'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.

Just arbitrarily raising the pension age was just not thought through. ie many people (not just men) have jobs that are very physical, and even with the best will in the world, as we get older many cant continue to do it.

I know that the motivation was to get round not having to pay pensions for maybe a few decades, because when first bought it, most people died much younger than now.

What should have been looked at was, as suggested up thread bringing men's retirement age down (or meet halfway) but also look at the fact that in the future we may only be able to work a 4 day week as with increase automation and comuterisation jobs that used to employ high numbers of people just dont any more.

So the final irony for older women who are constantly run down for being wealthy boomers, is that they are now also being criticised for "hanging on" to jobs which younger people blame for them not getting opportunities.

It always seems that Government planning is always two decades behind in terms of understanding what is happening if not in the world at large, but in this country.

And never think of the unintended consequences on women who by and large are still doing a double shift on work in the home and work out of the home.

I’m was a teacher 20 years ago. I remember someone wanting to work past the age of 60 and they had to get special permission from HR who weren’t keen.

The original changes to the state pension aged were passed in 1995 and intended to gradually increase it between 2010 and 2020.

The change was then accelerated in 2011, after it had started. Some women saw a jump of up to 2 years in their state pension age, with very little notice compared to the 15+ years of notice previously.

It's also worth remembering that many WASPI women entered the workforce before the Equal Pay Act 1970, just to put their working lives into context.

Also women do most of the caring for parents and PILs so carrying on working isn't always so easy, especially if they are also needed to care for grandchildren and even husbands who might be becoming unwell.

A lot of men will have had the opportunity and earnings to pay into a private or occupational pension as well as pay their state stamps, when a lot of women are struggling to just qualify for the basic pension.

My DSIL's best friend received her state pension at age 60. She was 6 months older than my DSIL. DSIL died aged 63 without seeing a penny of hers.

It's also worth remembering that many WASPI women entered the workforce before the Equal Pay Act 1970, just to put their working lives into context.

Plus the Equal Pay Act is often "more honoured in the breach than the observance." I had to fight an equal pay claim against my employer at the time, nearly 50 years after the EPA. Until you take them to court/ACAS, they'll happily pay you less if they think they can get away with it. And you don't tend to hear that much about this, because if it's an out-of-court settlement, often it will be tied to a gagging order stopping you talking about it.

It was short notice plus 50s women suffered inequalities in the home and the workplace. The changes should have been brought in gradually.

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!

Yes, that's almost trolling level shittiness.

Thanks for putting things into context. I'm a bit confused about the comment upthread about 'having our contributions stolen' though. As far as I'm aware I'll still have to carry on paying NI at the same rate after the age of 52, even though that is when (according to my pension forecast) I'll have accrued enough to qualify for a state pension at 68.
Does this mean that the WASPI women were suddenly told that they hadn't actually accrued enough stamp as well as the retirement age being made higher?

I was born in 1954. The age I could get my pension changed TWICE. Once I could accept, people are living longer etc but the second change with little notice I think was just not on.

I didn't even know about the second change for quite a while. We all supposedly got letters but I definitely did not and it seems a huge number of women didn't.

My hairdresser was born in 1953. She got her pension when she was 62. I had to wait until I was 1 month short of 66. I don't think that is fair do you?

@Ereshkigalangcleg

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!

Yes, that's almost trolling level shittiness.

I honestly feel like I'm living in some kind of twilight zone, the way that things are going for women. Trolling in the most insidious ways sums it up really. I genuinely thought when I was growing up that things were better for women than they had been in the past, and that I was lucky. Very naive. But once your eyes are opened to the injustices that women continue to face on a daily basis you can't un-see it. I wasn't surprised but utterly disgusting at the ruling today.

I really feel for these women, they have been treated very badly. Younger women would do well to understand what has happened here and look at their own situation as regards working/childcare etc. How many women who give up work 'because DH is a higher earner and it works well for our family' are putting additional money into a pension.

The value of the state pension is falling in real terms, eventually it will be near worthless and everybody will be receiving their pension as top up benefits.

@lynsey91 it definitely isn't fair, it's awful. It just makes me so angry that this was done to women of your age- for one the way it was implemented and then the claims of it being done in the name of gender equality?! No equal pay, there is STILL a gender pay gap, I could go on and on. Can we dare to hope that my DD (7) will be treated equally as the boys of her age?

It's also worth remembering that many WASPI women entered the workforce before the Equal Pay Act 1970, just to put their working lives into context.

It's also worth remembering that maternity leave legislation wasn't introduced until the late 1970s and, until Jackie Drake took the case to the European Court, married women couldn't claim Invalid Care Allowance (since renamed) until 10 years after its introduction in 1976.

Trolling is the word! I’m shocked that they have lost.

There’s been a rise in divorce (which was MUCH less socially acceptable even in the 70’s) so women left holding the baby but working a low paid job. There just weren’t the opportunities for women to work part time or flexible hours as we have now. there is a big rise in homelessness amongst older women.

I think ageism when hiring is a real issue too especially with the reliance on tech.

Many that work in more physical jobs (caring, nursing, farming) have been very hard done by.

And never forgetting that women's pensions are a fraction of men's anyway due to them, essentially, being female and doing the normal things as expected by society and employers and everyone at the time.

My mum has said she still felt sprightly in her early 40s but by the time her 60s came around she was so easily tired out. She carried on working until 68 (part-time but retail so on her feet) because she enjoyed the 'social' side of it.

Not everyone will feel this way but I'm sure many do (including men).

I certainly feel more knackered now 10 years on from my forties. God knows how I'll feel in another 20 years.

I think it's also worth pointing out that there was no help with childcare before tax credits came in. If you became a single parent you were stuffed, childcare cost more than my mortgage. Add in being working class with no family around to help (useless) I had to stop working. Luckily in those days (and we're only talking about the 90's) you received your full pension stamp while you had dependent children. I believe that's also changed to a maximum of 12 years no matter how many children you have or how old they are.

I'm a bit younger than the WASPI women so I will get my pension at 67. Before the age moved the last time (thanks tories) the pension age was going up gradually giving people time to adjust. It was the sudden loss of the gradual age move that was the problem, there was no time to make any other arrangements.

I also think nowadays we forget how limited our information was. There was no internet, you had to go to the library to find out stuff. You mixed generally with people like you. If the govt didn't write to you with information (and they didn't) then you didn't know about it. Just because some of you knew what was happening doesn't mean everyone did. How would we know where to look for info if we didn't know what info we needed to be aware of?

And yes, like many PP I'm knackered. I bought up 4 children single handed, cared for my mum as well as working lots of odd hours. I got through the menopause only to have cancer twice followed by heart failure caused by the treatment. Apparently, although I have 40 years contributions I have to work another 9 years. I don't say this for pity but to illustrate how differently we all age, how our life experiences are not the same (even 20 years ago internet was relatively new) and how just because you're ok, or you knew about the changes, or you could afford to make alternative plans, or your aunty's best friends cousin worked till they were 90 and they're fine, it doesn't mean everyone has the same luck.

It's something I'm interested in. As always on MN, I'm mildly confused by people who don't look at what is actually being claimed before making a statement on it - it's incredibly easy to go to
www.waspi.co.uk/background-information/
and see that the first two sentences say "The 1995 Conservative Government’s State Pension Act included plans to increase women’s state pension age from 60 to 65 so that it was the same as men’s. WASPI agrees with equalisation, but does not agree with the unfair way the changes were implemented."

That website is a good resource. I'm glad you're bringing it to more people's attention, OP, as I think it's been overlooked a lot because it only affects older women.

There was a poster on here years ago who explained how the difference in age came about anyway - and it wasn't to benefit women.

The married pension was only paid once both husband and wife were over pensionable age, and since men generally married younger wives, it was decided to drop the pension age for women, so men could get the larger pension earlier.

It's also worth remembering that maternity leave legislation wasn't introduced until the late 1970s and, until Jackie Drake took the case to the European Court, married women couldn't claim Invalid Care Allowance (since renamed) until 10 years after its introduction in 1976.

Adding to my own post, because I forgot to add that that these married women, if not working while caring for someone, missed out on ten years of NI contributions.

Talking dead, l was a single parent. Nor only were we vilified by Thatcher, there was NO support at all in terms of child care/help apart from child benefit.

I was born in 1963:

Most girls still left school at 16, married and had children whilst the men worked.
I wasn’t allowed to join my works pension scheme as only men were allowed.
Women were still generally regarded as secretaries or tea makers and paid accordingly.

Our sisters in the 70’s paved the way for my generation to enter the workplace equally in the 80’s. But it was my generation who were used as the experiment that you could have it all. We in turn enabled the changes that took place in the 90’s which actually considered children. You weren’t allowed to mention if you had children in the 1980’s.

All the ‘sisters’ on here moaning about the Waspi case and they won’t benefit from it. It was the Waspi generation that started the push for social and employment equality. They are the victims of their own success.

We should be helping each other, not kicking people down as Thatcher did.

It wasn’t brought in quickly or without notice though - there was at least 20 years notice. The court of appeal dismissed the claim as there was no basis at all for any discrimination claim whatsoever. There was no obligation to inform affected women individually and one of the (two I think) women who brought the claim even admitted she did get a letter telling her but decades later claimed it was a surprise.

As thingybob says, it was well publicized but perhaps some women didn’t want to accept it. I don’t want to wait till 67 to retire but I accept that there needs to be a balance as universal state pensions are hugely expensive and people are living longer. Women are still paid less than men and often end up making huge financial sacrifices for child rearing than men don’t generally make. That should be addressed but a lower state pension age is unfair and not the solution imo.

How old are you Cayrol?

At 35 l could have worked for ever. At 57 l am knackered. I’m not sure in terms of health l can keep going until 67. And whilst people are living longer, they still get tireder and ache more, and have more illnesses the older they get.

And this hasn’t been accounted for. There is a big difference health wise between 60 and 67. And older women in the work place suffer much more discrimination and redundancies.

Also the equal pay act was 45 years ago. The WASPI women will have spent the vast majority of their working life after that. Also NI contributions were paid for 18 years in the past for women who claimed child benefit (now just 12). So I don’t think that either of those are any reason women should have a lower pension age.