chucknorris wrote: »
But what have you gained? You didn't get anything extra, women just lost something. The real issue is to secure your own financial future, rather than defeat women in a competition of 'who is worst off'.
Silvertabby wrote: »
I read somewhere that putting back women's State pension age to 60 would cost £5B just for the arrears. As any such changes would also have to apply to men (sex equality legislation) so that's £10B plus all the extra pensions going forward. Would Backto60/Graspi like to tell us where they think that money should come from ? The NHS, perhaps ?
Thrugelmir wrote: »
How many people of either sex can really afford to retire early? Unless they've made a conscious effort to save or been fortunate enough to have worked in the public sector in some form. State pension has never been adequate by itself.
Nual wrote: »
I was born in 1956. My mother, aunts, grandmothers didnt work outside the home. I did, but experienced the sex discrimination of the 80's and 90's, and beyond. I brought up two children and worked part time until the youngest was 2, made redundant while on maternity leave etc, then full time: I was the main carer for my mother in her last 5 years and worked full time. Many women of my age group would not have been able to do this - it nearly broke me and certainly affected my promotion prospects.
Nual wrote: »
I knew nothing at all about pensions until I was well into my 50s...
badmemory wrote: »
Equality can be a two edged sword. My last job (I've been retired a while now) they employed a male to add to the females already working there & after a little while it became obvious that whilst he was supposed to be doing the same job he was being paid at least 20% more. Did we shout and scream about the unfairness of it all? No. We got revenge. We made sure he got all the jobs which we considered the sh**ty side of our day & kept the bits for ourselves that we prefered. And we all won. He got the extra pay for the carp & we got our normal pay & avoided the carp. Outcome - he was really great at the carp (& he really was not at the other stuff) & we all got the bonus. So who was discriminated against? We should have been paid more, as he was, but it was worth it to unload the stuff we hated. These things are rarely straightfoward!
He may well have got more pension out of it too, but I only have myself to keep whilst he had an idle non-working wife to keep (no kids). So I think I won there too.
My friend's daughter has just started working at a pizza takeaway - they segregate jobs there, even now in this day and age - the girls work in the kitchen or behind the counter and the boys do deliveries (generally), it's unbelievable that this sort of thing still happens!
LHW99 wrote: »
Whilst generally I agree, I do think there will always be some jobs where women are likely to be in the majority (eg caring for very young children) and others where the balance will be the other way round (eg firefighting). Not because there is inherently any reason the jobs couldn't be done by either sex, but because certain attributes (eg strength for firefighting) are found more frequently in one sex than the other. Provided the requirements are clear, and there is an opportunity for anyone of either sex to prove their capability should they wish to, I don't see an issue. Once accepted and suitably qualified, then equal pay for equal work and equal pension for equal number of years worked should be the rule.
Don't let Dany Cotton see this post :rotfl:
"Outdated language is stopping young girls and women considering firefighting as a career."
London Fire Commissioner Dany Cotton said:
Well I can assure him ...
There’s a trick to extend them
We want to hear from you
This week's MSE Forum highlights