To want equality for women doctors?

(35 Posts)
nesquick Fri 01-Apr-16 10:41:56

page 25 dept of health Equality Assessment of new contract for doctors. ADMITS DISCRIMINATION TO WOMEN! Am Raging! Backwards. Out of touch! Mumsnetters please show your feelings.

"Any indirect adverse effect on women is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. Whilst this may disadvantage lone parents (who are disproportionately female) due to the increased cost of paid childcare in the evenings and weekend, in some cases this may actually benefit other women, for example where individuals have partners, it may be easier to make informal, unpaid childcare arrangements in the evenings and weekends than it is during the week due to the increased availability of partners and wider family networks at weekends and in the evenings"

AgathaMystery Fri 01-Apr-16 10:43:33

WTF

AgathaMystery Fri 01-Apr-16 10:43:42

raging

nesquick Fri 01-Apr-16 10:45:16

Did I read it right? The advantages of the new contract to mothers is that they can access cheaper childcare when working out of hours more often, by relying on family members who are not working because it is not normal working hours.
GOBSMACKED. WHAT ABOUT WORKING FATHERS? SEEING YOUR CHILDREN? THE WHOLE THING SOUNDS SO SEXIST AND OUT OF DATE.

ThenLaterWhenItGotDark Fri 01-Apr-16 10:45:58

Or, in English.

Women who work, and are lone parents, often have to pay for childcare that a woman with a partner wouldn't have to do.

I think that applies to a) any lone parent woman, not only doctors b) any lone parent, not only women c) any couple where both partners work.

Meh. I have every sympathy for the horrendous situation the govt is placing doctors in a the moment, but that clause is a non-story and is simply reality for any of the above 3 groups, not just single female doctors.

nesquick Fri 01-Apr-16 10:47:11

Caitlin moran said astonishing and shameful. I am AMAZED! Female Drs talking about suffragette style protests

BeyondTellsEveryoneRealFacts Fri 01-Apr-16 10:47:16

Wtaf. I saw it yesterday, so not even an april fool

DontcarehowIwantitnow Fri 01-Apr-16 10:47:50

I tend to agree with later

nesquick Fri 01-Apr-16 10:50:28

Think it's the way they say it is justified. NHS has always felt good for equality and diversity and this is so backwards. Agree that doesn't just apply to doctors but in this document it does

VikingVolva Fri 01-Apr-16 10:51:36

I agree that the indirect discrimination (as lone parents are more likely to be women, and would possibly have higher costs for childcare) is not limited to doctors.

But as you are interestedin this example, what changes should be made to minimise or remove this effect!

Itinerary Fri 01-Apr-16 11:21:20

There's another interesting thread about this here

redexpat Fri 01-Apr-16 11:36:06

YANBU.

southlondonluxe Fri 01-Apr-16 12:07:29

What about if you actually want to see your partner and children? Ever? Particularly if you want to see them at the same time!!? This is beyond appalling. What a joke. will surely send divorce rates rocketing. That's always awesome for the kids.

Collaborate Fri 01-Apr-16 12:39:50

I don't get this inequality thing. Like others have said, it's far from ideal for all those expected to work evenings and weekends.

Would you exempt lone parents from this? What about absent parents, who will need their weekends fret maintain good relationships with their children? For that matter, what about all parents?

In fact, we'd end up with what we have at the moment, which is all the junior doctors doing the crap shifts, and the more senior ones (i.e. those with families) getting more normal working hours.

BTW I'm in the camp that says we don't need 24/7 uniformity of provision.

Wellthen Fri 01-Apr-16 12:52:20

In fact, we'd end up with what we have at the moment, which is all the junior doctors doing the crap shifts, and the more senior ones (i.e. those with families) getting more normal working hours.

Most doctors won't be consultants until they are at least 32-34. I'd say its fairly common for people to have started a family before that time.

To say that shift work benefits families is ludicrous. I was explaining this to dh just the other day:
Him: we'll save on childcare a few days a month though as i'll be off when you're working.
Me: well no, if we've committed to say, full days mon-wed, you can't just ring up the child-minder and expect your money back for next week. You'd have to give a fair amount of notice.

I agree with a pp upthread - all sift work indirectly discriminates against lone parents. What is offensive if that they're trying to make out its not sexist for other reasons. Nights and weekends are what they are, stop trying to make out you care.

stitch10yearson Fri 01-Apr-16 12:55:23

There are plenty of 'junior doctors' who are 40 . Lots dont make it to consultant, because they work less and dont have time to do the exams to become consultant because they are also trying to be parents. usually women.

Anyways, nice to know the government thinks its 1816

southlondonluxe Fri 01-Apr-16 13:02:54

And the point is that doctors already work antisocial shifts. But now they are forcing them to work more antisocial shifts for less money. Which is a change in the contract they signed up for.
And the way they are adjusting the pay calculations means that any doctor who is working less than full time (typically female parents, but not always) will be paid less per hour for their antisocial shifts than someone of the exact same level doing the exact same job, but working full time.
This is direct, not indirect discrimination!
It wouldn't be acceptable if it were discrimination against e.g a specific religious or ethnic group, so why is it acceptable in this context?
It doesn't matter how young / old you are.

nesquick Fri 01-Apr-16 13:55:05

38, 4 kids, married, still a junior doctor due to training less than fulltime since day 1. We expect to work weekends and nights. BUT Did I read this patronising crap right? The so called advantages of the new contract to mothers is that they can "access cheaper childcare" when working out of hours (Nights / Weekends) MORE often, by relying on family members who are not working because it is not normal working hours.
GOBSMACKED. WHAT ABOUT WORKING FATHERS? SEEING YOUR CHILDREN? IMHO THE WHOLE THING SOUNDS SO SEXIST AND OUT OF DATE.

Whatthefoxgoingon Fri 01-Apr-16 14:11:51

Can doctors get tougher and mount a legal challenge?

Andrewofgg Fri 01-Apr-16 14:59:36

Have I got this right? The NHS is assuming that if I am the OH (of either gender) of a junior doctor (of either gender) with young children I am available to provide "informal" childcare?

Holy shit. When it's six p.m. in London it's 1956 in NHS HQ!

Gobbolinothewitchscat Fri 01-Apr-16 15:16:57

Legally, indirect sex discrimination is justifiable if it a proportionate means of meeting a legitimate aim.

So really the best people to petition would be MPs for a change in the law. Although (I would need to check) but my understanding is that this derives from EU law (imported into sex discrimination act and now equality act) so not quite that simple.

Junior doctors could bring Tribunal claims On the basis that the relevant arrangements are not a proportionate means of meeting a legitimate aim.

What's the BMA stance? Presumably this isn't one of the clauses they have issue with or is it? I would think that any Tribunal challenge would be significantly weakened if the BMA agreed it was lawful

Andrewofgg Fri 01-Apr-16 15:25:11

The BMA has to consider the interests of all its members and may be in a cleft stick.

I don't think anyone is going to do away with the notion of "proportionate means of meeting a legitimate aim" - there are cases where the aim of a practice is legitimate and the means adopted are proportionate and the chips must lie where they fall. Whether this is such a case could only be determined in proceedings by individual doctors who are adversely affected.

Which is not to say the NHS should do it even if it is found to be alwful!

Gobbolinothewitchscat Fri 01-Apr-16 15:34:27

andrew - I absolutely agree

It reminds me of the issues the trade unions had in the 70s and 80s when they negotiated collective agreements that were much more favourable for male employees (of which there were more) - we're still dealing with the equal pay claims now

But - I thought there were more female junior doctors than male. Therefore I'd like to know the BMA stance <off to google>

ridingabike Fri 01-Apr-16 16:43:00

any doctor who is working less than full time (typically female parents, but not always) will be paid less per hour for their antisocial shifts than someone of the exact same level doing the exact same job, but working full time.

I thought it was illegal to discriminate against part-time workers unless there is a very good reason. So it's not even a sex discrimination thing, direct or indirect. What on earth is the government on?

Nottsmove16 Fri 01-Apr-16 18:39:28

Thenlaterwhenitgotdark- I think that although I agree with your point there are some particular reasons why doctors in particular will be harder hit.

1) from the age of 24 til consultant - which may be 36yrs old or more you rotate round hospitals and areas- there may be 3 + times when you apply to a new rotation as well as a few stand alone jobs. This is potentially moving around the country from midlands to eastern deanery etc. When you apply you have no idea where you will be starting or what your rota or salary will be. You just have to accept or decline the job.

For couples you can easily end up in different regions

2) within a deanery you may move every 6m-1yr - again between hospitals which may be 2-3 hrs apart. Notice may be minimal and rotas often don't get released until a few weeks before.

Again even if you go the same region one could be in Lincoln for example and the other in Northampton , or Yeoville and Bristol or Bath etc

It is therefore highly unlikely that couples end up living near family for childcare support.

You can try and live near the centre of a deanery but commutes of 1.5 hrs each way to a job are not uncommon.

With regards to childcare - nurseries are hard as the long hours and unpredictable finish times ( unpaid goodwill at the end of a shift!) make it tricky. Most surgeons start before 8 so a nursery near hospital easiest- but then you have to potentially move kids every 6m.... And unlikely to get a place at short notice ......

And what do you do about later shifts and nights?

Nanny fees are usually unaffordable on a junior doctors salary. Bearing in mind 2 months worth of salary a year may go on fees, exams and courses and research meetings and conferences and travel

3) A huge proportion of doctors marry doctors.

4) There is a monopoly employer for junior doctors. With a few rare exceptions private work isn't possible for junior doctors

I would argue that many single parents étc left with childcare nightmares could chose a different employer/ hours/ job.

The only options left to medics are increasingly going to be to leave medicine.

5) rotas are often on 8 week patterns where different every week making planning childcare harder- esp when you factor in the swaps to allow everyone to take a holiday.

6) junior docs get given a rota with a certain amount of unsociable hours-this is not optional. It usually includes nights and weekends. The pay reflects this. This is not the same as optional overtime.

Sorry for the rant!!!!! All makes me so cross. The contract should never have been imposed and is unsafe, unfair and entirely lacking in evidence. Is just going cause even more rota gaps and an exodus of medics.

Women who have been happy to be breaking even to keep being trained will not want to pay for the privilege of working in an increasingly unsafe and stressful environment. I know if I was a junior doctor I certainly wouldn't!

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now