going to retire at 67.

Now I'm in my 50s they have raised the retirement age to 68 but I think I am still due to retire at 67.

My mum was old enough to be able to retire at 60, but was told that if she delayed collecting her state pension, she could get a higher amount each week, so she finally claimed her pension when she was in her late 60s. This is still true.

I will have to delay taking my state pension and continue to work till I'm at least 70 because I have a dreadful defined contribution private pension and a huge mortgage to pay off.

Given that the WASPI women were more likely to

• have bought a house for £3.50,
• had defined benefit private pensions,
• could have enhanced their pensions as my mum did, and
• were as likely to know about pension equalisation 30 years ago as I was,

Where the fuck is MY compensation???

The ombudsmen ruling was VERY limited and was basically procedural rather than the policy itself, hence why the "suggested" compensation was very small compared with the "losses" the Waspi women claim to have suffered. It was also that "some" women weren't given the right information at the right time, NOT that ALL women weren't, but for the sake of simplicity, they suggested a modest compo payment for all, even those who DID get told the right info at the right time, just because it would take a lot of admin effort to distinguish which group each woman fell into. The ruling was also about the second change from 65 to 67, not the first change from 60 to 65, so again, is limited to the Waspi's affected by the second change, not the first. The Ombudsman ruling isn't the "magic money tree" payout that some people seem to think it is.

They definitely should not be getting compensation. They had more than enough warning, and those that had their head in the sand…well, they had their head in the sand! I know at age 43 that it’s highly likely I’ll not get a pension till age 71. It’s already gone up to 68, from 65, while I was in my working years. If I get it at all I’ll be lucky!! You’ve got to take some responsibility and saying ‘I didn’t know’ isn’t really viable 🤷‍♀️. I’ll be gutted if they get compo as muggins here will be toiling to provide it!!

DH and I are the same age however as he was born early 1978 and me at the end, he can retire at 67 and I’ll have to work until I’m 68. It is what is is. Since I started work full time in 2000 (although had part time jobs since 13), my state pension age has increased 3 times and my private pension is now tied to state pension age. I’m not unique - does that mean we should all be compensated for this unfairness? No, it is what it is.