Jump to content

WASPI -Women Against State Pension Inequality

Recommended Posts

I will believe in equality when I see a woman navvying out a trench with a pick and shovel.

 

 

 

The same as this one then !!! :roll:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wasn't there an increase in the male pension age too?

 

Yes. Men's pension age was increased too.

A man and a woman born on the same day would now have the the same SPA.

In 2011 a 58 year old man would have been informed that his SPA had increased by about 3-6 months (depending on the month he was born) - giving him 7 years notice that he would have to work longer.

At the same time a 58 year old woman was informed that her SPA had increased by over 5 years, giving her 2 years notice.

 

---------- Post added 07-11-2015 at 21:07 ----------

 

I will believe in equality when I see a woman navvying out a trench with a pick and shovel.

 

Women work on building sites, women worked down the pit. Women did manual work during the war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And people who say that are usually feminist Misandrists.

 

Just to add.. Did these women born in the 1950's pay the same NI contribution as men?

 

 

probably not as on average women are still only paid about 2/3 as much as men and there is a very solid glass ceiling and it was far worse in the 70s and 80s when these women alsoworked.

and I believe we should all have the same retirement age but would like an even playing field throughout our working lives too

 

---------- Post added 07-11-2015 at 22:10 ----------

 

I will believe in equality when I see a woman navvying out a trench with a pick and shovel.

 

 

you should see the lifting and lugging carers/nurses do and have done in the present and past before critisising the demands put on women doing traditionally 'womens work'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes. Men's pension age was increased too.

A man and a woman born on the same day would now have the the same SPA.

In 2011 a 58 year old man would have been informed that his SPA had increased by about 3-6 months (depending on the month he was born) - giving him 7 years notice that he would have to work longer.

At the same time a 58 year old woman was informed that her SPA had increased by over 5 years, giving her 2 years notice.

 

---------- Post added 07-11-2015 at 21:07 ----------

 

 

Women work on building sites, women worked down the pit. Women did manual work during the war.

 

So you are bothered that women have to change their plans to sit back and do nothing to actually having to go to work like menbof their age. What difference would having more notice make?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So you are bothered that women have to change their plans to sit back and do nothing to actually having to go to work like menbof their age. What difference would having more notice make?

 

You have been quite rude to me during the thread, even attacking my signature, however having looked at some of your posts on other threads I realise that this is your normal style of posting i.e insult people and try to make yourself look clever (which you don't) and present yourself as some kind of expert debater (which you aren't).

To be perfectly honest I feel that you are either being deliberately obtuse or are a bit too thick to understand, so, either way it's not worth wasting my time replying to you anymore.

The facts are there for those who want to know them and have the ability to understand them, even if they don't agree.

Thank you for your input to the thread, but I'm afraid I must leave you to argue with someone on another topic because frankly, I just find you irritating .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So you are bothered that women have to change their plans to sit back and do nothing to actually having to go to work like menbof their age. What difference would having more notice make?

 

First of all I'd like to point out that in spite of working full time, most women still do 90% of child care, and most of the housework, particularly in this age group where equality doesn't always extend to the home. They also run round in their lunch break, and after work catching up in household tasks. If there's an elderly parent or relative to be looked after they probably do that as well. So I'd hardly call it sitting back and doing nothing.

 

The difference is that men have grown up knowing they would have to work until 65, and now an extra year, whereas women, who for most of their life have believed they would retire at 60, have seen it hiked up 6 more years, difference just as they were approaching the original retirement age.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You have been quite rude to me during the thread, even attacking my signature, however having looked at some of your posts on other threads I realise that this is your normal style of posting i.e insult people and try to make yourself look clever (which you don't) and present yourself as some kind of expert debater (which you aren't).

To be perfectly honest I feel that you are either being deliberately obtuse or are a bit too thick to understand, so, either way it's not worth wasting my time replying to you anymore.

The facts are there for those who want to know them and have the ability to understand them, even if they don't agree.

Thank you for your input to the thread, but I'm afraid I must leave you to argue with someone on another topic because frankly, I just find you irritating .

 

The only rudeness in this thread is the reply above. Your group disingenuously uses the term inequality, which has emotive connotations. As some who has worked with charities campaigning for real equality, I find your group absurd. Your group should be called "women for more notice about the removal of special privileges over men".

 

 

 

 

 

First of all I'd like to point out that in spite of working full time, most women still do 90% of child care, and most of the housework, particularly in this age group where equality doesn't always extend to the home. They also run round in their lunch break, and after work catching up in household tasks. If there's an elderly parent or relative to be looked after they probably do that as well. So I'd hardly call it sitting back and doing nothing.

 

The difference is that men have grown up knowing they would have to work until 65, and now an extra year, whereas women, who for most of their life have believed they would retire at 60, have seen it hiked up 6 more years, difference just as they were approaching the original retirement age.

 

You realise that the retirement age for men hadn't always been 65 don't you? That had changed too, though the retirement age for women had indeed changed more.

 

However, the question still stands, apart from having their plans to relax delayed by a few years, what difference has it made? The op implies financial hardship, but I fail to understand how.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I actually read a more detailed explanation of what their concern was.

The facebook pahe makes no reference to restoration of the previous position it talks about fair transitional arrangements.

 

The inequaliity is that it affects exclusively women in an unfair way. If you bothered to read up on the matter then you might understand what you are talking about.

 

Of course it only affects women. They were the ones that had the inequality in their favour to begin with. To address that inequality can only affect women. This campaign's name is a complete misnomer and the OP has an attitude that doesn't exactly warm me to their "cause".

 

---------- Post added 08-11-2015 at 08:41 ----------

 

You were arguing the OP was being dishonest and that the campaign sought restoration.

 

The Facebook page states

 

Which is clear its about transitional arrangements and nothing to do with restoration. Clearly you are wrong, its a question of fact not opinion.

 

---------- Post added 06-11-2015 at 15:51 ----------

 

 

Ah see unbeliever I can discuss in an adult fashion with you.

 

Contrived. it wasnt meant to be and I dont have any investment in this issue, so theres no reason for me to have a view one way or the other. Its the group that claims it has been unfairly treated and I dont think its unreasonable to go along with the idea they feel its unfair to women because the change affects only women. Its the groups argument not mine.

 

If it had affected equal numbers of men and women then I wouldnt be surprised if the group was against the transitional arrangements in general because thats their real gripe of not being given enough warning and much less than others have reccommended.

 

The dictionary has inequality as

 

inequality

noun in·equal·i·ty \ˌi-ni-ˈkwä-lə-tē\

 

: an unfair situation in which some people have more rights or better opportunities than other people

 

In this situation the inequality is about transitional arrangements affecting one group not the ultimate goal of equalising the pension ages. In your example that would simply remain the unequal status quo. I ot the impression the group was more nothered about women in their 50s suffering hardship than equality.

 

You cna read about their claim here https://www.crowdjustice.co.uk/case/women-seeking-pension-justice/

 

 

That's a ridiculous argument. The parallel to that argument is when black people were given equal rights to sit on buses, white people complaining about the inequality of the transition affecting their chances of finding a seat.

 

---------- Post added 08-11-2015 at 08:44 ----------

 

 

Somewhere there will be women who retired one day too late and find themselves having to work the extra years, which must be a bit of a pain. I doubt the govt will do anything, so they are probably looking at some legal challenge. Legal causes like these go on for years.

 

 

Anything that uses age has to be like this by nature. You have to draw the line somewhere and wherever that line is there will always be some just a day the wrong side of it.

 

---------- Post added 08-11-2015 at 08:53 ----------

 

probably not as on average women are still only paid about 2/3 as much as men and there is a very solid glass ceiling

 

That's a bogus argument. If you use a like for like comparison, same job, same hours, same experience, there is no gender pay gap. If you compare meaningless averages that include built in bias (women work fewer hours on average due to more part time work, women tend to work in different roles, etc) then it's not like for like and will naturally throw up a difference that doesn't tell you anything.

Edited by WiseOwl182

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

looking back over the years the done thing was the men went to work and the women stayed at home to look after the kids and run the household.(which they did a bloody good job) years down the line and things have changed (with zero hours contract/part time hours etc) and now some homes have to have 2 people working just to get by. the gov have seen whats going to happen in the future and (see how much its going to cost the country)so needed to clamp down on it. heres how I see it the women who used to be able to retire at 60 will now just get unemployment benefit instead of the pension(as will the men who used to be able to retire at 65) kerching look at the savings the gov have saved there :suspect:. I wonder how many men on here would stick up for their wives/partners etc if they wernt on the same pay as men their wives worked with :roll:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The same as this one then !!! :roll:

 

The point I was making was that men tend more towards manual work whereas women tend to do more sedentary work. Is this inequality? I don't know, but if it is, there doesn't seem to be much we can do about it. As for having children, that's a choice for every man and woman.

Edited by spilldig

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Presumably youve read the articles about their situation? Their concern is about being affected in an unequal way by the transitional arrangements. The inequality is actually not that it just affects women is that it affects women in a disporportionate way due to the notice periods given.

 

Your example about black/white people is poor because neither side was losing anything in your example, so not comparable at all. In this situation women are claimed to be suffering extra financial hardship.

 

Anything that uses age has to be like this by nature. You have to draw the line somewhere and wherever that line is there will always be some just a day the wrong side of it.

 

Whilst creating laws then this is normally the case however the hardship claimed could easily be avoided by giving the notice the group are campaiging for and felt they could rely on. It just happens to affect women from the 1950s.

 

The Independent Turner Commission on pensions recommended 15 years transition according to WASPI. This was being followed, then a new administration ignored this and introduced the changes much faster, with the resulting hardship. The numbers of women affected wuld be finite and the longer period would have ensured that none of the 1950s women would have been, but the 1940s women would have received sufficient notice.

 

So whilst the have to draw the line somewhere is always a valid argument, the nature of implementing rules is that you can decide when and where that line is drawn, which in turn decides who will or will not be affected.

 

If you want to learn about the issues, then there are plenty of articles you can read about the implementation of the changes.

 

---------- Post added 08-11-2015 at 11:24 ----------

 

The point I was making was that men tend more towards manual work whereas women tend to do more sedentary work. Is this inequality? I don't know, but if it is, there doesn't seem to be much we can do about it. As for having children, that's a choice for a very man and woman.

 

No that would not be inequality. If you made some work only available to men or women or decided to pay them different rates then that would be. I think there are a few exceptions that allow discrimination, but they have to meet certain criteria.

 

In your example you couldnt bar someone being a navvy on the basis of being a woman if she could do the job just as well and you would also need to pay her the same rates of salary for an equivalent male. The fact that men might do one sort of work compared to others isnt inequality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Of course it only affects women. They were the ones that had the inequality in their favour to begin with. To address that inequality can only affect women. This campaign's name is a complete misnomer and the OP has an attitude that doesn't exactly warm me to their "cause".

 

Spot on, some people only see equality or inequality when it affects them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.