A proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim
The Tories have imposed a new contract on junior doctors in the NHS, much to their fury. Now there’s been a government “equality analysis” that says the new contract is bad for women but that’s ok because don’t be silly who even needs a because.
The Independent has the details:
Junior doctors are outraged over an equality analysis which appears to condone the new contract having an “indirect adverse impact on women”.
The analysis, published by the Department of Health, reads: “We consider that the payments proposed are fair and that any indirect adverse effect on women is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.”
It also says: “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 evening 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.”
Aka them that’s got shall get, them that’s not shall lose. It will be bad for single mothers, in the way things always are bad for single mothers, because it’s more difficult and more expensive to be a single parent than it is to be a pair, but that’s ok because it will be good for the people for whom it’s already better. Tory social justice in a nutshell. “Look on the bright side: it will make the already prosperous more prosperous!”
Yesterday, the Government published its equality impact assessment of the new junior doctor contract. Until now, female doctors’ salaries have kept pace with men’s because small annual pay awards prevent part-time doctors, of whom the vast majority are women, earning less than their full-time colleagues over time. But the new contract strips these safeguards away.
Now, as doctors progress through their training, we will see ever-widening gender pay gaps in medicine. Incredibly for a government ostensibly so committed to gender equality, the Department of Health hasn’t even tried to hide the discrimination at the heart of its new contract. Instead, it states in its assessment that: “Any adverse effect on women is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate end.”
Aka yes it’s bad for women but it gets us what we want so that’s fine.
A recent study by the statistics agency, Eurostat, found that the UK has the sixth largest pay gap between men and women in the European Union. Our gender pay gap means that, for every pound a man in Britain earns, on average a woman will still only receive 80 pence. That equates to us working for free for 57 days of the year.
When my five-year old daughter grows up she wants to be a doctor like mummy. The government claims to support such aspirations. Nicky Morgan, Minister for Women, pledges “to inspire young women and girls so that they can compete with the best in the world for the top jobs – and see that their hard work will pay off.” Except, that is, when it doesn’t suit Number 10.
And except when it’s actual money as opposed to words in speeches.
But…a woman shouldn’t be unmarried, right? It does seem that it is once again a government trying to favor the married over the unmarried, as well as the women over the men. They admit clearly that it will be easier for married women. This is a clear statement, to me, that being an unmarried woman, especially with kids, makes you not worthy of any type of consideration. You are just a power-hungry, man-hating slut.
Want a better deal? Find a man. Any man.
In my family, a woman who is not married is not entitled to be considered a woman. She will remain a girl forever. If she gets married, then changes her mind (or he changes his) and she gets divorced, she is back to the status of no longer being a grown-up – like some sort of reversion. The idea always, everywhere, is to punish a woman for not doing what men want.
Well, she is more likely to be a doctor than if she were a boy, and if she works the same number of hours she will make at least as much money as her male colleagues. If she chooses to have a child on her own she will find it expensive, but so will she if she buys a Ferrari. Don’t really see what the complaint is about.
I’ve been fuming over this since Mrs Latsot pointed me at it a few days ago. The contract is bad for everyone, doctors and patients alike. But what a fantastic surprise that it’s worse for women. I think this has largely gone unnoticed due to the wider issue of the Government systematically dismantling the NHS.
It’s a familiar tactic, isn’t it? A sort of gish gallop where the deal is so bad nobody quite knows where to begin objecting and the fact that women are once again screwed more than anyone else somehow becomes an item on a long list of objections rather than the central issue it ought to be.