You can now find us at:
http://britishwomenarchaeologists.ning.com/profiles/blog/list
The new site has more features, including an online forum.
Hope to see you there!
Tuesday, 1 December 2009
Friday, 20 November 2009
WES survey on Personal Protective Equipment: the chance to have your say on safety gear
The Women's Engineering Society (http://www.wes.org.uk/) have launched a cross-sector survey for women working in science, engineering, technological and construction industries about their experiences of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE). This from the IFA website:
“Anecdotal reports abound of women carrying multiple pairs of socks on site visits to make too-big boots fit and of having to fight flapping jacket sleeves to use a camera” said Jan Peters, president of the Women’s Engineering Society . “We want to find out just how widespread the problems are so that we can team up with manufacturers to produce well-fitting clothing”.
Women in Property (WIP) national chairman, Joanna Embling, comments “Although the TUC have debated whether women should have to wear high heels as part of work dress codes on health and safety grounds, they have not considered the safety issues involved when women are required to use work clothing provided by employers that is simply too big. There is far too much potential for accidents on construction sites through women tripping over their newly acquired size 10 feet. Women are highly qualified professionals who, not unreasonably, want to work under the same conditions as their male counterparts. Where safety clothing is concerned, they are at a distinct disadvantage.”
“This is a serious issue” says Niki Luscombe, CEO of Women and Manual Trades, “Safety clothing should be just that – clothing that helps workers to stay safe on construction sites. Instead, for many women it is something that can make them work less efficiently, and in some cases, actually compromise their safety”.
Women and Manual Trades (WAMT), the Association of Women in Property (WIP) and now the BWA are inviting women to fill in a short survey and contribute their stories.
If a number of archaeologists complete the survey, perhaps our needs will be heard and it could help to make a difference. The survey provides opportunity to list archaeology as your profession (under other - specified), and also to note your British Women Archaeologists membership/affiliation.
Fill in the survey here: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=D1gwLY_2bFZqi8SaaKSbJwDQ_3d_3d
“Anecdotal reports abound of women carrying multiple pairs of socks on site visits to make too-big boots fit and of having to fight flapping jacket sleeves to use a camera” said Jan Peters, president of the Women’s Engineering Society . “We want to find out just how widespread the problems are so that we can team up with manufacturers to produce well-fitting clothing”.
Women in Property (WIP) national chairman, Joanna Embling, comments “Although the TUC have debated whether women should have to wear high heels as part of work dress codes on health and safety grounds, they have not considered the safety issues involved when women are required to use work clothing provided by employers that is simply too big. There is far too much potential for accidents on construction sites through women tripping over their newly acquired size 10 feet. Women are highly qualified professionals who, not unreasonably, want to work under the same conditions as their male counterparts. Where safety clothing is concerned, they are at a distinct disadvantage.”
“This is a serious issue” says Niki Luscombe, CEO of Women and Manual Trades, “Safety clothing should be just that – clothing that helps workers to stay safe on construction sites. Instead, for many women it is something that can make them work less efficiently, and in some cases, actually compromise their safety”.
Women and Manual Trades (WAMT), the Association of Women in Property (WIP) and now the BWA are inviting women to fill in a short survey and contribute their stories.
If a number of archaeologists complete the survey, perhaps our needs will be heard and it could help to make a difference. The survey provides opportunity to list archaeology as your profession (under other - specified), and also to note your British Women Archaeologists membership/affiliation.
Fill in the survey here: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=D1gwLY_2bFZqi8SaaKSbJwDQ_3d_3d
Tuesday, 10 November 2009
Male doctors earn £15,000 a year more than women, study reveals (Guardian 10/11/09)
The BMA's report is the first to investigate differences in doctors' salaries.
Female doctors working in the NHS are paid thousands of pounds a year less than their male colleagues as a result of widespread discrimination and a "hostile culture" at work, a study reveals.
There is an average salary gap of £15,245 between men and women among the UK's 135,000 medics, according to a report by the British Medical Association. After excluding differences owing to age, experience and area of specialism, the study found that female consultants typically earn £5,500 less than their male peers and female junior doctors' pay is around £2,000 below that of their male counterparts. The research, to be published on Friday, is the first to investigate differences in doctors' salaries.
"Our results show that men and women with identical experience and expertise are paid differently – which suggests evidence of discrimination," concludes the report, which has been funded by the BMA, the Higher Education Funding Council for England, Imperial College London and the Medical Women's Federation.
The study examined the pay of 1,015 doctors working for the NHS, in medical research at academic institutions, and for organisations such as private healthcare providers. While part of the pay gap is due to age and experience, between 40% and 50% of the difference is caused by discrimination, the study found.
One of the report's authors, Dr Anita Holdcroft, emeritus professor of anaesthesia at Imperial, accused male NHS managers of taking advantage of the poor negotiating power of women. Referring to what the report describes as a "hostile culture", she gave the example of women with children who have limited room to manoeuvre because managers know they are unlikely to uproot their family and move elsewhere. By contrast, men can win pay rises by threatening to leave.
"The man will often recognise the weakness of the woman's negotiating position because she has children and so can't move," she said. "Discrimination is the only way that we can explain the gender pay gap."
Among Britain's 40,521 consultants, men on average earn £13,729 more than similarly successful female colleagues. That pay gap worsens the longer a female consultant has worked. Although more female than male consultants earn between £62,500 and £95,000, more men than women have salaries between £110,000 and £190,000.
While women are less likely to hold high-level positions or be as involved in professional organisations, this explains only about 59% of the gap. "The remainder is due to differences in treatment for the same characteristics," the report says.
Dr Helen Goodyear, a consultant paediatrician at Heartlands hospital in Birmingham and president of the Medical Women's Federation, said: "It's endemic in the NHS – women not being paid the same as similarly experienced, similarly talented male counterparts."
The authors say their findings, coupled with the gender equality duty introduced in 2007, should prompt bodies that employ doctors to undertake salary reviews or more wide-ranging pay audits.
NHS Employers, which employs the NHS's 1.4m staff in England, said gender pay gaps were an important issue, but declined to comment on the report. The Department of Health said male and female doctors should be paid equally.
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News and Media Limited 2009
Female doctors working in the NHS are paid thousands of pounds a year less than their male colleagues as a result of widespread discrimination and a "hostile culture" at work, a study reveals.
There is an average salary gap of £15,245 between men and women among the UK's 135,000 medics, according to a report by the British Medical Association. After excluding differences owing to age, experience and area of specialism, the study found that female consultants typically earn £5,500 less than their male peers and female junior doctors' pay is around £2,000 below that of their male counterparts. The research, to be published on Friday, is the first to investigate differences in doctors' salaries.
"Our results show that men and women with identical experience and expertise are paid differently – which suggests evidence of discrimination," concludes the report, which has been funded by the BMA, the Higher Education Funding Council for England, Imperial College London and the Medical Women's Federation.
The study examined the pay of 1,015 doctors working for the NHS, in medical research at academic institutions, and for organisations such as private healthcare providers. While part of the pay gap is due to age and experience, between 40% and 50% of the difference is caused by discrimination, the study found.
One of the report's authors, Dr Anita Holdcroft, emeritus professor of anaesthesia at Imperial, accused male NHS managers of taking advantage of the poor negotiating power of women. Referring to what the report describes as a "hostile culture", she gave the example of women with children who have limited room to manoeuvre because managers know they are unlikely to uproot their family and move elsewhere. By contrast, men can win pay rises by threatening to leave.
"The man will often recognise the weakness of the woman's negotiating position because she has children and so can't move," she said. "Discrimination is the only way that we can explain the gender pay gap."
Among Britain's 40,521 consultants, men on average earn £13,729 more than similarly successful female colleagues. That pay gap worsens the longer a female consultant has worked. Although more female than male consultants earn between £62,500 and £95,000, more men than women have salaries between £110,000 and £190,000.
While women are less likely to hold high-level positions or be as involved in professional organisations, this explains only about 59% of the gap. "The remainder is due to differences in treatment for the same characteristics," the report says.
Dr Helen Goodyear, a consultant paediatrician at Heartlands hospital in Birmingham and president of the Medical Women's Federation, said: "It's endemic in the NHS – women not being paid the same as similarly experienced, similarly talented male counterparts."
The authors say their findings, coupled with the gender equality duty introduced in 2007, should prompt bodies that employ doctors to undertake salary reviews or more wide-ranging pay audits.
NHS Employers, which employs the NHS's 1.4m staff in England, said gender pay gaps were an important issue, but declined to comment on the report. The Department of Health said male and female doctors should be paid equally.
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News and Media Limited 2009
Wednesday, 4 November 2009
Who needs childcare?
Labour plans to scrap the childcare voucher scheme from 2011 replacing it with 10 free days of childcare for 2 year-olds (great if your child is 2, and you only work 10 days of the year..)
With typical childcare costs at £38/day (£760 pcm), this scheme really enabled working mums the opportunity to go back to work:
I am horrified at this prospect. It took me all the will power in the world to return to work, when so many others around me haven't. The childcare vouchers have made a serious impact on my decision.
I work full time, as well as my husband. If we loose this benefit - then we would have to consider again.
This is terrible news and is another way to push us in to giving up work all together!
Sally Doe
More comments re. impact on working families: http://www.computersharevoucherservices.com/save-childcare-vouchers/Pages/parents.aspx
Sign the 69k-strong petition here: http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/keepvouchers/
Campaign materials for your uni/workplace: http://www.computersharevoucherservices.com/save-childcare-vouchers/Pages/order-campaign-posters.aspx
With typical childcare costs at £38/day (£760 pcm), this scheme really enabled working mums the opportunity to go back to work:
I am horrified at this prospect. It took me all the will power in the world to return to work, when so many others around me haven't. The childcare vouchers have made a serious impact on my decision.
I work full time, as well as my husband. If we loose this benefit - then we would have to consider again.
This is terrible news and is another way to push us in to giving up work all together!
Sally Doe
More comments re. impact on working families: http://www.computersharevoucherservices.com/save-childcare-vouchers/Pages/parents.aspx
Sign the 69k-strong petition here: http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/keepvouchers/
Campaign materials for your uni/workplace: http://www.computersharevoucherservices.com/save-childcare-vouchers/Pages/order-campaign-posters.aspx
Tuesday, 13 October 2009
30th October is Equal Pay Day
Nearly 40 years since the Equal Pay Act of 1970, women working full-time across the UK still earn on average 17% less an hour than men working full-time.
30th October is effectively the day that British women receive their last payslip of the year, because the 17.1% full-time pay gap is equivalent to men being paid all year round, while women work for free after 30th October..
Get involved! Get equality!
http://www.fawcettsociety.org.uk/index.asp?PageID=23
30th October is effectively the day that British women receive their last payslip of the year, because the 17.1% full-time pay gap is equivalent to men being paid all year round, while women work for free after 30th October..
Get involved! Get equality!
http://www.fawcettsociety.org.uk/index.asp?PageID=23
Government response re. Ofsted's threat to prosecute women indulging in reciprocal childcare (following a 20,000 signature petition):
The Childcare Act 2006 requires anyone providing ‘childcare for reward’ to register with Ofsted, with the aim of ensuring every child in a commercial childcare service is safe and well cared for. Parents would expect no less. However, our intention has always been that friends and families caring for children through informal arrangements should be exempt from having to register and we believed that was what always happened. In the light of this recent case we are talking to Ofsted about how we can make sure there’s a shared understanding with Ofsted, and with parents, of what the law means and how it should interpreted.
Since 1997 we have invested £25bn in childcare and early years services, doubling the number of childcare places available for children under 8 to support working families and providing more support than ever before with childcare costs, with over £3.8 million a day going directly into parents hands to help pay for childcare through tax credits.
Since 1997 we have invested £25bn in childcare and early years services, doubling the number of childcare places available for children under 8 to support working families and providing more support than ever before with childcare costs, with over £3.8 million a day going directly into parents hands to help pay for childcare through tax credits.
Wednesday, 30 September 2009
BBC news: Review of babysitting ban ordered
England's Children's Minister wants a review of the case of two police officers told they were breaking the law, caring for each other's children.
Ofsted said the arrangement contravened the Childcare Act because it lasted for longer than two hours a day, and constituted receiving "a reward". It said the women would have to be registered as childminders.
Minister Vernon Coaker said his department was talking to Ofsted about this particular case. The two detective constables, Leanne Shepherd, from Milton Keynes, and Lucy Jarrett, from Buckingham, told the BBC how Ofsted insisted they end their arrangement.
'Shocked'
Ms Shepherd, who serves with Thames Valley Police, recalled: "A lady came to the front door and she identified herself as being from Ofsted. She said a complaint had been made that I was illegally childminding. "I was just shocked - I thought they were a bit confused about the arrangement between us. So I invited her in and told her situation - the arrangement between Lucy and I - and I was shocked when she told me I was breaking the law. Reward is not just a case of money changing hands. The supply of services or goods and, in some circumstances, reciprocal arrangements can also constitute reward”.
Ms Jarrett added: "Our children were never in any harm, they were never in any danger. To think that they would waste their time and effort on innocent people who are trying to provide for their families by returning to the workplace... Surely their time and effort would be better placed elsewhere."
Thames Valley Police Federation, which represents rank-and-file officers, said the pair had its "full support". Secretary Andy Viney said: "Both of them are experienced professional officers. "They just want to return to work after having children and have found that the system is working totally against them. "They've been threatened with prosecution by Ofsted if they continue doing this."
An Ofsted spokesman said it applied regulations found in the Childcare Act 2006, but was currently discussing the interpretation of the word "reward" with the department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF). "Reward is not just a case of money changing hands. The supply of services or goods and, in some circumstances, reciprocal arrangements can also constitute reward. Generally, mothers who look after each other's children are not providing childminding for which registration is required, as exemptions apply to them, for example because the care is for less than two hours or it takes place on less than 14 days in a year. Where such arrangements are regular and for longer periods, then registration is usually required. Close relatives of children, such as grandparents, siblings, aunts or uncles, were exempt from the rules" he added.
Ofsted only operates in England, so this interpretation of the law on child care for "reward" applies to England rather than elsewhere in the UK.
Michelle Elliott, director of the children's charity Kidscape, told the BBC's Breakfast programme that the decision defied common sense and would impose extra childcare costs on families. She added: "These children were looked after in a secure environment with people that they knew. There must be thousands of people out there who are doing the same thing who are now going to think: 'Do I have to spend £300 a week or whatever it is?'" HAVE YOUR SAY This case highlights a total disconnect between the lawmakers of this country and what is custom and practice nationwide David Campbell, Cheshire
Minister for Children, Schools and Families Vernon Coaker insisted the Childcare Act 2006 was in place "to ensure the safety and wellbeing of all children" but the government needed to make sure it did not "penalise hard-working families". "My department is speaking to Ofsted about the interpretation of the word 'reward' in this particular case," he said.
A petition to scrap the rules governing reciprocal child care on the Number 10 website had gathered more than 5,300 signatures by 0530 BST on Monday.
Anyone required to register to become a childminder would also have to undergo a criminal records check.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/uk/8277378.stm
Published: 2009/09/28 06:32:06 GMT
© BBC MMIX
Sign the 15,000-strong petition here:
http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/reciprocalcc/
Ofsted said the arrangement contravened the Childcare Act because it lasted for longer than two hours a day, and constituted receiving "a reward". It said the women would have to be registered as childminders.
Minister Vernon Coaker said his department was talking to Ofsted about this particular case. The two detective constables, Leanne Shepherd, from Milton Keynes, and Lucy Jarrett, from Buckingham, told the BBC how Ofsted insisted they end their arrangement.
'Shocked'
Ms Shepherd, who serves with Thames Valley Police, recalled: "A lady came to the front door and she identified herself as being from Ofsted. She said a complaint had been made that I was illegally childminding. "I was just shocked - I thought they were a bit confused about the arrangement between us. So I invited her in and told her situation - the arrangement between Lucy and I - and I was shocked when she told me I was breaking the law. Reward is not just a case of money changing hands. The supply of services or goods and, in some circumstances, reciprocal arrangements can also constitute reward”.
Ms Jarrett added: "Our children were never in any harm, they were never in any danger. To think that they would waste their time and effort on innocent people who are trying to provide for their families by returning to the workplace... Surely their time and effort would be better placed elsewhere."
Thames Valley Police Federation, which represents rank-and-file officers, said the pair had its "full support". Secretary Andy Viney said: "Both of them are experienced professional officers. "They just want to return to work after having children and have found that the system is working totally against them. "They've been threatened with prosecution by Ofsted if they continue doing this."
An Ofsted spokesman said it applied regulations found in the Childcare Act 2006, but was currently discussing the interpretation of the word "reward" with the department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF). "Reward is not just a case of money changing hands. The supply of services or goods and, in some circumstances, reciprocal arrangements can also constitute reward. Generally, mothers who look after each other's children are not providing childminding for which registration is required, as exemptions apply to them, for example because the care is for less than two hours or it takes place on less than 14 days in a year. Where such arrangements are regular and for longer periods, then registration is usually required. Close relatives of children, such as grandparents, siblings, aunts or uncles, were exempt from the rules" he added.
Ofsted only operates in England, so this interpretation of the law on child care for "reward" applies to England rather than elsewhere in the UK.
Michelle Elliott, director of the children's charity Kidscape, told the BBC's Breakfast programme that the decision defied common sense and would impose extra childcare costs on families. She added: "These children were looked after in a secure environment with people that they knew. There must be thousands of people out there who are doing the same thing who are now going to think: 'Do I have to spend £300 a week or whatever it is?'" HAVE YOUR SAY This case highlights a total disconnect between the lawmakers of this country and what is custom and practice nationwide David Campbell, Cheshire
Minister for Children, Schools and Families Vernon Coaker insisted the Childcare Act 2006 was in place "to ensure the safety and wellbeing of all children" but the government needed to make sure it did not "penalise hard-working families". "My department is speaking to Ofsted about the interpretation of the word 'reward' in this particular case," he said.
A petition to scrap the rules governing reciprocal child care on the Number 10 website had gathered more than 5,300 signatures by 0530 BST on Monday.
Anyone required to register to become a childminder would also have to undergo a criminal records check.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/uk/8277378.stm
Published: 2009/09/28 06:32:06 GMT
© BBC MMIX
Sign the 15,000-strong petition here:
http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/reciprocalcc/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
