MSE Poll: Should 1950s WASPI women be compensated?
Comments
-
Let's look at it from a different angle. Men need compensating for retiring 5 years after women usually having worked longer than women and living less years than women. Never did understand why women received the pension early and men had to wait another 5 years. It is men who should be compensated.0
-
Never did understand why women received the pension early and men had to wait another 5 years.
"Patriarchy." Typically men married women younger than themselves, 5 years was considered the average or something, so that was used to try and get them obtaining their married rate for pension.[1]
Then sex equality came along in 1978 and governments were told to (among other things) make such things equal. [2]
Governments of both stripes dragged their feet while simultaneously kicking the can down the road.
Which leads us to where we are today.
[1] 1940 here: http://www.web40571.clarahost.co.uk/statepensionage/SPA_history.htm
[2] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/ALL/?uri=CELEX:31979L0007Conjugating the verb 'to be":
-o I am humble -o You are attention seeking -o She is Nadine Dorries0 -
Men in the past always earned more than women often for doing the same job, this is a historical fact. Women usually have a harder life running homes and having and bringing up children. Yes, equalisation but only when the other factors throughout the working life become equal!0
-
I am a 66yr old female. My retirement age was moved 3times and I eventually retired last year. I don't understand how some say they are worse off. By working longer you are earning more and adding to your pension pot.
In addition it is a hang-over from a bygone era that women should retire earlier than men, especially as women live longer on average. And as average life expectancy has risen it is only natural that the retirement age should rise for both sexes.0 -
I am a Waspi woman. When I started work I did not get equal pay. Men working next to me in same job earned more as they were men. When I had children there was no maternity leave you lost your job. When you were able to work again you started at the bottom and worked your way up again. Despite this I managed to pay in 46 years of full pension contributions only to be told my pension would not be paid as promised.I not only had to wait an additional 3 years I get a lower pension for life than a man my age. As men born in 1951 get the new higher pension but only women born after1953 will get the the new pension worth approx £30 a week more. Prior to the govt breaking the pension contract men and women did receive the same amount but this group of women born between 1951 and 1953 never will ,this new inequality was never publicised. So yes I think the govt stole the money from the pension fund and should morally replace it.
I'm a 1950s woman, but certainly don't support WASPE.
Yes, when I started work (at 15) I queried why the 15 year old lad doing exactly the same job as me was paid more - and was told that was because he was male, and that someday he would have a wife and children to support. I pointed out that he was 15, unmarried, and lived with his mum - but still didn't receive a satisfactory explanation.
Then came the equal rights/pay legislation of the mid/late 1970s. Women born from the mid 1950s onwards started their careers with far more rights in respect of employment and equal pay, and any loss of salary/pension due to choosing to leave work to bring up children/work part time were thus largely down to personal choices.0 -
I am a WASPI but voted no compensation, I have enough sense to know that to keep any sort of pension for people of the future it was impossible to carry on as it was.
To all you younger people voting for compensation, just where do you think it will come from?
Your contributions, which may move you futher back!"Sealed Pot challenge" member No. 138
2012 £ 3147.74 2013 £1437.532014 £ 2356.520 -
Compensate men for being forced to work till 65 all those years when woman got paid at 600
-
-
I am a Waspi woman. When I started work I did not get equal pay. Men working next to me in same job earned more as they were men. When I had children there was no maternity leave you lost your job. When you were able to work again you started at the bottom and worked your way up again. Despite this I managed to pay in 46 years of full pension contributions only to be told my pension would not be paid as promised.I not only had to wait an additional 3 years I get a lower pension for life than a man my age. As men born in 1951 get the new higher pension but only women born after1953 will get the the new pension worth approx £30 a week more. Prior to the govt breaking the pension contract men and women did receive the same amount but this group of women born between 1951 and 1953 never will ,this new inequality was never publicised. So yes I think the govt stole the money from the pension fund and should morally replace it.
I can't believe that in the same breath WASPI women are managing to complain both about not getting their state pension at 60 and also not being made to wait until they were 65 when they would potentially be getting 30 quid more under the new rules. :rotfl:0 -
Aside from anything else, it's difficult to see how Labour's proposals can stand up to legal challenge.
Men were affected by both the 1995 Act (loss of pension credit) and the 2011 Act. Men, as well as women born after 1960 were affected by the 2007 Act. The lack of "personalised notice" argument can apply equally to them as well.
On what basis are these proposals not discriminatory?0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343K Banking & Borrowing
- 250K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.6K Spending & Discounts
- 235.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 607.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173K Life & Family
- 247.7K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards