Female "Junior Doctor" In UK Complains That Women In Her Position Will No Longer Be Able To Work Part-Time For Full Pay
Of course, the fact that the government sets pay for doctors is part of the problem.
There's an opinion piece in the Independent, headlined with "This junior doctors contract throws women under the bus. You'll be shocked by the detail. It seems single parents - disproportionately women - are considered expendable."
A junior doctor in the UK, Reena Aggarwal, writes that she is "locked in a bitter dispute with the government about the junior contract":
Until now, salaries for female doctors in training have kept pace with men's due to small annual pay awards to prevent part-time doctors - of whom the vast majority are women - earning less than their full-time colleagues over time. The new contract will remove these safeguards widening the gender pay gap in medicine.
A commenter, tomspenc, gets it right:
So what are you suggesting? If women with children want to work part time or not work evenings and weekends that their childless colleagues should pick up the slack?Forgive me but I really don't know how doctors are any different from other professionals who have to work beyond 9-5.
Though I'm a woman, I don't happen to want children. Never have.
What matters to me is my work. My next book turned out to be far harder to research and write than I'd anticipated, and basically, I'm barely leaving the house until September, assuming I can turn it in on time.
Gregg is great -- grocery shops for me, cooks me dinner a few times a week, picks up my mail, and is coming over today to hook up my new modem.
The thing is, all I want to do is write -- my book and my column and do related stuff like my podcasts in between -- and figure out how to have as much time and energy as possible to do that. But for Gregg feeding me and stocking my fridge, I'd probably just eat frozen hamburgers and hot dogs all the time.
Yes, I'm that driven. I will put everything I have into this book and make it the absolute best book I can.
Now, compare me with some woman (or person) who is the sole parent or main caretaker of three kids.
Sure, I have a dog. She's sleeping in my lap as I write this, and when I leave the house, I kiss her and goober over her a little and put out a clean pee pad, in case she has to go. No school to get her to, no getting her dressed every day (she's fine wearing the same purple sweater day after day), and none of the million little things to do that come with having kids.
Should I really be rewarded for the work I'm doing at the same rate as somebody who can only put in maybe half or less of what I do?
due to small annual pay awards to prevent part-time doctors - of whom the vast majority are women - earning less than their full-time colleagues over time.
Why the fuck should someone working fewer hours be paid the same a someone working full time?
lujlp at April 3, 2016 11:03 PM
Exactly.
Also, the sense of entitlement to be paid this is baffling to me.
I wrote in a column I sent out last week that choices in life have trade-offs. How fair is it that you get the benefit in pay of working full-time, yet don't show up full-time?
Amy Alkon at April 4, 2016 5:19 AM
But this is the UK NHS, where facts, logic or economics have no effect. The NHS is a giant engine of sociological and political development, which is used to apply 'progressive' policies which then spread into the rest of the nation - as they must, since the NHS is far-and-away the largest employer in the UK and also a political icon that most of the public unquestioningly revers as some sort of sacred totem. As you may have heard, they also do a bit of poor-quality healthcare on the side.
Expect this young woman and others like her to obtain equal pay for less work - in the name of 'fairness' and 'saving the NHS' - and for that policy to then spread throughout UK employment. Economics, be damned - this is 'fair' and 'right' and will be forced onto the market no-matter-what. And since (in the UK) the State decides which doctors will be employed and which not, expect there to be regulation which compels part-timers to be employed.
llater,
llamas
llamas at April 4, 2016 5:45 AM
Wonder why they don't just set an hourly wage based on hours of experience w/the same benefits.
Or perhaps this is what the lady doctor is complaining about w/o saying it.
Bob in Texas at April 4, 2016 6:37 AM
@Bob - my understanding is that what they are going to do is base pay increases on the number of hours worked, rather than the amount of time that goes by.
So, for instance, a person working full time for one year may get a pay increase based on that, while a person working half time will need to work two years for a pay increase, instead of the current one.
Snoopy at April 4, 2016 9:00 AM
If sh could go into private practice, she could charge whatever people would pay and have as many or as few hours as she wanted.
KateC at April 4, 2016 9:30 AM
Do the children's fathers have any support obligations or child rearing responsibilities?
Wfjag at April 4, 2016 9:44 AM
KateC at April 4, 2016 9:30 AM
> If sh could go into private practice, she could
> charge whatever people would pay and have as many
> or as few hours as she wanted.
Agreed.
As well, in the private sector, I'm not sure that there would be much part-time employment. Typically, overhead in a medical practice is 45 to 60 percent. So, if you're working only half time, you're basically only covering expenses of the practice, and not making any money. Even working 3/4 of the time, you're hardly making anything.
Snoopy at April 4, 2016 10:46 AM
you caaaan't always get...
what you waaaant...
One single crystalline tear.
What the heck is a "junior" doctor anyway?
Also? Are private sector doctors even allowed under the NHS? I thought you couldn'a pay cash.
SwissArmyD at April 4, 2016 1:19 PM
If sh could go into private practice, she could charge whatever people would pay and have as many or as few hours as she wanted.
A very quick reading of private practice in the UK indicates that one has to put in 40 hours for NHS, then after that she's fee to rack up as much private hours as she can stand.
It is said that some specialists in London can double or triple their salary that way.
I R A Darth Aggie at April 4, 2016 2:04 PM
She's still in training, like being a resident in the US. Working for the NHS is a good job with the government, and we all know how fun that is. Not.
KateC at April 4, 2016 3:43 PM
Even if you have children, you're not hands on, at rapt attention for every minute of their waking hours. And the State is supposed to pay for this? You do what people in the USA and even Europe do; take some family leave, then put your children in child care or get a nanny and go back to work. Working people already pay a hefty amount of taxes which are used for child-centric costs, such as schools, child care (in Europe. In the USA there are Head Start programs, but they are only available to the children of the poor.), and special education for developmentally disabled children. Almost all public schools in the USA have free breakfast and lunch programs available to all students so as not to stigmatize the poor children. Parents pay taxes for these, and their children can benefit. But single people also pay. Despite choosing not to have children they nonetheless are paying for them. Much of this can be understood by the reasoning that these children will eventually (hopefully) grow up to become self-supporting taxpaying citizens who will contribute to ensuring the next generation of children will grow up to fill their shoes. But mothers who choose to work part time now want taxpayers to in effect, pay for their choice to stay home with their children. That's a bit much for taxpayers to swallow and it's a particular slap in the face for single taxpayers. And what of fathers who are also junior physicians? Are the mothers campaigning for supplemental pay for them, too? Individual preferences should not be the financial burden for anyone but the individual.
Samm at April 4, 2016 5:58 PM
I see an elephant over there...
How many of you wish to be treated by a doctor with this view of work?
Radwaste at April 4, 2016 7:28 PM
Quite frankly Rad I hope to never be treated by any doctor. But that isn't always my best option.
Ben at April 5, 2016 5:38 AM
Samm,
Not all schools (or even close to all) have free lunches for anyone. The paying students generate income for the schools - or at least cover the costs for the kids who don't.
For that matter, my elementary school didn't even have a lunch program at all. You either brought lunch or went home for lunch.
Our school district - approximately 200 schools - does not provide free lunches for students unless they qualify by income.
Shannon at April 5, 2016 6:15 AM
My personal pet peeve: Women who work part-time are not "staying home" with the kids (they might not even have kids). I have worked full-time, part-time, and have stayed home with the kids. They are three different things. Entirely different.
If somebody works part-time and accomplishes as much as a full-time employee (possible in some jobs, not others), then sure, they can be paid the same. If I could write Amy's book in half the time, the pay would be the same, right? BUT, if somebody doesn't work or gets less done (or works fewer hours where the hours directly correlates with productivity), then no, it's not the same and shouldn't be paid the same.
Shannon at April 5, 2016 6:19 AM
I applied successfully to Cambridge University and qualified as a doctor in 2007. As an Indian woman, I have always been so grateful for the chances offered to me in this country. Would I have had the courage to do what I did in the country of my ancestors? I know growing up in the UK has shown me that despite a gender gap, women still have the chance to rise and smash the glass ceiling.
Fast forward nine years and now as a junior doctor, I am locked in a bitter dispute with the government about the junior contract.
Dunno KateC That doesn't sound like residency, to me.
SwissArmyD at April 5, 2016 12:04 PM
Here is the knowledge gap that women have, relative to a man, by subject :
Language/Literature : 10%
Biology/Chemistry : 30%
Physics/Engineering : 75%
Economics : 90%
Women have a jaw-dropping level of ineptitude in the field of economics. Perhaps it is by design that such an important subject is not taught in K-12, so that a majority of voters remain utterly clueless and easily swayed by tired old political scams...
TTT at April 6, 2016 4:52 PM
TTT: If the American public schools wanted to teach economics, they'd find very few teachers qualified to teach it and willing to work at a unionized job for pay based only on college credits and seniority.
markm at April 7, 2016 8:26 AM
"A very quick reading of private practice in the UK indicates that one has to put in 40 hours for NHS, then after that she's fee to rack up as much private hours as she can stand."
--I R A Darth Aggie
So UK doctors are slaves of the state, but (like some slaves in the antebellum South) are generously allowed to work overtime in a semi-free market.
markm at April 7, 2016 8:30 AM
Leave a comment