Women SPA this week

GibbsRule_No3.

https://www.pensionsage.com/pa/Date-set-for-BackTo60-judicial-review.php

High Court 5-6th June not sure how much press this will get. I expect it depends what the outcome is. If it goes in the Women’s favour it might get a little bit more, because something will have to happen. If found in favour of the Government then no change so probably not newsworthy. Trump and 75th D-Day will be taking up most of the news this week.

dunstonh

Lets hope it founds in favour of the Government and not a bunch of greedy women who don't believe in equality when it doesn't suit them.

Silvertabby

The scary thing is that a lot of women are celebrating because they are so sure that just getting the 'judicial review' means that they have already won, and will get their pensions back dated to 60 !

The way I read it (but I'm not a lawyer) is that the the review has been set up NOT to overturn the re-equalisation of State pension ages for 1950s women, but to consider if the changes were adequately advertised back in the mid 1990s - which begs the question, why did so many of us 1950s women note the changes (which were advertised in the media, through leaflets, etc) but for so many others the info (allegedly) went right over their heads.

One of the main gripes is that all women didn't receive personal letters in 1995. I am convinced that if DWP had done that, then the vast majority of such letters would have gone straight into the bin unread - 'what's this rubbish, I'm not a pensioner - nothing to do with me '.

POPPYOSCAR

dunstonh wrote: »

Lets hope it founds in favour of the Government and not a bunch of greedy women who don't believe in equality when it doesn't suit them.

And do you think women have equality?


https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/may/22/female-bbc-manager-offered-12000-pounds-less-than-man-same-role



"Female BBC manager publicly declines promotion over pay inequality
Karen Martin tells colleagues she was offered £12,000 less than man doing same job"

Just one example.

Silvertabby

POPPYOSCAR wrote: »

And do you think women have equality?
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/may/22/female-bbc-manager-offered-12000-pounds-less-than-man-same-role
"Female BBC manager publicly declines promotion over pay inequality
Karen Martin tells colleagues she was offered £12,000 less than man doing same job"
Just one example.

But she and her male colleagues will probably get the same State pension.

POPPYOSCAR

Silvertabby wrote: »

But she and her male colleagues will probably get the same State pension.

That is not the point.

The argument put forward is that these WASPI women should have saved and made provision for having to retire later.

That is all well and good but historically (and still today to some extent) women have not had the earning capacity in order to do this Where is the 'equality' in that.


Equality I am all for, but women still do not have it.

p00hsticks

Silvertabby wrote: »

One of the main gripes is that all women didn't receive personal letters in 1995. I am convinced that if DWP had done that, then the vast majority of such letters would have gone straight into the bin unread - 'what's this rubbish, I'm not a pensioner - nothing to do with me '.

But one could equally argue that they will never have received letters telling them that they could claim a state pension, how old they had to be etc, in the first place.

If the government didn't write to them individually advising them of the intial condition (which it didn't). why is there then an expectation that they write to people when those initial conditions are changed.

msallen

POPPYOSCAR wrote: »

And do you think women have equality?

No, there are many areas where they have a distinct advantage over men.

...as well as many where they are disadvantaged too of course, but we hear about those constantly already from those who claim to want equality but in reality want anything but.

redux

POPPYOSCAR wrote: »

That is not the point.

The argument put forward is that these WASPI women should have saved and made provision for having to retire later.

That is all well and good but historically (and still today to some extent) women have not had the earning capacity in order to do this Where is the 'equality' in that.


Equality I am all for, but women still do not have it.

It isn't the state pension's job to underwrite or indemnify poor employment practice by employers.

Silvertabby

“ One of the main gripes is that all women didn't receive personal letters in 1995. I am convinced that if DWP had done that, then the vast majority of such letters would have gone straight into the bin unread - 'what's this rubbish, I'm not a pensioner - nothing to do with me '.
Originally posted by Silvertabby

p00hsticks wrote: »

But one could equally argue that they will never have received letters telling them that they could claim a state pension, how old they had to be etc, in the first place.

If the government didn't write to them individually advising them of the intial condition (which it didn't). why is there then an expectation that they write to people when those initial conditions are changed.

Very true. When I started work at 15 I certainly wasn't given a contract saying that I was paying for a State pension at 60 - it was all word of mouth and assumptions at the time.

NewShadow

POPPYOSCAR wrote: »

And do you think women have equality?


https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/may/22/female-bbc-manager-offered-12000-pounds-less-than-man-same-role



"Female BBC manager publicly declines promotion over pay inequality
Karen Martin tells colleagues she was offered £12,000 less than man doing same job"

Just one example.

And an example which is somewhat telling - in the recent climate - given, even after a public challenge, the BBC stood by the decision.

Perhaps this bit at the bottom suggests why the difference may be the result of more than the contents of their respective underwear?

The head of BBC news output, Gavin Allen, later emailed staff in a bid to reassure them about Martin’s situation, saying the BBC pays staff according to broad salary bands agreed with unions rather than setting specific salaries for individual jobs.

“Roger has worked at or above this level for several years whereas Karen was offered this role as a promotion, with a significant pay increase. We think most people would understand that these factors would result in some difference between their individual pay,” he said.

“I accept that we have not always got things right in the past on pay but I believe this is not one of those cases.”

It is understood that the relevant pay band in this instance is £60,000 to £100,000.

It is possible for one person to simply be worth more to an employer than another person at a specific point in their career because of something other than an 'ism'