One answer is that the wage gap is caused by the historic devaluing of what is traditionally considered to be “feminine” work, such as caregiving, teaching, nursing, clerical work, et cetera. These jobs are compensated at a lower rate than traditionally “masculine” work that requires similar levels of education, skills, and responsibility. Another answer is that gendered social benefits such as maternity leave and parental days can become liabilities rather than assets for workers, as they are are often only partially compensated for them, if at all. On top of that, workers are often penalized for having taken these leaves when it comes to advancement opportunities.

Quebec was the first Canadian province to try to address the gender pay gap directly through legislation, starting in the 1970s. The Pay Equity Act, passed in 1996, mandates that “predominantly female” job classes in the public sector be paid at the same rate as “predominantly male” job classes of the same level of complexity. Since the act was implemented, many feminine job classes such as nurse or clerical administrator have seen major increases to their salaries, and the overall gender wage gap in Quebec has decreased. In 2006, Quebec also introduced paternity leave in an attempt to redistribute the responsibility of childcare and reduce the highly gendered impact of maternity leaves.

While Quebec is leading the way in addressing the pay gap in its most fundamental form – wage disparity between women and men – women workers are being increasingly exploited on a new front: casual work.

Women make up the majority of the casual and part-time workforce. In 2013, women made up 70 per cent of part-time workers in Canada, and that number is increasing. The casualization of the workforce as a whole through the replacement of full-time, permanent positions with precarious, short-term, and often part-time contracts, is one of the major forces driving this trend.

At McGill, these trends have played out in similar ways. The university falls under the umbrella of Quebec’s Pay Equity Act, and has been adjusting the salary scales of “female” job categories since pay equity adjustments became required in 2001. The University has also implemented paternity leave for many of its employees. However, these improvements have been counteracted by McGill’s skyrocketing use of casual labour.

At McGill, casualization has been a primary means of supposedly “tightening the belt” against austerity-fueled budget cuts. Casual workers are cheap workers, and McGill is making a killing off of hiring people, mostly women, to do the same work for sometimes half the pay and none of the benefits that permanent staff receive. Women comprise over 60 per cent of the casual membership at the Association of McGill University Research Employees (AMURE), the research assistants’ and associates’ union. At the Association of McGill University Support Employees (AMUSE), the union that represents casual non-academic staff at McGill, 60 per cent of the part-time membership (including student work-study employees) and 72 per cent of the replacement workers are women.

The predicament of replacement workers is a prime example of the wage gap in action today. Hired to replace permanent staff who are on leave, these workers receive 80 per cent of the starting salary for the position when their contract is for less than six months. Despite working full time, they receive no health and dental benefits, no sick days, and no top-up for maternity leave like the rest of McGill employees. This 80 per cent is eerily similar to the classic 77 per cent wage disparity figure that is so often quoted as a marker of gender discrimination in the workforce. In the case of replacement workers, this discrimination goes further, compounded by the lost value of the benefits they are denied.

McGill’s administration downplays the seriousness of casualization and casual work by suggesting that it is supplying more jobs to students who need ‘gas money’ or disposable income. This erases the reality that many students need to work to live or to support dependents, and cannot do so on barely more than minimum wage. This narrative also ignores the many casual workers who are not students, who see their jobs as an inroad to secure long-term work at the university, and who often take these jobs in order to support their families. Some casual workers at McGill have been at the university for years, moving precariously from contract to contract, hoping (often in vain) that they will luck out and find a permanent position.

In the meantime, the low pay, low hours, lack of job security, and lack of access to the basic benefits enjoyed by other McGill staff (healthcare, parental leave top-ups, raises, vacation, sick days) leaves casual workers trapped in a cycle of stress and precarity that contributes to marginalization and vulnerability in both their personal and professional lives.

This International Women’s Day, we need to recognize that the fight against the casualization of labour is the fight against the gendered wage gap. Support the creation and maintenance of permanent full-time jobs and workers’ benefits. Support the unions in their ongoing collective bargaining. Support the 15 and Fair campaign on campus. Together, we fight to win.

AMUSE Internal Affairs Officer Heather Holdsworth, AMUSE President Molly Swain, and AMUSE Outreach Coordinator Josh Pavan co-wrote this article on behalf of AMUSE. To contact the authors, email pres.amuse@gmail.com.

The post Women bear the brunt of labour casualization appeared first on The McGill Daily.

Currently there is little to no evidence – scientific or otherwise – that suggests that naturopathic or homeopathic treatments are more dangerous than conventional medical treatments, nor is there evidence that doctors of alternative medicine are more likely to commit fatal medical errors.  Actually, the opposite is true: according to the Journal of the American Medical Association, 20 to 30 per cent of mainstream medical patients receive contraindicated care in the United States, and up to 98,000 people die each year due to medical errors that include unnecessary and dangerous surgery, unnecessary medication, and other doctors’ errors. This makes mainstream medical errors one of the leading causes of death in the U.S.

Furthermore, naturopathic doctors are just that: doctors. Comparative studies done on Medical Doctor (M.D.) and Naturopathic Doctor (N.D.) curricula show that naturopathy students at accredited schools throughout North America, including the Canadian College of Naturopathic Medicine, receive comparable biomedical and diagnostic sciences training. Many schools actually requiring that their students take more credits in these areas than other medical schools, as well as extra training in fields of study not covered by mainstream medicine, such as homeopathy, counselling, and clinical nutrition.  Many schools also begin the hands-on clinical training a year or two earlier than their mainstream counterparts. All this is in line with one of the key values of naturopathic and homeopathic medicine: taking a holistic approach to health and wellness.

Conventional medicine is premised on a dichotomy between ‘normal’ and ‘pathological,’ and focuses on the suppression of symptoms in order to return the body to a general and largely vague conception of normal that stems from essentializing conceptions of physical and mental health. Conventional medical discourse has been used to condone coercive, non-consensual medical procedures and experimentation on the bodies of women of colour, poor women, disabled folks, and gender- or sexually-variant folks.

The concept of the ‘normal’ body in medicine (and society as a whole) is one that is inherently white, middle or upper-middle class, heterosexual, able-bodied, ‘sane’ and male.  This idea of normalcy is one that produces and maintains a hierarchy of bodies and health, where deviant bodies and behaviours are pathologized, devalued, and even criminalized, especially if the deviance is not ‘curable’ ie: disability, mental illness, queerness, et cetera. The effects of this are widespread, affecting the accessibility, availability, and quality of treatment, among other things.

Naturopathic medicine, however, takes a holistic approach to illness that recognizes both the uniqueness of individuals’ experiences, bodies, and minds, as well as the interconnected social, environmental, and spiritual elements that affect our bodies and contribute to our health and well being.  This integrated approach means that naturopathic doctors treat the causes, along with the symptoms of disease, using the most natural and non-toxic treatments, as well as working with the patient to educate and devise strategies for long-term, multi-dimensional health.

Am I advocating for the wholesale dismissal of conventional medicine?  Absolutely not, and neither do the vast majority of alternative medical practitioners, including naturopathic and homeopathic doctors. However, it is important to recognize the downsides and limitations of mainstream medical foundations and practice, and to expand our definitions of health and treatment in order to prioritize and value the well-being of all bodies in order to create strong and healthy communities.

Molly Swain is a U2 Joint Honours Women’s Studies and Religious Studies student.  She digs autonomy and self-determination, especially with regard to her physical and mental health.  Molly can be reached at molly.swain@mail.mcgill.ca.

The post In defense of naturopathic medicine appeared first on The McGill Daily.