Yesterday I was forwarded an email from Kory Earle, President of People First of Ontario, responding to article(s) by Jordy Cummings. One of these was in a labour publication by "The Socialist Project" called "The Bullet" (November 23, 2010).
Kory, whose thoughts and character I quite admire, had this to say in his email (in his own writing):
"Well I have never been called ''unehical'' I will not stand up to pretest to get rid of scabs, This is what the unions want, What will happen to the people in homes if we had no replacement workers? This then become a safety issue! ...It's time for the Government of Ontario to stand up and take action, People with disabilities deserve better in this province. I am committed to standing up with People First and saying NO TO PICKING IN FRONT OF PEOPLE'S HOMES!
Now, this caused me to go to the source of his concern and read the article(s). I say this in plural because the article is at least in two places - The Bulletin of The Socialist Project - as cited above; also published earlier (November 15, 2010) in
Austerity and disability: Opposing Bill 83
| NOVEMBER 15, 2010
As I understand him to say, Jordy takes issue with the pending legislation (Bill 83) which would "outlaw" the picketing of group homes. It seems Mr. Cummings states the case relatively clearly in his opening paragraphs.
At that point, though, Mr. Cummings steps into it:
"On the face of it, this may seem to some people like a no-brainer. What kind of privileged goon, the bill seems to imply, would make disabled people feel unsafe? Indeed, even progressive rabble columnist John Bonnar wrote uncritically about this bill's passage, taking self-appointed representatives of the disabled at their words, even when these folks are connected with the management."
First of all, Mr. Cummings refers to some unidentified representatives as "self-appointed", and claims that they are connected with "the management". It seems, from reading John Bonnar's article, that Mr. Cummings is probably referring to representatives of Community Living Ontario (Kimberly Gavan) and The Council (Melissa Abrams), a consumer advisory body to Community Living Ontario, as if they were "management". Come on, Jordy, these folks do not run the group homes you refer to, and if you think they represent "management" then you must also feel that CUPE and OPSEU, and the other unions who represent workers in developmental services, are also "management". Not all authorities are management, Mr. Cummings. Your intolerance is showing.
Kory Earle comes across very well in being precise about what he supports and what he does not.
"Earle made it clear that he and his colleagues at Thursday’s press conference believe in the right to strike...“What we don’t believe in is the picketing in front of people’s homes,” he said. “No one should have to live like this. Having port-a-potties on their front lawn or picketers yelling and screaming on their front lawn at any time of the day or night.”
This shameful kind of behaviour that actually happened, and is not an exaggeration for political gain or to grab the media spotlight, is exactly why there is now a bill aimed at shutting down picketing in front of people's homes. Shame on unions for trading off respect for people, one of labour's most important and support-worthy principles, by elevating self-interest (worker rights, entitlements and means to address workplace inequities) over the rights of vulnerable people who trust in, and depend upon, these workers, sometimes, for their very life, and certainly most times, for the ultimate quality of their home life and security.
This was a VERY BAD CHOICE, to picket in front of group homes, and to harass "scabs" there (replacement workers) in the attempt to make one's case against underfunding, poor treatment by management of workers, or whatever other grievances there might be between organized labour and developmental services' management.
As a former member of both bargaining unit and management sides of the table, I cannot for the life of me understand what possessed union representatives to give this direction to workers. What was once a relatively sympathetic view of such workers is easily turned against them by such actions. Not a good way to curry support for one's position. And it makes management, as well as the major funders, look positively heroic as well. Not what unions typically aim for, I would say.
Mr. Cummings states: "What must be kept in mind is that any legislation that impacts the right of workers to take the type of actions that they see fit, chips away at the rights of all workers, unionized and non-unionized, not to mention the rights of the disabled to receive top-quality services from well-trained, non-scab workers." and later, " Let it be stated clearly, the capitalist state has no legitimacy to make demands upon how the working class struggles, period".
This might have worked in the industrial age where the products of workers' labour were inanimate objects. It is scary that these same impassioned workers, who might be caring for me and you in hospital, nursing home or some other support program some day, may use us as cannon fodder in their war against management.
Look, Mr. Cumming, I would be happy to talk with you about a new model for ensuring that those who care for human beings are not disadvantaged by having their rights balanced (and thereby, perhaps, restricted) with the need for dignified, and respectful, care of those who are the objects of those workers' labour.
I have more sympathy for Mr. Cummings' argument when he asks: "What is a bigger threat, indeed to the well being of those with disabilities -- a couple of isolated picketline actions that can be dealt with under existing laws? Or having those with disabilities cared for by underpaid and less-skilled scab workers, part of the growing reserve army of labour who are willing to take on such jobs in a time of capitalist crisis and a new round of austerity measures."
However this is one of those "rhetorical" arguments: the choices are not actually restricted to only his two options, and in fact, picketline actions were neither only a "couple" nor were they dealt with under existing laws. But I have to agree with him that we wouldn't want people with disabilities "cared for by underpaid and less-skilled scab workers..." The unfortunate fact, however, is that SOMEBODY has to care for people who need support for their health, in some cases their very lives, and certainly, in large measure, their well-being. It is questionable to me why would allow such workers to have the right to strike. I have always seen such workers as "essential services". Binding arbitration might be preferable to having the right to strike.
Mr. Cummings goes on to say: "Let's get a few things straight -- most home care workers work just above the poverty line, and by all accounts are some of the hardest working and dedicated people one could possibly know. These aren't fat-cats on Rob Ford's gravy train. These are people who want to help other human beings, but also want to ensure that in doing so, they have some job security, a living wage and safe work conditions".
So far, I'm with him on that. It certainly does seem the case that those working with insurance papers, money lending, automobile parts manufacturing, and absolutely, those working in the oil and energy sectors, even those who work with wood, stone, brick and steel, do better, on the whole, than those who are looking after those whose lives and well-being are the product of their work.
I will support Mr. Cummings' exhortation against labour in the developmental services sector being taken advantage of by privileged classes, and a hostage media, and a neo-conservative agenda of "survival of the fittest" or similar trend such as removing the state's responsibility for vulnerable citizens, whether they be people with disabilities, seniors, or people who through no fault of their own have been marginalized by bigotry, stereotype or discrimination of any kind. We'll just have to find another way - not by giving meat-headed, angry and self-absorbed strikers free reign to make public spectacles at the expense of people whose homes they are trespassing against and whose lives they are holding hostage in order to promote attention to their various grievances. While this does not mean all strikers will act, or have acted this way, we have already seen that just a few with the so-called "right" to do so, ruin it for everybody.
Mostly, though, I go with Kory on this one. I support workers' finding all available means to exert their right to be treated fairly. It pains me that we should even have to exert this right - such should be protected and extended by our Society as a fundamental responsibility of those who have enough to get by on. Good luck waiting for that one. I will NOT support any worker's tactics which trods on the rights, well-being and sensibilities of vulnerable people in their care, no matter what is being sought. The end does NOT justify the means.
Image via Wikipedia
Image via Wikipedia
Image via Wikipedia
