Letter to the editor: Waspi will be around for 'very long time'

She writes:

"How very dare you write such an insulting piece on Waspi women?

You were probably not born when we went out to work and got paid less than men. Had little maternity leave and certainly no help from the state to bring up our children. 

We didn't join the workforce in our 20s as most do today; we started work in our mid-teens. 

We were told to expect to be able to retire at 60 but lost two-thirds of a decade of our lives, that cannot be got back because our pension pots were robbed. 

This being over £50,000 taken from most of 'these people' you very rudely describe us as!

It's very likely that you will have to get used to hearing the word 'Waspi' for a very long timeFT Adviser reader

For the record you are wrong. I worked on benefits for almost 30 years and just because the DWP decided to use the term 'benefit' for the state pension it is not.

Benefits are 'given' to claimants. State pension is paid in full after 35 years contributions have been made from workers.

Most Waspi women have contributions for longer than 35 years. 

I, and I imagine all Waspi women, have been insulted by your written comments that you would be glad 'if I never heard the word Waspi again'. 

It's about time your generation did their homework and had some respect for the older generation that have paid their money and want what is rightfully due to them. You are currently paying in for your pension not ours as we have already paid for ours.

For the record it is an absolute insult to take £50,000 from us and think the grey haired fools will be happy with the peanuts offered in compensation. 

Well we won't, so it's very likely that you will have to get used to hearing the word Waspi for a very long time. 

And let's all hope that when you get to your pension date. you are treated with more respect than you have shown to us.

I am surprised that such a piece has got past the Editor in a paper like the Financial Times."

The Editor's response from Simoney Kyriakou

"Thank you for taking the time to write to us.

As you may know, FT Adviser has followed the plight of the 50s women for many years now, with Waspi commentators regularly invited to take part in video interviews, podcasts and offer opinion pieces on the subject. As always, we strive for fair and balanced reporting on all issues.

Relating to this comment piece, I note your concerns around the last paragraph in particular, and I will come back to that shortly. 

First, having read the blog a few times now since coming back from annual leave, it is clear to me that Amy has presented both sides of the arguments fairly and dispassionately, seeking to summarise the main arguments for financial adviser readers of FT Adviser.

I note your concern around the statement that the state pension is a benefit. I agree with your sentiment - that something into which a person contributes should not be considered a "benefit" as such, in the same way that Universal Credit is, for example.

However, the government and the Department for Work and Pensions in their infinite wisdom are adamant that the State Pension is a benefit.

That it is considered by the law of the land to be a benefit, rather than a right for people who pay NI contributions into all their working lives, may well concern all of us.

Like millions of other women, I've paid in almost 30 years now in the expectation of retiring at a reasonable age - first I was told 65, then 67, and now people are talking about raising it to 72 before I can access my state pension. 

It does not seem right that current generations of workers are paying the pensions of current retirees, nor that the government's clever economists cannot commit to a better way of providing for people that does not 'rob' Peter (the current generation) to pay Paul (and ad infinitum throughout the generations).

I am emotionally worn out from reading and writing the same debates over and over again, while governments come and go and do very little to put things right for ordinary peopleSimoney Kyriakou

I fear, as indeed you may, that when our children/grandchildren come to retire, there will be no state pension for them at all - or at the very least, a means-tested "benefit" that is chopped and changed at the whim of whoever is in government.

I certainly believe my son will not have any automatic right to a state pension when he gets to whatever state pension age will be for him, and I worry about his future. 

But - whether it should be called a benefit or not, the government has deemed it as such, so Amy was correct to use that word in that context.

Coming back onto the paragraph at the end; I have spoken with Amy and I understand what she meant. The wording - as you pointed out - could be open to a negative interpretation that could be read as dismissive. That was not the intention. Amy is passionate about pension fairness.

Like Amy, I am emotionally worn out from reading and writing the same debates over and over again, while governments come and go and do very little to put things right for ordinary people.

For example, 25 years on from when I started, I am still writing about the Pay Gap and the Pension Gap - issues which should have been consigned to history in 1974 when the Equal Pay Act came in.

It is disgraceful that 50 years on we still have to urge employers to do the right thing and commit to equal pay for men and women. We shouldn't have to keep writing about it; I long for the day when we don't have to write about it, because every woman in Britain can be sure of having pay parity. 

Similarly, while the vast majority of employers in Britain are committed to treating all staff equally, there are some who still do not. And while that persists, we have to write about equality and keep that debate going. I long for the day when we don't have to write about the need for equality - because everyone is treated equally by their employers. 

This is the intention behind Amy's statement: that a fair resolution could have (should have) been implemented by now - but there has been little to no political willpower to make change happen, despite the debates having gone on for so long.

So we do indeed long for the day when we do not need to write about Waspi, because a fair, just and equitable solution has been put in place that helps all parties, and those women who are currently struggling have been finally given the restitution they need.

I hope this clears up some, if not all, of the points you raised. Thank you again for writing.