Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:The answer is more partnership between workers and disabled people, but for this to happen, first workers have to accept that disabled people are their equals. They have to realize that a quadriplegic can make choices, a blind person does have intelligence even though they cannot see, etc. You would be, no doubt, greatly surprised to see how many nondisabled people make assumptions about disability. There is a theory about this. It is called the "spread effect of prejudice" which means that when a person has one disability, such as not being able to speak, the nondisabled person tends to assume that the disabled person is also mentally inferior, emotionally immature, etc. and treats them as though they were incompetent.
In response to your post I am curious: Why is taking care of a disabled person "unpleasant" and "tough enough work?" Is it as tough as construction or cleaning city streets for the sanitation dept? Is it tough because it is disgusting to touch an old person? What is it exactly that makes it so tough?
Also, why do you think that if people are paid better that they will perform better on the job? I guess I just don't have any illusions about people. Workers have been unionized in state hospitals, nursing homes, etc. forever and their is tons of abuse that still goes on. Do they take more pride in their job? There is an expose on institutional abuse in the current MOUTH, the voice of disability rights publication which you can get by contacting Mouth at PO Box 558, Topeka, Kansas. Here the former "inmates" talk about rape, beatings, lying in their own feces. The unions haven't solved these matters either. Why not? The workers are not blind, (though a blind person would know when someone is being beaten) they can see what is happening?
I guess that until "healthy" people become ill or old and have to live in one of these hell holes to have some of these experiences you will fail to comprehend the depth of other people's visciousness towards the aged and people with disabilities. It is obvious to me, someone who hears real stories of abuse from many sources, why we need to retain the right to fire someone on the spot. It is simply to stop the abuse. You cannot rely on anyone else to do it.
To answer your question:
> (And why should a strike be a 'public relations disaster' for
> workers, and not the state? A strike can be prevented if the state makes
> concessions.)
>
Yes, it could, but just as easily could not. The press is generally hostile to labor and would be likely to focus on what will happen to the stranded disabled person painting the homecare workers as callous people who don't care about the elderly and disabled. The county could also use that to not do anything, to make the union back off. There is no clear picture that it would come out in the union's favor. I think it would be a huge risk.
The prototype for the SEIU not intefering with the disabled persons right to hire, fire, supervise and train their workers is the San Francisco public authority. The World Institute on Disability was a part of this alliance. The no strike clause is done, it is part of it too.
As for how the union can get pay increases without being able to strike. In LA county alone, they will be collecting roughly $500,000 per month in dues or about $6 million a year. Don't you think they could use some of that money to buy off the board of supervisors? They can do what they have been doing in Sacramento to get the somewhat flawed public authority legislation passed. They can do it just like the corporations do it, if they will spend the money on it.
Another way they can get a pay increase without striking is to insist on raising the minimum wage to a living wage - on the federal level. Then the state will have to pay part of that increase which it will not have to pay if the county elects to raise the wages. Rather than focusing just on homecare workers not haveing health care, the SEIU could use its muscle to get universal health care for everyone.To answer this question too:
> Do you think it is a good idea to empower patients so that they can fire a
> doctor, a nurse, an orderly, etc. on the spot? Maybe you do, but if you
> don't think that's a good idea, why should home care attendants be let go
> on the spot if those who are given their care think fit?
Again, I think "healthy" people have a hard time understanding how much incompetence there is out there in these professions. Yes, I absolutely do think one should be able to fire a doctor (and any other health care person) on the spot, that is one reason why I am against HMOs. I've seen some doctors make some horrible decisions. A friend of mine in NYC had a near death experience when his attendant punctured his colon but no one knew this at the time. Still when my friend got a high fever and terrible pains his doctor told him to wait it out, not to go to the hospital. Finally after hours of unecessary suffering his girlfriend got him to a hospital without the doctor's recommendation where they discovered internal bleeding. He almost died because of this combination of events. WE are the best judges of what we need, not doctors, not nurses, not attendants and WE should be able to make decisions about who does what to our bodies and who does not. It is the same principle that women use regarding abortion. Our bodies, ourselves.
Best,
Marta