'WASPI women' appeal court ruling

[GrimSisters]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-54158832

I'm 41. I'd always wondered why women retired at 60 and men at 65 and have known all about the changes for years because I read the news and don't live under a rock.

Given that, at the moment, I'll get my state pension at 68, I'm struggling to understand what the problem is. Please could someone explain why having to work until 65, along with their male counterparts, is so distressing?

I thought we wanted equality? Must admit that I'm struggling to have much sympathy. I work in a relatively low paid job and have four colleagues aged between 55 and 63 who haven't complained about the situation.

If you're one of the women who has been affected by this change, I'd be interested to know what the real issue is because I'm really confused as to why it is such a massive issue.

I think, but I'm not sure that they changed it at very short notice meaning they had little time to plan

I am not sure it was short notice. I think some didnt understand it. I agree that women cannot retire earlier and then moan they are not being treated equally.

Also, I don't want 'equality'

I want liberation. And in a world where women do the majority of the domestic tasks/child care/and suffer career loss due to reproducing/are assaulted, abused and harassed pretty much constantly - well, having the right to work just as long or be paid just as much on top of that shit list feels like utter fucking arse.

I was also of the assumption that it was the 'late' change in legislation rather than the belief that women should retire earlier than men.

I mean if we go by average age women should in theory work longer than men.

I'm late 20s and of the belief that a state pension won't exist by the time I'll need one.

This is the kind of thing that needs to be taught in schools. A pension is so valuable but people realise too late.

I am 62. When I started work I was asked if my husband minded me working. It was assumed that I would finish work until my children at least went to primary school. If I had wanted to work, the only childcare was nanny's or childminders who were too expensive- there were no private nurseries where I lived.
I worked for "pin money" in the evenings and weekends- this was largely for cash and certainly didn't buy any "stamps" for a pension.
If we worked for an employer (and I worked for the nhs for a while) we were encouraged to go for the "married woman's stamp" - a much lower national insurance payment and were told it wouldn't make any difference as we would get a pension through our husbands anyway.
When you are struggling with children to pay for, this sounds like a good idea!
I also worked as part of my husband's business, so have accused some pension years. However, the goal posts for that have changed as well- it has gone up to 35 years from 30.
I didn't find out about this and the increased pension age until I was about 55.
I don't think younger women always appreciate just how much harder it was to be a married woman with children and still have a successful career.

I expect now to be told that it's all my own fault and that somehow I should have known (perhaps Mystic Meg should have told me?) and also that you all know lots of successful career women in their 70's who are just fine and dandy. Well no one told me until it was too late.

@LaurieFairyCake

I think, but I'm not sure that they changed it at very short notice meaning they had little time to plan

This - they were in pension schemes with contributions which assumed they'd stop work at 60, and would have the state pension in addition to their workplace pension to make up the full amount they were relying on. (This was the case when I started work, incidentally, and I'm not much younger than the WASPI women).

So suppose you were in a final salary scheme, and you were earning, say, £18000 by age 60. Half of that would be £9000 - so about £180 per week (nett as well as gross because the personal tax allowance is quite big). You might well have been relying on that extra £87 quid a week from state pension to top this up and make it liveable. Seven years with that £87 pw shortfall would be hard.

The other thing is that back when I started women didn't get a choice. I'd done postgrad, and it used to piss me off royally that I couldn't get my full 40 years in so would have to either buy in pension contributions (very expensive) or live with a shortfall after retirement because I wasn't allowed to work till 65. (Of course the goal posts have been shifted so many times since then, plus redundancy, plus having to re-train in a different profession, plus maternity leave, part time work, etc. etc. that fuck knows what I'll do when I retire - try to work shifts in Tesco to make up the shortfall or something.)

. It was assumed that I would finish work until my children at least went to primary school.
I meant to say "until my children left primary school"

My aunt missed the cut off by a month, so people she was in the same year at school with retired at 60, she had to work an additional 5 years. I agree that it's fair that the years were aligned with men, but I don't think many people would not be at least a bit fucked off with that. In addition as has been said, as it was relatively short notice in terms of pension planning, it's been a nightmare. I bet if you were told you had to work extra years yet someone who was born a month beforehand didn't you would be annoyed.

The action is not about reversing the age change, it's about the inequality inflicted on one group of women because the change was poorly communicated and did not give them chance to make adequate provision.

I'd have thought the feminism board would be all over this as such a prominent women's rights issue.

@LaurieFairyCake

Also, I don't want 'equality'

I want liberation. And in a world where women do the majority of the domestic tasks/child care/and suffer career loss due to reproducing/are assaulted, abused and harassed pretty much constantly - well, having the right to work just as long or be paid just as much on top of that shit list feels like utter fucking arse.

I'm totally with you there. 😆Given that I've had a few years working elsewhere in Europe, had 3 kids and will have still made enough contributions by the time I'm 52, it's a bit annoying that I'll have to wait another 16 years to claim my state pension, but such is life. On the other hand DH is four years older than me and unless we're able to afford to bugger off and have a 'big adventure' together as soon as he retires, I'm happy to keep working in some capacity lest he drives me crackers!

The action is not about reversing the age change, it's about the inequality inflicted on one group of women because the change was poorly communicated and did not give them chance to make adequate provision.

Yes, and it is a hundred percent a feminist issue. Women were screwed over - by the inequality in the first place, by the misleading messaging round women's NI stamps, by the very late change in the rules which did not leave them enough time to make contingency plans, by the bad messaging (again).

Thanks for the explanation. I agree it's all rather crap - and there's no denying I'd be mightily pissed off if my best mate got to receive her pension a whole five years sooner by dint of being a month older. That does sound like it had been badly handled and certainly not graduated enough.

@Pheobeasy

My aunt missed the cut off by a month, so people she was in the same year at school with retired at 60, she had to work an additional 5 years. I agree that it's fair that the years were aligned with men, but I don't think many people would not be at least a bit fucked off with that. In addition as has been said, as it was relatively short notice in terms of pension planning, it's been a nightmare. I bet if you were told you had to work extra years yet someone who was born a month beforehand didn't you would be annoyed.

It wasn't changed from 60-65 in one go!

It was raised by one year at a time over a period of several years, so surely your aunt would only have had to work one extra year, not five?

I know my mum (72) laments not having a full state pension because of having missed a few years contributions due to two kids (well, not me - she returned to when I was 3 months old) and paying married women's stamp or something - however she chose to retire incredibly early, in her 50s (teaching) when she grabbed her final salary pension as soon as she could!

I'm interested to know why 'carry on working' wasn't an option though - and why contingency plans should have had to be made?

These were first discussed and planned for implementation back in the 1990s. I was aware because at the time I was getting phone calls from private pension companies trying to get me to sign up, and then lose interest when they found out how old I was!

I do remember it being in the newspapers, and again later when the rate at which it was to be implement speeded up. (Early 2000s?)

So the info was out there but very haphazard. ie any of the Governments during that time could have made sure all employers sent out infor with pay packets or whatever. And equally private pensions schemes should surely have made their customers aware.

And in fact the DWP or whatever it was then could easily have sent out letters directly to those concerned. And/or local MPs or councils.

So I was aware of it, but can easily see how others might not. If you weren't at work, or weren't scanning newspapers for small bits of info it could be missed.

So if you had planned retirement based on some final pension payout it could have been a bit of a shock - to put it mildly.

Not forgetting that if it also meant you had left your job the prospects of a woman in her 60s getting a new job is not going to be good.

And as mentioned above more likely than a man to not have a consisted history of paying NI because of taking time of for maternity and childcare.

Also if you are then put in the position of having no work but still being too young to get your pension, if you have got "assets" ie a pension pot of whatever size, the amount of benefits you can claim will be reduced.

And for some it has probably comes as a shock to find out how little the Government think someone needs to survive for week, ie not just food, but service bills, and so on. Around £75pw. And if you have a partner who still has an income even less.

I don't know about anyone else but I'm exhausted! I never thought I'd say this but I'd like to retire now (I'm 61) but I don't have that luxury. Out of 8 friends, all between the ages of 57 and 66, I'm the only one working full time (one other works part-time) because they all worked for a government funded body. Early retirement was an option for them.

Until 4 years ago I would say I'd happily work until I dropped, because I had the energy to do so, but the menopause has stopped that energy

Don't get me wrong I love my job but I also want to enjoy a social life before it's too late!

@GrimSisters

I'm interested to know why 'carry on working' wasn't an option though - and why contingency plans should have had to be made?

Ageism. There was no "right to continue to work", and women's contracts ran to age 60 rather than age 65, beyond which the employer was under no obligation to continue to employ you.

It's all very well saying "you could have kept working", but someone has to be prepared to employ you - and they weren't.

I'm not sure how old you are, OP, but you don't seem to be grasping the fact that this wasn't just to do with social expectations on women, this was a whole legal and institutional framework backing it up. To avoid the trap women had to (1) put effort into finding out what was being done to them, against a backdrop of them being fed misinformation and (2) find some way round the contractual disadvantages they worked under. I think you're possibly naively thinking employment law as it is now worked the same way back then - and it didn't.

There was no "right to continue to work"

There still isn't as far as I can remember.

@SerendipityJane

There was no "right to continue to work"

There still isn't as far as I can remember.

I think you're right on that one - but there is a general principle and case law being built up that age discrimination is wrong (hence why it's now considered good practice not to put one's DoB on a CV, and job applications no longer ask for it). Even 10 years ago, there was an assumption that over 50=over-the-hill. (Actually there probably still is - as a woman in my 50s there's no way I want to lose my current job because I probably wouldn't get another - or at least not one anywhere near as good).

How would you feel, those of you who don’t see how devastating this is for women, if you put money in after year on the basis that you would be able to draw it out when you reached 60 . Basically our contributions and those of our employers have been stolen, so eg for me it meant about £25,000 . For others it was much much worse. The retirement age for men could have been lowered if equality was really what it was about. But of course it was only about saving money, and it was women that were disadvantaged in the workplace all their lives. Compare what women are now expected to live on with the daily rates for MPs and Lords to just turn up at work.not to mention that the current lack of employment for younger people could have been used as a handy reason to reverse the decision. Absolutely furious.

I'm 61, I was caught by the change in pension age. Never had much money, didn't even work in the first few years of marriage but have for most years since.

I grew up in an era when women collected state pension at 60, because I grew up with the notion I didn't question it until I was much older. Then they changed it, I will be 66 when I get my state pension.

During my 50's I loved working, felt I would carry on well past retirement age as I am generally active, fit and full of life. Slowly, as the years have passed, I have realised how much a few years takes it's toll...now I work part-time but even then I am exhausted. It isn't a medical thing, work is just tiring the older you get.

Having always had little money, I have no other provision and must work until my state pension kicks in at age 66....and I shall have to manage on that alone. I know I am lucky to have a job when so many have lost theirs recently; however, I dread going into work but know I must because there is no other option. If I'd been born a little sooner, I would be collecting a state pension now, not working, so it feels as though I have lost out.

I think it's disgusting the way the WASPI women have been treated.

The way the changes to the pension age have been implemented, as previous posters have explained far more articulately than me, are a disgrace. What also makes me furious is the insult being thrown in the faces of women, that this is being done in the name of gender equality. Ha!

Quote from BBC article: 'The government welcomed the ruling, saying the changes were a "long-overdue move towards gender equality".

Shame they don't give a fuck about the gender pay gap, or anything that affects women tbh.

I recently watched 'back in time for the factory' with my mum, which was fascinating to watch, and touched on the fact that the equal pay act only came in 1975. How fucking dare the government have the nerve to talk about moving towards gender equality to women who are of an age to have been legally paid less than men. And let's not pretend things are ok even now.

I'm 32 btw.

I'm in pretty much the same position as Wandering Milly, always worked, low paid, over 60 and don't retire untill I'm 66.

I'm going to upset some people by saying the initial planned rise in women's pension age was very well publicised in the 1990s (?) and everyone I knew was aware back then. It then went up a second time only a few years back which was a bit of a double whammy but hey ho that's life, Ive always been in the wrong place at the wrong time.

There would be nothing wrong in having equal retirement age for men and women if 1) it was implemented fairly and 2) the women affected had benefited from the same rights, pay and opportunities as their male contemporaries- but they didn't.