New contract for doctors(12 Posts)
This is a quote from the proposed new contract for doctors in England (who are not yet consultants or GPs)
"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"
Your quote seemed to me to be a very odd thing to come from an employment contract. Therefore, I googled it and found it as point 83 in a document called "Equality Analysis on the new contract for doctors and dentists in training in the NHS" produced by the UK Ministry of Health in March 2016.This seems to explain its opinionated tone, which would have been inappropriate in the actual employment contract.
The analysis document can be found at
But this meant seriously? Like, not the sarcastic voice of a feminist explaining just how much men hate women, but something someone (presumably male) has written thinking it to be a good idea?
Nauseating. Infuriating. Feel like throwing a hairy pulling feet stomping tantrum. We are going backwards.
I came here to see if the new contract was under discussion, as it is discriminatory towards females (as well as the disabled and carers).
It discriminates against those who work less than full time due to having children, by paying them a lower hourly rate than their full time colleagues, and removing automatic pay progression.
It also discriminates against parents by having an increased amount of antisocial hours for reduced pay, but says that women can find informal, free childcare. (Which is not an option for many). It also pays an hourly rate for non-resident on call of £2.80 an hour. Finding childcare to cover this (at weekends/evenings will cost considerably more).
The contract also disproportionately affects the specialities with the highest proportions of women (Obstetrics & gyneacology and Paediatrics).
I'm surprised that not more is being made of this contract as a feminist issue, seeing as even the government's own equality analysis acknowledges it is discriminatory.
If this contract is implemented, the results will be:
1) Fewer women in medicine - a reversal of a previously positive trend of increasing women entering medicine
2) An increased gender pay gap - due to discrimination against women who have been on maternity leave, and who work less than full time
3) Women currently in medicine being forced to choose between being a parent and being a doctor.
4) Women experiencing worse medical care should they become sick - as Obstetrics and Gyneacology will be disproportionately hit, which is already resulting in recruitment problems.
I am surprised not more fuss is being made about this contract as a feminist issue.
The dull thud that you hear while you're reading that is the sound of Roger Alford, Emiritus Reader in Economics resoundingly missing the point.
Is economics quite sexist, I wonder? I rather suspect it might be.
That equality impact statement makes some thumping great assumptions about the availability of free wraparound childcare. What about couples who are both doctors or work unsocial hours/shifts? Or the fact that junior doctors often gave to move around for their training posts, so out of area & away from family or established social networks where that 'free' childcare might be an option? What if your parents are dead, too ill to do free childcare, work themselves or have retired overseas, so there are no grandparents? And din't even get me started on the equal pay thing! I heard on the radio they'd started crowd funding for the legal challenge - I'm feeling inclined towards making a donation. Shitbag Tories!
ROM Good points, but also grandparents may not want to spend their retirement providing free informal childcare, which is their choice.
It is extremely insulting to dock the pay and increase the hours of highly skilled employees in professional jobs, and justify that by saying women can use free informal childcare. I chose to become a mother, and I should be able to pay for formal childcare on my wage.
That too, hibble - grandparents may not want to do regular childcare.
The whole proposal is such a spiteful little piece of oneupmanship. Part of me wonders if its actually a test run for contracting professional, well-organised staff out of the NHS to private providers, to gauge the level of resistance and public support.
I do wonder what their justification is ROM for treating women so appallingly. It seems like both the contract and equality assessment are both as discriminatory and inflammatory as possible.
Outside of junior doctors, where is the outrage that Britain's largest employer is enforcing a contract which openly discriminates against women?
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.