Back to 60's Judicial Review Outcome

jamesd

ArcticRoll wrote: »

The argument that they weren't given enough time to prepare was a fair point

Not really. The Court quoted the preamble to the 1993 white paper:

"The new state pension age will be 65 for both men and women. To give women and employers ample time to prepare for this, it will not even start until 2010. Women’s pension age will then be raised gradually to reach 65 by 2020. So no women currently aged 44 or over will be affected by the change. Those currently between 38 and 43 will receive their pension at ages between 60 and 65. Only those currently 38 or under will have to wait until 65."

For the 5 year delay those then 38 year olds were getting 22 years to plan.

Using 20 years and 8500 state pension for 5 years with 3% plus inflation growth produces a need for £129 a month increasing with inflation to maintain the privilege of retiring five years earlier than their twin brother. Here it is for each number of years that the 38 year old might want to keep:

5: £129
4: £97
3: £70
2: £42
1: £20

Not linear because the number of years investing is changing each time. Those are in today's money, not 1993 money.

It's those who weren't paying attention who'd have more difficulty, depending on when they noticed. And that took some people a very long time.

sammyjammy

ArcticRoll wrote: »

I'm interested to know what an acceptable increase plan would have looked like. Given the #Backto60 aims of the group who took the action we know that 25 years is apparently insufficient notice for even a single day to be added onto the retirement age of women to equalise it with the men's retirement age.

So what would their suggestion have been? Continued retirement at 60 for women '...because, women' ?

I think its quite clear they couldn't care less how it is/was done as long as it didn't impact them.

fred246

It's totally devoid of logic. They call themselves WASPI ie against pension inequality but they are actually FOR it. Then they say that they want the age to be equal but not for them because there was a gender pay gap. There still is a gender pay gap so that doesn't make sense. Where I worked there was a well publicized gender pay gap. Everyone was paid exactly the same hourly rate but men worked far more overtime. Women had the same access to overtime but refused to do it. I wasn't really sure what the employer was supposed to do. Force overtime on women or pay women a higher hourly rate?

xylophone

Everyone was paid exactly the same hourly rate but men worked far more overtime. Women had the same access to overtime but refused to do it.

Then any earnings gap was of the employee's own choosing so no pay gap or inequality involved.

fred246

Newspapers are making freedom of information requests all the time trying to make interesting stories. So they just ask what was the average pay of male workers and what was the average pay of female workers. The payroll database will easily tell you that. The newspaper then publishes that men earned more than women. It was totally true but everyone in our organisation knew exactly why that was the case. Our boss is a woman but one of the male workers made more money because of his overtime.

zagfles

fred246 wrote: »

Newspapers are making freedom of information requests all the time trying to make interesting stories. So they just ask what was the average pay of male workers and what was the average pay of female workers. The payroll database will easily tell you that. The newspaper then publishes that men earned more than women. It was totally true but everyone in our organisation knew exactly why that was the case. Our boss is a woman but one of the male workers made more money because of his overtime.

Age and need are also major factors in the raw gender pay gap which companies have to now publish. Generally, older people are paid more than younger people, for the obvious reason that they tend to have more experience and they have risen to a more senior position. Particularly in "career" type jobs, men make a far greater proportion of the older workforce than the younger workforce, as women are more likely to retire earlier, or leave to have children.

This also creates another reason for the gap, multiplying the effect. Men are more likely to be supporting other people eg wife and children with their salary, and so need to seek out higher paying jobs.

If you look at age adjusted gender pay gap, it reduces significantly. There's virtually no gender pay gap amongst people under 30. If you also adjust with parenthood, you see the interesting anomaly that men with children earn more than men without children. Some sort of discrimination in favour of fathers? No, just that fathers need to earn more to support a family.

ArcticRoll

White heterosexual woman who for decades could retire 5 years earlier than a black homosexual man
"I'm cool with that"

White heterosexual woman when told she has same retirement age as a black homosexual man
"It's an outrage, my historical disadvantage in pay and work place opportunities must be taken into account!"

shinytop

ArcticRoll wrote: »

White heterosexual woman who for decades could retire 5 years earlier than a black homosexual man
"I'm cool with that"

White heterosexual woman when told she has same retirement age as a black homosexual man
"It's an outrage, my historical disadvantage in pay and work place opportunities must be taken into account!"

Why are you bringing race and sexual orientation into this; I thought this was a gender issue?

ArcticRoll

shinytop wrote: »

Why are you bringing race and sexual orientation into this; I thought this was a gender issue?

Because the only argument behind why 25 years was insufficient notice for a single day's increase to the pension age and why women should continue to retire early is because of historical discrimination in pay, conditions and workplace opportunities.

It seems odd that if that's the core reason behind the calls for one group to be allowed to continue to retire early that other group's historical discrimination in pay, conditions and workplace opportunities aren't considered.

It's either a principle or it's an 'I only care about me' issue. Isn't it?


"People who belong to the same group as me have suffered discrimination at work that's why I should retire early!"
-Like ethnic minorities you mean?
"I'm not talking about them!"
-Gay people?
"This isn't about them, this is about ME!"
-Oh so ethnic minority men and homosexual men who've suffered work place discrimination too should continue to work longer to pay for your early retirement as the only work place discrimination that matters is your own?"
"Bingo!"

It's transparent, selfish and frankly not very nice

antrobus

Juebrads wrote: »

I find it a bit strange that I was unaware of these changes but then I could not afford TV or newspapers, so why would I know? Also many women have asked for proof of all this advertising the fact and for evidence, very little has been forth coming, so show me all these newspapers that printed it on their front pages, and not the times financial pages.

The evidence can be found in the detailed Supreme Court judgement;
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Delve-and-Glynn-v-SSWP-CO-3174-2018-Final.pdf

See paras 94-112 which sets out the various extensive efforts the DWP made to publicise the changes.