WASPI Women - getting compensated

[CanSeeClearlyNowTheRainHasGone]

I've just read this:

The government will reconsider its decision not to award compensation to Waspi women, Work and Pensions Secretary Pat McFadden has said.

And I'm livid at the incompetence of Labour.

Having put the issue to bed once, they are now going to create a heap of trouble for themselves.

Either they decide (again) not to make any payouts - in which case, cue more outrage from WASPI and negative headlines.

Or they decide now that they will make payouts - which goes directly against the whole "we have to raise taxes" budget.

Or are they really so stupid that they're going to carry on paying everyone, raising salaries for Public Sector, 2-child cap, WFP, etc and carry on bleating about a black hole and how we must all pay more tax.

Am I being unreasonable that this seems like madness?

If you really think I’m misinterpreting please do show the official data that any individual was impacted by the 2011 act earlier than 2016 or by more than 18 months.

it is astounding how few young women get this.

We did well fighting for equality, and now we are getting it chucked in our faces. TBH i sometimes wonder how much bleating about how unfair everything is if we rolled their rights back?

"Are you seriously telling me I don’t know my own circumstances"

As a pp said, you have misunderstood the legislation

Pension ages were not changed in 1993 but by the pensions act 1995. They were subsequently changed again in the 2011 act with the first changed introduced by the latter starting in 2016

The attached link shows the changes made to state retirement age by both pieces of legislation

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

"Not knowing their circumstances" is the crux of the waspi campaign after all..

Young women understand entirely that women were discriminated against in the past.

The WASPI claims aren’t compensation for this discrimination though - that’s not why they’re asking for additional money.

It’s specifically related to the changes in pension age - not as compensation for being fired if you got pregnant, low maternity pay, or being excluded from company pension schemes. Those are separate issues.

How is fighting for equality being chucked in your faces?

"TBH i sometimes wonder how much bleating about how unfair everything is"

Ironic, given the bleating from waspi campaigners....

Excuse me, it was the suffragettes that’s won the fight for equality with the right to vote. Everything after that builds on that victory. And those women literally died for that. (I cannot stand this hideous attempt by the boomers to try and appropriate the experiences, hardships and efforts of previous generations, especially given Millenial and younger generations have much more in common with the silent generation than the boomers ever have). Trying to make out that your generation “got us our rights” is errant nonsense. You fought for a further extension of equality for your own benefit. Dont you dare try and claim it was for us. Your generation has consistently shafted younger women time and time again and our rights are being rolled back - look at the restrictions on abortion in the USA and in Europe.

It’s astounding how ignorant a lot of older women are of the reality for younger women. We are still being sacked for being pregnant. Still having our careers derailed by having kids, but now with the expectation that we pay 50/50 for everything including during mat leave, pay through the nose for childcare and yes still being raped in marriage. We now have the added bonus of a culture awash with horrific porn and face being strangled during sex, being coerced into painful anal sex and having nude photos of us spread all over the Internet without our consent. Oh and we have to work the longest hours in Europe for years longer to pay the pensions of a generation of women bleating about the fact their retirement age got pushed back and they claim they didn’t get enough notice. Plus having to deal with an existential climate emergency that your generation has done bugger all to fix.

Wait while I crack out the world’s smallest violin.

Also some of this is just clearly bollocks. I am a geriatric millennial born in 1983 and I had a free nursery place from 1 year of age. My mum didn’t even work then, she was a Sahm but wanted a “break” during the week. She also got family allowance with no restrictions unlike today with child benefit.

This “funded childcare” rubbish always comes up on these threads because this and child benefit are the only benefits left for children and families after everything else has been abolished. There is no more fat left to cut! If you get rid of taxpayer subsidies on childcare millions of working women will simply go “fuck it, I am not slogging my guts out away from my kid to barely break even after childcare, I will just quit until they are in school”. Then you lose millions of taxpayers which will make the country’s finances even more dire and have even fewer people supporting the burgeoning numbers of retirees!

they don't though.
And the ageism on here is a sure signal of it being chucked in our faces. All the shitty comments about boomers, parents not giving free childcare etc etc.

I am finding it more and more difficult to empathise with younger women and their problems given the ageism. (and yet i do because i'm not a wanker and i have been there)

"And the ageism on here is a sure signal of it being chucked in our faces"

People are against waspi women because of their age: it's because the campaign comes across as grabby and entitled and to paraphrase a previous poster " bleating about the unfairness", Despite years of information campaigns from the government press etc and constant complaint that it is a "political choice.". The government have made a political choice and decided it would be generationally unfair for taxpayers to pay compensation and the waspi campaigners have decided to continue to pursue compensation regardless .

I’m middle aged but I notice that the ageism to younger women often gets ignored. Young women are often dismissed as snowflakes or stupid without any challenge from others.

That is exactly the opposite of what I was saying.
I don't think many (any?) Posters affected are moaning they have to work longer. They are complaining about the notice they were given of the change.
I find it quite bizarre that some pps are so blinded by spite and indignation they cannot accept that they would be pretty pissed off in the same scenario.
I am not a Waspi. I will retire at 67 and I don't think there should be any compensation. I have no skin in the game at all but I am amazed at the lack of empathy for women who were put in this situation and can't help wondering if they would be so laid back about it if they were given short notice of such a significant change. Of course, they will say they woukd be absolutely fine about it but I doubt it somehow.

@Katypp well if they're happy to keep working then why does the lack of notice (were still talking about years not weeks) matter?

Hardly. I’m on the cusp of boomer as it is. I retire at 67 in 2031.
I just don’t see a financial problem with it. No, I wouldn’t have liked it (the sudden change wasn’t 6 years though - it was the change from 65-67) but there wasn’t a financial issue, no planning was needed. Plus it isn’t just that small group they are campaigning about. The review said there might be grounds for a small payment. It’s not changing anyone’s life.

Edit to add: I do have sympathy for the small group who had a more sudden change. I don’t think financial compensation is warranted though.

You are missing quite a major point. The woman born in 1953 would in all probability have started work at 15. That was school leaving age, and only around 10% of people went to university (and fewer than half of that 10% were women). So their working life would be 50 years to get their state pension at 65.
Now that a majority of people go to university they don't start full time working till at least 21 so their working life to get their pension at 67 is actually only 46 years. But why let facts get in the way of a good story?

People weren’t told two years before retirement they had to work another 6 were they? There was a change to 65 which had a long notice period that everyone should have been aware of and then a short notice change of 2 more years (which I was also aware of, though I’m younger than those affected). As I say, I have sympathy, nobody wants to work longer, but it was a short extension.

But at 15 we did have mini skirts and Mary Quant and Vidal Sassoon, and I think we had a lot more fun than young women seem to now!

The sexism in society was terrible I agree. It wasn’t much better when I was a young adult, though by the time I needed a mortgage I could get it in my name. I was a teacher so the pension was compulsory but most other workplaces didn’t really bother.
It’s a different issue from the state pension though.

The equalisation to pension age was made decades ago. Yes there was a shorter notice change later but this was massively publicised through public information leaflets, national advertising campaigns, pension statements etc. The investigation into the WASPI women concluded that something like 82% of affected women had bothered to take notice of this. Some of the minority who didn’t even admitted they hadn’t opened or read letters posted to them individually about their pension.

Of course no one likes having to work longer. When I was born and growing up the pension age for women was 60. I won’t receive a state pension until I’m 67. But I understand why. I’ve taken responsibility for my finances. I certainly don’t think people should be financially compensated for ignoring what was widely publicised.

I only posted on this thread because of your bullshit comments about grandparents raising grandchildren. Helping your children out isn’t raising their kids for them.

Since then, you’ve only shown just how judgemental of young families (women, particularly) you are, and the distain you hold for them.

I'm afraid I think that people who rely on unpaid childcare are centred around money, obviously they would have less if they paid for childcare.

I brought up two families (2 husbands), gave up work to look after them myself and would not have dreamt of asking old age pensioners to help me.

Your lack of awareness is abysmal.

People who rely on unpaid childcare do so because their options are limited. Kudos to them for trying to avoid becoming trapped on benefits.

It is a luxury to be able to give up work to raise your children. It is now unaffordable to be able to raise a family on one income. Thus, there is no choice but for both parents to work.

You don’t seem to be able to fathom why they would need help. Not everyone is you and had the same circumstances in life that you did. You can’t really see beyond your own situation. As I said, your lack of awareness is abysmal.

I think it’s horrendous that you wouldn’t have helped out your own children, and it speaks volumes about you.

You do expect these same young families (particularly younger women), however, who you judge for relying on “free childcare” to work, to continue relying on that free childcare so they can pay even more tax to compensate women like you. Despite you not even needing it.

Sickening.

I have a lot of sympathy for the cohort who were given relatively short notice of the additional increase to their pension age.

I don’t have any sympathy for the rest of the WASPI campaign, some of whom seem to think they had a divine right to retire at 60. And must have been living under a rock if they hadn’t heard of the 1995 changes,

If the campaign had just concentrated on the small cohort who really were treated unfairly I think they’d have been a lot more successful.

Absolutely. They are the only ones with any sort of case.

Younger women do appear to be living rent free in your head.

I was absolutely aware of the 1995 pensions act and the change to my pension age - no problem at all. But unfortunately I came into the cohort of women also affected by the 2011 pensions act. So under this 2011 act for example if you were born on 5 April 1953 you received your pension on 6 March 2016, but if you were born on 6 November 1953 then you received your pension on 6 November 2018 - so just seven months younger resulted in the timetable accelerating 2 years 8 months (on top of the 1995 increases obviously).

Birth dates between 6 April 1953 and 5 December 1953 were the most punitive - four months extra added for each month increase in your date of birth. That was what I thought was so unfair - it deliberately disadvantaged that cohort of women.

Surprise, surprise for equalisation in pensions age for men and women from 66 to 67 still under 2011 act the timetable reverts to only one month extra for each month increase in your date of birth. So those WASPI women in the April to December 53 cohort had four times the acceleration that the men had and much less notice.

But having raised my blood pressure writing all this - and it's been something I've always thought so unfair, I guess because for WASPI it's actually about not being notified under the 1995 act rather the 2011 act, I have to let it go. But that doesn't alter the fact the Ombudsman found in their favour and the government has reneged on this.

As one of that cohort - thank you.

Likewise - thank you!