Waspi women should be compensated for state pension age change failures

[IwantToRetire]

I heard a discussion about this on the BBC which was more detailed than this article, and implied that the problem wasn't so much how it was announced in the 1990s, but the later changes during the time Coalition was in power.

But suspect whoever is in Government there will be a delay in any payout.

https://www.professionalpensions.com/news/4188325/waspi-women-compensated-pension-age-change-failures

Somebody did try to suggest it wasn't fair on younger people to expect them to foot the bill (as if it hasn't always been the current tax payers who foot the bill at the time).

Which would be the same as saying the local government's who have gone bankrupt once it was shown they had discriminated against women employees and owed them money, shouldn't have to do it.

So not only are women too often cheated at the time, but are later told they shouldn't expect compensation because not fair on current tax payers.

(For some reason cant access the WASPI web site, but suspect it might just be overloaded. But when back on line may be worth checking their take on the situation. http://www.waspi.co.uk )

It does seem strange that some people didn’t know, I was a teenager and had heard about it. I do think the changes should have been introduced at a slower rate and women should have been given more time to prepare for the change but I don’t think the argument they ‘didn’t know’ about them is a good one

Fwiw the friend I had during that time also didn’t own a tv or listen to the radio or get a newspaper
She held down 3 jobs and when she wasn’t working she was out

People should try it sometime

Switch off the tv, mute the radio, stop buying newspapers and go out and make your own mind up about what is happening in the world instead of being told what to think

It is very liberating to be free of the noise.

Fair enough, but then don't whinge when things change that you don't know about!

Personally, I think there needs to be an element of personal responsibility for people to keep up to date with current affairs, especially things that affect them personally. If people can't be bothered to keep themselves up to date, I feel they've lost the argument and can't claim, especially trying to claim compensation, when they lose out because of things they didn't know, but could easily have found out.

Presumably, if you don't watch the news, read papers, etc., then you don't vote in elections as you won't know who or what your're voting for??

How do you make your own mind up about what's happening in the world if you haven't a clue about what's happening in the world?

What makes you think people here know little about the context? Most people who disagree with the WASPI women say they were fully aware about the pension changes and can't understand why those women weren't.

It was obviously unfair that part-time workers couldn't join company pension schemes, and this was something that obviously affected more women than men, but I don't think the WASPI claims were anything to do with this.

The Ombudsman has decided that compensation of £1000-£2950 per claimant should be paid. This would cost £3.5bn-£10.5bn, and it seems unlikely that the DWP will pay it. I think the billions would be better spent on those who are in financial hardship, whatever their age.

I am entitled to have an opinion on whether or not I agree with the Ombudsman. Many of the WASPI women also disagree with the Ombudsman and think the compensation should be higher. Are they also in need of 'educating themselves'?

There are two significant groups of posters on this thread who either misunderstand or are deliberately misrepresenting the situation.
One group disagrees with Waspi women, saying they had no excuse for not knowing about pension changes. They are conflating the 1995 change, which was generally well-communicated, with the 2011 changes, which were not. They think all women are being greedy and grabby, and should get nothing.
The other, rather smaller, group is also conflating the two changes, but so as to advance the notion that all women who did not get their pension at 60 should be compensated, quoting ridiculous sums of money.

Neither of the positions described above is reasonable.

And then there are those of us who understand the situation and the difference between the two changes.

There is a relatively small subset of the WASPI women who have a genuine cause for complaint as there was a significant change to their pension age in the 2011 act with relatively short notice. I'm not sure that any significant compensation is appropriate because any money spent on compensating these women is money which would then not be available for other uses such as the NHS or for benefits for people of all ages who are living in poverty.

Some of the WASPI women have suffered financial hardship as a result of these changes, but many have not. Should public money go to those who are already well off? Should it go to those who were fully aware of the changes and planned accordingly? Should those whose pension age was only changed by a couple of months by the 2011 Act receive compensation?

And then there are those of us who understand the situation and the difference between the two changes.

Well yes, but I was talking about those who either don’t or won’t.

My state pension was delayed by 18 months. I personally neither want nor need compensation - I was able to carry on working part time. But some women could be in a situation where being compensated for that extra month or two of waiting might improve their lives - pay the electricity bill, visit family, afford a few small luxuries.
Pensions and other benefits (e.g. child benefit) are not always paid solely on the criterion of “need” but according to general principle, so I don’t see why this should be different. If I were to receive any payout, it would go (like much of my spare cash) to my family and charity.

"That said, I take a completely different view about the accelerated timetable set out in the Pensions Act 2011. Those changes were introduced at relatively short notice and were a pure cost-saving measure rather than a way of achieving equality, which was already in hand. Women affected by this change had to wait up to 18 months extra to retire, or use any private pension savings to bridge the gap to their new retirement age. The transitional arrangements recognised that the notice given was too short and mitigated the effect of the change but I can’t understand why it’s any more acceptable in principle to make women wait an extra 18 months at short notice than two years? Frankly, the women affected here were being completely ripped off in the name of austerity. Parliament may have been entitled to make the change as a matter of law (in the same way that State pension increases were changed from RPI to CPI in 2011) but it doesn’t seem ethically correct to disproportionately penalise this specific group of people, who had been disadvantaged over a lifetime of unequal treatment and were already in the process of having one of their few positive inequalities gradually removed."

From the article linked above.

I'm a WASPI woman and knew about the changes but I did not receive a letter or leaflet. I happen to keep up with current affairs though. I'm fortunate enough to have an occupational pension and don't need any compensation. I paid NI for 49 years by the way. I didn't receive any maternity pay or subsidised childcare either.
I believe there are women who were badly affected by the incompetence of the DWP. I'd support compensation for women who only receive the basic state pension.

I am a WASPI woman too. I was aware of the changes, but can understand there may have been women who were not aware. I have already paid 48 years of full contributions but cannot retire until October 2025. I am bloody exhausted to be fair, and would retire tomorrow if I could afford it. And I have no bloody idea hoq people are going to be able to work until they are nearly 70. It is fucking inhumane.

But the waspi women are complaining and want compensating for all the changes not just the 2011, they also say they didn’t know about the 1995 changes, this is where they are losing sympathy as they seem to be the only members of the population that didn’t know about the 1995 changes

Oh OK. Not reasonable, in that case.

The 2011 changes did cause hardship to some, though.

Us WASPI women worked through the years when women routinely got paid far less than men and had significantly fewer career opportunities. Now in our twilight years we suddenly get the shitty end of the equality stick. Which is nice. I lost 6 years of state pension. My health is such that I probably won't have that many years to 'enjoy' this largesse.

If people want to retire earlier, they either need to make provision themselves, i.e. save in ISAs or private pensions, or they need to campaign for higher taxes so there's some money in the pot to pay pensions earlier.

We can't keep wanting lower taxes and better state benefits and expecting "someone else" to pay for it.

Whether or not the communication was on point, retiring earlier than men was a privilege enjoyed by women for many years. It seems odd that they should be compensated for having to endure equality whilst the men get nothing for having to work extra years in spite of having a lower life expectancy.

Next we'll be paying men compensation when the pay gap closes and women finally earn the same. 🤣

Having fewer opportunities than men, being paid worse than men and very often taking on paid work as well as all child rearing and domestic chores (without the benefit of modern appliances) were also “privileges” “enjoyed” by women of that era, plus the privilege of looking after their retired menfolk until they finally popped their clogs.
So fortunate, such an easy life.

I mean waiting hand and foot on men isn't compulsary.

There are clear tones in some of the comments on here about how women couldn't possibly have been expected to know, to keep themselves informed or to understand very major changes in the economy, with a huge bearing on their own lives and wellbeing.

It's also not very feminist to be apparently suggesting that only men, with their big important brains, can be expected to understand and plan for this, whilst women's pretty little heads are just too delicate to comprehend it at all.

Are you really comparing keeping informed with major happenings in your country that directly affect you with taking drugs?

I too have never taken any illicit drugs. Therefore, I fully accept and acknowledge that I know nothing about them - apart from my own belief that they are plain bad news and to be avoided. Therefore, I have made that conscious decision to remain ignorant about drugs and live my life without any knowledge of the scene. I also don't drink alcohol, so I know precious little about it - again, my choice. I don't know how much I'd be able to drink before I was drunk, and I don't really know how much alcohol relates to the drink-drive limits - but as I only ever do one of those things and never the other, it doesn't matter to me. Drugs and alcohol are just not part of my life, so I choose to live independent of them.

If you similarly don't care about pensions/taxes etc. and how/when they might affect you and your lifestyle, feel free to keep yourself ignorant about any news or developments of them, in the same way as I do about the drugs and booze to which you compared them.

It used to be expected. My mother did it. My parents had a good marriage and she missed my father dreadfully after he died. But for the first time since her wedding day, she was able to put herself first and live her own life. It was only five years, but she was so much more relaxed and happy.