Yes, I think this is one thing they do want to do and certainly if the SEIU includes disabled people in the training process that would be even better. It would be a step towards treating disabled peoples expertise about their own bodies as a valuable part of the job.
My friend Nancy Becker Kennedy who is a quadriplegic in LA would be an exellent choice. She is in her late forties and has been a quad since she was 19, she knows the ropes.
Marta
Tom Lehman wrote:
> Dear Marta,
>
> My guess is that if the SEIU is smart, they will be negotiating an education and
> training benefit for their home health care workers to make them better home health
> care workers. I would think that they would want to raise the standard of the home
> health care workers up to that at least of practical nurses, and, give them other
> basic education and training opportunities that would make them more well rounded and
> effective in the field.
>
> Your email pal,
>
> Tom L.
>
> Marta Russell wrote:
>
> > Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
> >
> > > Michael Perelman wrote:
> > > >The discussion between Marta and Yoshi indicates that the attendants look
> > > >down upon the disabled while the disabled look down upon the lower class
> > > >attendants. We might have a problem here.
> > >
> > > Indeed. And I am sure that this problem of conflict between those who offer
> > > personal service and those who are served exists even when the work in
> > > question is unpaid one performed by family members (mainly women).
> >
> > The discussion about hiring firing and strikes is really moot. As I mentioned
> > before the SEIU has already agreed with WID on the disabled persons right to hire,
> > fire and the no strike clause.
> >
> > We are in agreement that workers need better wages and health care. No one is
> > arguing that is badly needed for a host of reasons.
> >
> > I think you may be so stuck in ideology that neither of you want to admit that any
> > working person can be short of perfect.
> >
> > What is different in this situation (as opposed to Yoshie's analogy to Michael
> > Perelman's students not having the right to fire him) is that the incompetent or
> > abusive attendant worker puts the LIFE of the disabled person in the mix.
> >
> > Would you say that the attendant that punctured my friend's intestine and did not
> > know that he did so should come back the next day to perform the same duty??? The
> > disabled person does not have 1 day or 3 weeks luxury to wait for a union to sort
> > it out. That is what no one seems to accept in the equation here.
> >
> > We need to get beyond this management/worker equation to what is reasonable. Is it
> > reasonable for a disabled person or any person to allow someone to perform a task
> > which they cannot perform when it can result in such damage? Remember my friend
> > almost died from this event. He had to have emergency surgery and was hospitalized
> > for weeks.
> >
> > I would say that if a person did not dismiss the attendant that punctured his
> > intestine he would be seriously mentally unbalanced. What you don't seem to
> > comprehend is that these tasks are necessary every day. It is not a matter of a
> > class one may teach once or twice a week. It involves a human being's life.
> >
> > Marta
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > >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?
> > >
> > > Personal service has its own special difficulties that other lines of work
> > > that are equally tough mentally or physically do not share. Personal
> > > service for the disabled, the sick, and/or the old is emotionally draining
> > > (1) if you try to do your job well, because in that case you would want to
> > > be sensitive to needs of those who are served and (2) if physical, mental,
> > > or psychological conditions of the disabled, the sick, and/or the old whom
> > > you take care of worsen under your care. Care-giving would be still tough
> > > even if you were taking care of your own kin for free (here I'm remembering
> > > how we had to take care of my maternal grandfather, maternal grandmother,
> > > and paternal grandmother; my maternal grandma suffered from not only cancer
> > > but also Alzheimer's). If you were doing the job for strangers (who suspect
> > > you of stealing something from their homes or of being "flakes" or
> > > whatever) for paltry wages of four or five dollars per hour, you would at
> > > least feel less burdened by the ideology of love, but nonetheless the work
> > > would be really tough, in the same sense that "women's work" of care-giving
> > > has been always tough. (BTW, I didn't use the word unpleasant, though I do
> > > think that _most jobs_ that are available in the world are all unpleasant
> > > in many ways.)
> > >
> > > >Also, why do you think that if people are paid better that they will perform
> > > >better on the job?
> > >
> > > I didn't simply mention better wages. Allow me to quote myself. I wrote:
> > > "Wouldn't disabled persons be able to expect better service if homecare
> > > workers were paid better, trained better, given a light workload, and
> > > regarded as highly skilled workers?" Probably a "light workload" is the
> > > most important thing here from the point of view of those who are being
> > > served. However, higher wages too are very important, both for workers and
> > > the disabled. In fact, I'll even go so far as to say that low wages for
> > > attendants are in part a reflection of the low regard for those who are
> > > served by them--the prejudice against the disabled. (The same for low wages
> > > & lack of respect for teachers in America!)
> > >
> > > >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.
> > >
> > > I know that this problem exists, but wouldn't you think that it is better
> > > workers who will leave the care-giving work when you make it more difficult
> > > to improve their working conditions? Would Michael Perelman continue his
> > > teaching _if his students could fire him on the spot_?
> > >
> > > >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.
> > >
> > > Isn't this easier said than done? How do you increase the minimum wage to a
> > > living wage on the federal level, with the current low level of
> > > unionization? Wouldn't we need a more powerful labor movement than we have
> > > now in order to do that? Isn't the unionization of home care workers a tiny
> > > step in the right direction in this regard?
> > >
> > > >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.
> > >
> > > Well, pregnancy is not a disability that we must live with; nor is it a
> > > sickness that we must be cured of or manage, most of the times. We have
> > > abortions because we _want to_ (or need to). That said, you are right that
> > > in many cases we may be the "best judges of what we need," but if it were
> > > always the case, there would be no need of doctors who make diagnoses,
> > > explain treatment options, etc. We would be able to perform those tasks
> > > without doctors, wouldn't we, if we really knew everything. I think that
> > > you may be making too general a judgment about the relationship among
> > > medicine, medical professionals/workers, and patients, based mainly upon
> > > experiences of the disabled who already are well acquainted with their
> > > bodies, conditions, needs, and options. Not all people who need others'
> > > care, medical or otherwise, fall into this category. Some of us are even
> > > (temporarily or chronically) mentally incapable of staying on top of
> > > everything, due to pain, lack of education, brain damages, retardation,
> > > Alzheimer's, etc.
> > >
> > > Yoshie