Tonight, many people in countries around the world marked 'Earth Hour' by turning off all lights and unnecessary appliances for a period of one hour, between 8:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. Earth Hour was written about and debated in our local paper, as well as discussed on the news and on Face Book. Tonight, just before 8:00 p.m., I instructed my son to turn off this computer and all lights in the house. We all sat in the dark, mulling about trying to make next year 'car-free week'. We might as well, as most homes on our street continued to burn brightly, as though it were any other Saturday night.
In cities like Toronto and Ottawa, they had places for people to go and ways for people to get there. In Ottawa, there was a count-down clock at Parliament Hill and once it hit to "zero", all the unnecessary lights at Parliament Hill, city skyscrapers and other lights in the business district were shut off or dimmed down. In Toronto, a group of musicians entertained crowds in Nathan Phillips Square. In Niagara Region, it was business as usual. People driving their SUV's to the corner store, huffing and puffing away at their smokes and all lights a blazing. It is not that I cared much for this either, but if I can make a contribution I would. However, I live in a Region that does not understand the moral imperative, not only where it deals with environmental issues, but just about any other issue that hit it in its face over the past few decades. Change to Niagara is a tortuous avenue that often must involve lawsuits, public embarrassment of politicians and philanthropists speaking in favour of change.
I say this because when Ontario handed down its 2008 budget, the director of our food bank, who is also the Chairperson of Niagara Health Health System, on the executive of the Rotary Club and other places where people go to make change, says it was "wonderful" there is a 2% raise for social assistance. Obviously, she did not speak to those who are receiving social assistance before making this statement. Neither did another community leader, who thought it was somehow beneficial to low-income people for the province to take back some of the social assistance expenditures, such as drug benefits and ODSP payments. Okay, I would invite BOTH of the these people to live for a year on the amount that social assistance provides, while trying to maintain their current housing, automobile costs, entertainment expenses, annual vacation and everything else they probably take for granted. It is ONLY at this point will such people, innovative leaders or not, will understand why such statements may irk people like me, as well as thousands of other real advocates for the poor.
When I grew up, I learned about a philosopher by the name of John Rawls and how the term 'justice' was to be understood. If I was to be in a position to make the rules, it was my 'moral imperative' to make the rules in such a way that regardless of whether I was the ruler or the ruled, I would feel the impact equally. This would be the underlying assumption that when I made the rules, I would not have any say or control as to where I would be after these rules were made. I could be the biggest millionaire in the region or living on the streets. When I make the rules, I have to keep that in mind, especially if I continued to hold selfish or mindless ambition. I would not know whether at the end of the day I would be black, Muslim, Jewish or Christian, or if I would be rich or poor, or if I would be fully athletic and able-bodied or disabled in any way. I would make the rules regardless so I would ensure my best interests in whatever situation I end up in.
Unfortunately, the Moral Imperative does not impact on the way the leaders of today govern our affairs. The leaders of today generally do not have a clue about how much things actually cost and how certain policies they pass may make things even costlier. When Dalton McGuinty was campaigning for the first election that he won in 2003, he promised to maintain the cap in pricing of electricity if he should come into power. This cap was put on by Ernie Eves after his government under the leadership of Mike Harris moved to privatize the supply and generation of electricity in the province and as a result, hydro rates went through the roof ... middle class people complained. However, after the election, McGuinty decided to lift the cap on energy prices and tell people to pay what the market will bear. Oh, this last budget by the way will lift the PST off all Energy Star appliances and retrofitting in one's home. Again, the moral imperative here was to "encourage" Ontarians to conserve; however, the result was that low-income families could not afford Energy Star appliances, proper insulation and thermal windows in their homes and in many circumstances, low-income families heat their homes with electricity. A Moral Imperative of conservation can only be accompanied by financial assistance to low-income families, whether they be tenants or homeowners, to assist them in reducing their energy output. But this won't happen, apparently, because Dalton McGuinty and his government won't believe anybody will freeze in the dark.
Another Moral Imperative that I particularly note here in Niagara Region is that our leaders and employers assess the workforce only on the basis that one would assess an able-bodied, middle-class population; in many cases, their preferred employee would also be young, e.g. under forty and with no children. Almost all jobs in the Region that pay anything above minimum wage also ask candidates to have their own driver's license and vehicle. I actually took the time to speak to two employees of three randomly selected companies that did work as stated in the job advertisement. No, they did not regularly transport clients from one place to another. No, they did not frequently have to attend meetings at places located outside of a bus route. One of them remembered only one occasion where she had to drive from Welland to Niagara Falls for a conference. Yet, in all three of these places of employment, new candidates were told they had to have a vehicle and driver's license. Our Region is chock full of people and leaders that believe those that do not drive are less reliable employees or there is "something wrong with them". They will never say this, but this is the big yellow sign that pops up in my head whenever I see their job ads. They do not govern as they would like to be governed regardless of the circumstances they will find themselves in, because -- as all too many well-to-do people believe -- they will always be advantaged, so they do not have to consider those who may not have had all the advantages, such as good health, family and money, that they have.
The Moral Imperative as designed by Rawls tries to get people to consider the impact of their work on others ... it tries to get people to think about how they would feel if a similar policy were to affect THEM if they were in less fortunate circumstances. For example, if you were of the middle class and currently eat healthy and have access to a gym membership, for example, would you want to be someday placed in a situation where you had no money, poor health and no safe place to be physically active, to be told to get your needs filled at a food bank - particularly as we know, the food from food banks is often substantially out of date, high in processed carbohydrates and low in nutritional value. If this would not be good for you in any circumstances, why is it good enough for "those people" - particularly given the charitable model of never giving help to address the systemic circumstances that put them there in the first place ... just keep doling out low quality processed foods. It is not unheard of to find canned food that is 10 to 15 YEARS out of date. Would YOU eat it? If not, why do you expect somebody else to eat it?
To me, I am against the charitable model as it currently stands, as it does not address systemic circumstances and in many cases, even denies there are systemic circumstances. In many cases, because of high pay and prestige that some of these jobs offer, there is little or no incentive to put one's agency out of business. If the government, for example, provided enough income so that people no longer had to rely on the "generosity" of the public, those prestigious, good-paying jobs would disappear and in many cases, the people in these jobs would have to move on. Most are not experienced or capable of working in the private sector, so they will likely have to find some other cushy public sector position. One would never see a former politician or even a food bank director working for $10/hour at a call centre, ever ... this is part of the elite that keeps the real elite in force and keeps the government from HAVING to act on urgent social problems. The Moral Imperative does not apply to these people because there will always be "family and friends" around to ensure they have another position that is equally or more prestigious.
I don't give to food banks. Even when I had money, I never did either. It is because I don't believe in them. There are countries in this world that have an advanced social safety network that has resulted in little or no need for food banks. They also have among the strongest economies of the world. However, in our country that always wanted to pat itself on the back for its so-called respect for human rights (while people like Brenda Martin continue to while away in foreign prisons without any help or recognition of their human rights), social programs (while more and more individuals and families are living on the street or relying on stop-gap measures like food banks), and health care (while spending less on real health care and more on administrative positions -- we see more and more health care workers on the Sunshine List of people earning over $100,000 a year each year). Yet we are collecting billions of dollars from Ontarians by way of the "health tax" which no doubt goes to a lot of things aside from health care, while delisting numerous services, e.g. making less services available to those that cannot afford to pay out-of-pocket and have no supplementary insurance.
If you asked a seasoned politician how much an average one-bedroom apartment costs in this region (or any region), they wouldn't know, yet they believe that people can house, feed, clothe and transport themselves on less than $1,000 a month for disabled and less than $600 a month for so-called able-bodied. They recently made an outpour of money supposedly for children in low-income families, yet anybody who examined the Ontario Child Benefit carefully knows that the $2.1 billion assigned to this program last year is coming directly out of the pockets of parents on social assistance or O.D.S.P. They will be getting a cut in the amount of money they receive, supposedly to get it back through the Ontario Child Benefit program. Again, this is failure to follow the Moral Imperative. This was done under the false assumption that families on Ontario Works and O.D.S.P. had money to "give" for this program, when even under current rates, most cannot afford to house, feed, clothe and transport themselves, let alone pay work-related expenses. To add insult to injury, this recent budget added an initiative to assist low-income people in saving their money. Again, this shows the blindfolds these people have chosen to wear and not take off ... I am not aware of too many families on Ontario Works, O.D.S.P., or even among the working poor that have a penny to put into any kind of saving accounts. Most are using over-draft, borrowing money from Pete to pay Paul, and next month, borrowing money from Paul to pay Pete ... or simply going without. To the government of this day, they say it is shameful if a child goes to school with an empty stomach, yet they do not recognize that forcing parents to constantly sacrifice their own nutrition is not going to get them any healthier or any further prepared for the workforce. Since the special diet cuts, I have noted a large number of our clients developing new diseases or complications of old ones, and have trouble understanding where anybody is saving any money. How come right-wing groups like the Taxpayers Federation are not down the throats of this government for deliberately incurring policies that will force more people to be sick ... It's too bad, so sad, government, but the people you are trying to starve don't die off fast enough to save any money ... they become sick, often very sick ... and end up costing way more money than if the government did what was right in the first place and ensuring each family had enough to live on in the first place!
So, let's go back to this modern day latte version of the Moral Imperative of Earth Hour. I'll bet any dollar that less than 5% of Niagarans even participated. Even among those who participated, how many of them just shut their lights off, left their homes and drove around spewing more greenhouse gases as they went? When one mentions the issue of not being able to find work because of no car, most Niagarans have no trouble spouting that it is acceptable for "those people" to work at all the shit jobs that will never pay enough to get one out of the poverty cycle, the leftover jobs, the crumbs ... the jobs that NONE of these people will EVER take. Why? Because they don't have to. The Moral Imperative doesn't apply to them. They can pollute the Earth, over-consume, use excess energy (because they can afford it so there really is nobody stopping them) and they don't have to give two shits about anybody but themselves. But don't forget ... they feel they did their share. They delivered those old canned foods they had sitting around in their cupboard for five years to the food bank, so that "those people" can supposedly eat.
I am not a religious or even a spiritual person, but I am a moral and ethical individual. It is time that we all look at ourselves and see how much our actions or inactions affect others. Throwing those batteries in the garbage is going to result in toxic waste in someone's landfill. Driving your car for all but absolute necessity is going to spew out more greenhouse gases than say, taking transit or biking one's way to where they have to go. Denying well-paid jobs to qualified people on the basis of non-essential characteristics leaves these people unable to contribute to the economy. These same people will not be shopping at the store you work at, or donating to the charity where you are employed or paying taxes to keep you in a job with the city. These same people are also going to cost us money, as long as we choose to make them invisible and insignificant in our lives.
On the Internet, there are lots of young people who don't feel they have any obligation toward others. Let poor people starve, put disabled people in institutions, put the homeless in jails. That is how these people think and to them, this thinking is perfectly logical ... as long as they are not poor, as long as they are not disabled and as long as they have a home and family to back them. Not putting their thoughts into the shoes of the other will get them in trouble someday and I hope, maybe they don't have to learn the hard way. But it is said that many of us are one paycheque away from the streets, one spouse away from reliance on welfare, one job loss away from losing our homes and so forth. More and more families are going through this, as our governments and other leaders try to deny that their ill-thought out policies and failure of their "trickle down" tax cuts have somehow caused this serious interruption in people's lives ... if and when these ill-thinking young people ever become infirm themselves, or fail to find a job that will support them despite their "hard work", let us hope there is nobody around who like they are today - feel they should just starve, be locked up or put in jail, for offences committed by others who fail to abide by the Moral Imperative principles.
Your thoughts?
Saturday, March 29, 2008
Friday, March 21, 2008
ACCESSIBILITY IS MORE THAN A RAMP!
In 2005, Ontario passed its Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA), or Bill 118. The intent of the legislation is to bring Ontario to a state of full accessibility for all persons with disabilities in Ontario by the year 2025. Accessibility and measurements toward the same are intended to be taken in five year increments, with barriers that are easier to remove to be removed immediately, while other barriers make take more time for removal. For example, it is much easier to legislate that transit operators call out all stops to assist riders with visual impairments than it would be to make all of Toronto's subway stations fully accessible and barrier-free. While both of these issues will be law either today or at some point in the future, the AODA is moving things along to make Ontario an accessible province. In order to implement the Act, the Ontario Government is setting up a number of Standards Development Committees, recently which were strengthened with an increased 50% presence of persons with disabilities to participate as voting members. Each Standards Development Committee is supported by a group of expert advisors, as well as Ministry staff and members of the main Accessibility Standards Advisory Committee that is in place to advise the Minister, who is currently Madeleine Meullieur who also holds the position of Minister of Community and Social Services.
Standards Development Committees currently exist in five social areas: customer service, information & communications, transportation, built environment and employment. Each Standards Development Committee works within its own context, as well as works with other committees to coordinate the development of accessibility standards for Ontario. This is a very interesting and consultative public process, whereas at the end of the day, ordinary people from all walks of life with a strong component of persons with disabilities will be making law for businesses, transportation services, municipalities, public services, employers and others that interact in any way with Ontarians that have any kind of disability. The definition of disability is the same definition that is currently applied by the Ontario Human Rights Commission.
In general, I feel this is something that is being done right in many ways. It is hoped by disability advocates, persons with disabilities and the organizations that serve them that at the end of the day, the new laws will be as broad and encompassing as existing court-made law and human rights law, using the same tests from leading cases and Tribunal rulings in a variety of matters. It is an exciting process, but because it is new - no government in the Western world has tried to achieve the same result as intended by the AODA ... so there will be speed bumps along the way. For me, the important thing is to maintain that key communication and consultation vehicle with persons with disabilities, not just organizations but *any* person with a disability that wants to be heard. It is also very important to ensure that input from persons with a variety of disabilities encompassing the full range of disabilities outlined by the Human Rights Code are heard. One of the issues I often encounter when dealing with municipal accessibility advisory committees (which are mandated under the Act for any community with a population of 10,000 people or more) is that the focus tends to be on physical access, but not the broader issues of accessibility that the provincial standards development committees are attempting to work on.
Niagara Region - for example - has not taken a broader approach in its definition, selection and application of setting accessibility guidelines and action plans for the municipalities affected. This is by no means a criticism, but it is something that takes considerable forethought and awareness in order to determine what the broader accessibility issues are. One of the main issues I have with respect to Niagara's determination process is that it fails to include a number of real barriers that truly hinder a significant number of persons with disabilities from fully participating and enjoying full citizenship. Transportation is believed to be only a barrier for persons with severe mobility disabilities that must be transported to medical appointments, then recently as an afterthought, trip purposes for employment and educational purposes were added. However, their eligibility criteria remains strict and tends to utilize an unworkable definition as to who is and who is not eligible. In short, if you want to become eligible for Niagara's specialized inter-municipal transit service, you have to be unable to walk so many metres (as believed to be the average distance between bus stops) or to board a regular bus (even those with a lift). When Niagara Region does not have a regular or conventional transit service to which to compare in order to determine such eligibility on this criteria, it finds itself in conflict with most accessibility and human rights standards I am aware of ... because to me, accessibility ALSO means AVAILABILITY.
Niagara Region is the only incorporated regional municipality in Ontario that does not have its own inter-municipal transit service. I have copies of over twenty reports written over the past thirty-five years that indicate that such an inter-municipal transit service is not only a good idea, but a necessity for the Region. But let's look at access for persons with disabilities first, which also affects other kinds of access as well which are also important. Most persons with disabilities are NOT eligible for the specialized service. From my last read, there were just over 700 regular users of the service, when during the 2005 AODA or Bill 118 Hearings, we learnt that over 50,000 to 60,000 persons in the region live with at least one disabling condition. In addition to the reports, I also have anecdotal proposals and initial evaluation reports of what has become known as the Niagara Job Bus. While certainly not a long-term solution by any stretch of the imagination, the Job Bus has led to significant enough numbers of people being removed from the welfare rolls ... it more than paid for itself. These evaluations were only based on the results of service to two communities, Fort Erie and Port Colborne. I don't know which vehicles are being used for the Job Bus and if such vehicles are accessible, i. e. have a lift and space within to secure a wheelchair or scooter. This is certainly an important consideration, but the long term goal should be a fully accessible, available, convenient and affordable inter-municipal transit service that serves all of Niagara's twelve municipalities, perhaps starting with its biggest four, then expanding west until all communities are involved.
The problem with Niagara's specialized transit service is that although they are now permitting trips for employment or educational purposes, I don't sense there will be a lot of uptake with its current clients. There may be a few, but an expansion of the eligibility criteria or better yet - a conventional service that serves everybody, augmented by the specialized service for those that cannot use the broader conventional system, will benefit almost all people with disabilities (and others). The definitions for employment and education for those reliant on the specialized service are also relatively stringent, leaving it difficult for somebody who works out of more than one location or may only need to travel out of town once or twice a week, for example, to be eligible for those trips. People with disabilities do not fit any mold, despite our broader society trying to impose the same.
What happens to persons with disabilities that are not eligible for the specialized transit service? It has actually been stated that they were supposed to rely on the mythical "family and friends" that are always supposed to step in to help, or use taxis. If the person is on Ontario Disability Support Program assistance, they can use a taxi and direct bill it to O.D.S.P. if the trip is a pre-approved medical trip. However, those same people cannot direct bill O.D.S.P. or anybody else if the trip is for any other purpose, such as school or employment. It is even more difficult for people who are self-employed and have a disability in Niagara. Because most businesses involve some commute from one part of the region to another, it is difficult for the disabled entrepreneur to function without having a driver's license and a vehicle. It is true that some businesses can be designed so that clients and customers come to them or the person can telecommute and work online, but this is not the majority. It assumes that ALL of the disabled entrepreneur's customers are mobile themselves and can get to the disabled person's home or work site to receive service or that all work can be done online. In my practice, about 80% of my clients can probably come to my office, but I have to visit them about 10 - 20% of the time in order to deliver service and without a vehicle, this is very costly for me. Also, because Niagara Region has implored itself to divide into north and south, we serve two judicial districts meaning there is no transportation available for myself or any of my clients to travel from one judicial district to the other unless they had a vehicle.
There are thousands of people in the Niagara Region who for disability reasons alone cannot drive a vehicle. The reasons may be temporary or permanent and they vary from person to person as to what the condition is and why the license has been suspended. Thousands more have been advised or cautioned by their physicians not to drive due to disability or medical conditions or have self-excluded as a result of a variety of issues, such as side effects of medication or chronic pain. Most of these individuals who have been suspended or cautioned do not have mobility impairments that would make them eligible for the Niagara Specialized Transit service. Many are blind which in itself does not make one eligible. Others are simply aged and experiencing the first stages of a dementia whereby they may not be able to navigate transportation services, even if they were available. These people are also not eligible. Others may have mental health or chronic pain difficulties that result in the need for sedating medications that interfere with sleep and can make it hazardous to drive. Some are suspended and some are simply cautioned. Niagara's physicians tend to prefer cautioning as opposed to outright suspension because they are well aware of Niagara's poor transportation system and are only likely to report if the health condition deems the patient a safety risk, although many of my clients will argue with that one ;-)
Add to this the obvious barrier that many persons with disabilities face with poverty, even if they have no driving restrictions. According to CAA, it costs over $7,800 a year on average to own and maintain a vehicle. Low-income people often drive vehicles that are in poor condition that require expensive repairs and may be off the road for lengthy periods. If they seek financing at all, they are unlikely to find financing at favourable rates and many are stuck into high short-term leases. Many low-income drivers that I know do not have insurance and many of them are driving under suspension for unpaid fines. These circumstances are for the "lucky" ones that can afford to keep a vehicle at all. Most people on O.D.S.P. or Ontario Works cannot afford to own a vehicle at all. Many can't even afford bus fare to get around in their own communities, although some employment programs (but not all) do cover bus fare for short periods of time. Therefore, accessibility concerns must also include availability as a key requirement.
In terms of employment, people with disabilities do not do very well either. As a whole, twice as many persons with disabilities are not working than persons without disabilities. About half of the persons with disabilities recently surveyed for the PALS Survey are "out of the labour force". While there was not a lot of detail provided as to why there are a substantial number of persons with disabilities who are "out of the labour force" specifically in the PALS survey, other parts to this survey and other unrelated studies possibly give an indication as to reasons. While some are simply unable to work due to their disabilities or health conditions, others report barriers, such as inadequate transportation, impact of employment on income support benefits, impact of employment on subsidized housing, lack of training for what employers are expecting, perception of discrimination against people with disabilities (while many have also actually experienced discrimination), caregiving responsibilities and so forth. There are also twice as many disabled persons who identify as being in the labour force but who are unemployed than those without disabilities. Among those who are working, some surveys have suggested that up to a third or more feel they are overqualified for the jobs they are doing.
These statistics are well-known in policy circles. Another study sponsored by the Abilities Foundation (and available in my office) that was also completed online and with focus groups asked persons with disabilities who were working or were in the labour force to any extent a number of questions. It was learnt from that survey that those that had jobs tended not to find them with the assistance of employment agencies. This also appears to be true through my own informal discussions among my clients with disabilities. One fellow in particular recently told me how many agencies he tried to work with in order to find a job, but none were successful in placing him. He did however find a job when a friend of his told him a particular employer was hiring, then he applied directly to that employer and was hired. He later lost that job only to be hired at another firm where he is currently working and providing the same type of service. However, for the majority of persons with disabilities, there is not a lot of help out there. This is not a condemnation of the folks that try to support people to return to work, but a reflection of how little their work has influenced the workings of the labour market, which is why making all these accessibility regulations are essential. This has to come from employers themselves.
Employers put up a range of barriers, often times without being aware of it. I have read job ads that were progressive in nature, high paying but when required qualifications were spelled out, several items stood out that would exclude rather than include a lot of people, including people with disabilities. In that same ad, ironically, is a statement at the bottom of it stating how they are an "equal opportunity employer". When I speak with people with disabilities, they generally do not apply for these jobs, because they fear if they raise the issue of access or accommodations (such as the possibility of job sharing, task switching, minor job modifications, etc.), they feel they would not get the job at all. In Niagara Region, we have a disproportionate number of people on Ontario Works (many with disabilities that are for some reason unable to get on to other programs), as well as Ontario Disability Support Program. It is also stated in Niagara Region's most recent statistical report that the rate of growth (or the rate of increases in the number of persons) receiving or getting approved for O.D.S.P. is also disproportionately high in Niagara Region. Our overall unemployment rate tends to be higher than average, as well, our average annual income is among the lowest in Ontario.
There are many reasons for this that people like me raise again and again to what seems to be deaf ears among Niagara employers and even to some extent, political leaders. When a company moves to Niagara-on-the-Lake, for example, where there is no transit service going to and from it, only people who drive can access these jobs. Other employers unequivocally require all candidates to agree to work all shifts, which for some people with disabilities (and others with care-giving responsibilities) is a barrier. Call centres for example have day shift and afternoon shifts. I have spoken to a number of students that would love to work the afternoon shifts as they have classes during the day, but these employers appeared to be reluctant to hire them on the real or imagined necessity of every last employee having to work all shifts. Others can only work days as it fits with their daycare arrangements. To me, something as simple as allowing some shift accommodations would open the jobs to more people, many of whom are likely self-excluding now when they read "must work all shifts". For other jobs, most of which are the better paying jobs, require all candidates to have a driver's license and their own vehicle. In a dual income family, this would involve a household owning two vehicles, which according to CAA's last survey, the cost of vehicle ownership tends to exceed $7,800 a year. This leaves out: most people on social assistance, many people with disabilities and most people who recently graduated from a university or college and are carrying an exceptional debt load. Employers need to *carefully* consider this requirement. These qualifications are not just for taxi, courier and delivery companies. I've seen these qualifications stated for a very broad range of jobs, from education, social services, public relations, business management, administrative assistant, legal secretary and many more. While some of this also means Niagara Region needs to improve its transportation services, employers *also* have the responsibility to ensure their jobs are accessible as possible to the broadest range of qualified persons. Bona fide occupational requirement is in part settled by the Supreme Court in several of its decisions, as well as some Tribunal decisions impacting on gender, disability and age. As a result of vehicle requirements, I know many people in this region who are severely under-employed or who spend significant periods of time out of work. They again may hold all of the qualifications for the job, but will self-exclude because they feel the employer will not even consider them.
One needs to ask why 1 out of 6 Ontario O.S.D.P. households have a university education, while at the same time, a politically incorrect but necessary examination of existing senior employees of the public service, non-profit agencies and regulated industries needs to be done to learn of actual qualifications held by all of them. We learnt from the high profile Walkerton tainted water affair that the top guys that were looking after the water supply for that community had no qualifications. We learnt of several privately run retirement homes hiring people with little or no qualifications to provide health care to residents. We learnt of some mental health organizations that hold the ideology that all that is important is one's personal contact with the mental health system as a means to qualify for a job in working with vulnerable persons. My own profession has recently been regulated because of a few 'bad apples' that knew little of the law and seriously harmed their clients. Yet, 1 in 6 household heads on O.D.S.P. have university education that is either not being utilized or substantially under-utilized. Politicians talk about critical skills shortages in almost every sector, yet very little is being done to: (a) ensure people who get jobs that entail responsibility involving money, people or policies that affect people are qualified; and (b) to ensure that qualified persons who are under-utilized in the labour force for reasons of disability, age or country of origin access these positions. Some of this has to do with the inner workings of some of these organizations, or what some refer to as 'organizational culture'. Some of it has to do with barriers that are presented and prevent qualified persons from accessing the position or opportunity. Some of it may also involve the need to change some policies, such as how earned income affects O.D.S.P. and C.P.P. supports. Regardless of the source of this "disconnect", it needs to be corrected YESTERDAY!
I don't have all the answers. However, I do believe that moving toward the regulation of various social sectors to improve access to all Ontarians is the right move. I don't feel it is happening fast enough to satisfy me, or many of the people I work with; however, I also know how important the educational and consultative component is when imposing these regulations. Most of these regulations will cost an employer nothing, other than taking a little forethought and planning their workforce more inclusively. Some accommodations may cost something (though most studies show the majority of accommodations that cost money are under $500), and hopefully - to be fair - if there *is* a significant cost incurred or significant expenses become necessary in order to comply with any of these regulations, that those who comply are consequently rewarded or given some kind of break or financial assistance in order to assist them in meeting their requirements.
This is not rocket science. Ontario is trying to move beyond the 21st Century. It is hoping we will be there by 2025, a long ways away -- but it hopes to make incremental changes that will be noticeable as we reach that stage. Niagara has to move beyond the nineteenth century and open its eyes to opportunities that are here within the region already ... or risk the very people who are currently feeling excluded moving away and leaving it in the dust for years to come. The time is NOW for progress. The time is NOW to act. The time for defining accessibility beyond the obvious physical barriers in all aspects of its operations and sphere of influence is NOW. I speak for many of those who 'self-exclude'. Because for most of them, they feel if they approach an employer to ask if accommodations can be made regarding a listed requirement, they will NOT get the job. That's why they don't ask. That's why more and more people are relying on O.D.S.P. or staying on Ontario Works or switching between Ontario Works and low-wage temporary employment. The issue is that because more and more people -- up to one third of the labour force are involved in precarious arrangements (and becoming more common every year) - means there are less taxes being paid and less money will be around in a short period of time when we will need it to finance our future and ageing population. The time is NOW to think ahead. The time is NOW to include, accommodate and facilitate ... because our future is NOW.
Your thoughts?
Standards Development Committees currently exist in five social areas: customer service, information & communications, transportation, built environment and employment. Each Standards Development Committee works within its own context, as well as works with other committees to coordinate the development of accessibility standards for Ontario. This is a very interesting and consultative public process, whereas at the end of the day, ordinary people from all walks of life with a strong component of persons with disabilities will be making law for businesses, transportation services, municipalities, public services, employers and others that interact in any way with Ontarians that have any kind of disability. The definition of disability is the same definition that is currently applied by the Ontario Human Rights Commission.
In general, I feel this is something that is being done right in many ways. It is hoped by disability advocates, persons with disabilities and the organizations that serve them that at the end of the day, the new laws will be as broad and encompassing as existing court-made law and human rights law, using the same tests from leading cases and Tribunal rulings in a variety of matters. It is an exciting process, but because it is new - no government in the Western world has tried to achieve the same result as intended by the AODA ... so there will be speed bumps along the way. For me, the important thing is to maintain that key communication and consultation vehicle with persons with disabilities, not just organizations but *any* person with a disability that wants to be heard. It is also very important to ensure that input from persons with a variety of disabilities encompassing the full range of disabilities outlined by the Human Rights Code are heard. One of the issues I often encounter when dealing with municipal accessibility advisory committees (which are mandated under the Act for any community with a population of 10,000 people or more) is that the focus tends to be on physical access, but not the broader issues of accessibility that the provincial standards development committees are attempting to work on.
Niagara Region - for example - has not taken a broader approach in its definition, selection and application of setting accessibility guidelines and action plans for the municipalities affected. This is by no means a criticism, but it is something that takes considerable forethought and awareness in order to determine what the broader accessibility issues are. One of the main issues I have with respect to Niagara's determination process is that it fails to include a number of real barriers that truly hinder a significant number of persons with disabilities from fully participating and enjoying full citizenship. Transportation is believed to be only a barrier for persons with severe mobility disabilities that must be transported to medical appointments, then recently as an afterthought, trip purposes for employment and educational purposes were added. However, their eligibility criteria remains strict and tends to utilize an unworkable definition as to who is and who is not eligible. In short, if you want to become eligible for Niagara's specialized inter-municipal transit service, you have to be unable to walk so many metres (as believed to be the average distance between bus stops) or to board a regular bus (even those with a lift). When Niagara Region does not have a regular or conventional transit service to which to compare in order to determine such eligibility on this criteria, it finds itself in conflict with most accessibility and human rights standards I am aware of ... because to me, accessibility ALSO means AVAILABILITY.
Niagara Region is the only incorporated regional municipality in Ontario that does not have its own inter-municipal transit service. I have copies of over twenty reports written over the past thirty-five years that indicate that such an inter-municipal transit service is not only a good idea, but a necessity for the Region. But let's look at access for persons with disabilities first, which also affects other kinds of access as well which are also important. Most persons with disabilities are NOT eligible for the specialized service. From my last read, there were just over 700 regular users of the service, when during the 2005 AODA or Bill 118 Hearings, we learnt that over 50,000 to 60,000 persons in the region live with at least one disabling condition. In addition to the reports, I also have anecdotal proposals and initial evaluation reports of what has become known as the Niagara Job Bus. While certainly not a long-term solution by any stretch of the imagination, the Job Bus has led to significant enough numbers of people being removed from the welfare rolls ... it more than paid for itself. These evaluations were only based on the results of service to two communities, Fort Erie and Port Colborne. I don't know which vehicles are being used for the Job Bus and if such vehicles are accessible, i. e. have a lift and space within to secure a wheelchair or scooter. This is certainly an important consideration, but the long term goal should be a fully accessible, available, convenient and affordable inter-municipal transit service that serves all of Niagara's twelve municipalities, perhaps starting with its biggest four, then expanding west until all communities are involved.
The problem with Niagara's specialized transit service is that although they are now permitting trips for employment or educational purposes, I don't sense there will be a lot of uptake with its current clients. There may be a few, but an expansion of the eligibility criteria or better yet - a conventional service that serves everybody, augmented by the specialized service for those that cannot use the broader conventional system, will benefit almost all people with disabilities (and others). The definitions for employment and education for those reliant on the specialized service are also relatively stringent, leaving it difficult for somebody who works out of more than one location or may only need to travel out of town once or twice a week, for example, to be eligible for those trips. People with disabilities do not fit any mold, despite our broader society trying to impose the same.
What happens to persons with disabilities that are not eligible for the specialized transit service? It has actually been stated that they were supposed to rely on the mythical "family and friends" that are always supposed to step in to help, or use taxis. If the person is on Ontario Disability Support Program assistance, they can use a taxi and direct bill it to O.D.S.P. if the trip is a pre-approved medical trip. However, those same people cannot direct bill O.D.S.P. or anybody else if the trip is for any other purpose, such as school or employment. It is even more difficult for people who are self-employed and have a disability in Niagara. Because most businesses involve some commute from one part of the region to another, it is difficult for the disabled entrepreneur to function without having a driver's license and a vehicle. It is true that some businesses can be designed so that clients and customers come to them or the person can telecommute and work online, but this is not the majority. It assumes that ALL of the disabled entrepreneur's customers are mobile themselves and can get to the disabled person's home or work site to receive service or that all work can be done online. In my practice, about 80% of my clients can probably come to my office, but I have to visit them about 10 - 20% of the time in order to deliver service and without a vehicle, this is very costly for me. Also, because Niagara Region has implored itself to divide into north and south, we serve two judicial districts meaning there is no transportation available for myself or any of my clients to travel from one judicial district to the other unless they had a vehicle.
There are thousands of people in the Niagara Region who for disability reasons alone cannot drive a vehicle. The reasons may be temporary or permanent and they vary from person to person as to what the condition is and why the license has been suspended. Thousands more have been advised or cautioned by their physicians not to drive due to disability or medical conditions or have self-excluded as a result of a variety of issues, such as side effects of medication or chronic pain. Most of these individuals who have been suspended or cautioned do not have mobility impairments that would make them eligible for the Niagara Specialized Transit service. Many are blind which in itself does not make one eligible. Others are simply aged and experiencing the first stages of a dementia whereby they may not be able to navigate transportation services, even if they were available. These people are also not eligible. Others may have mental health or chronic pain difficulties that result in the need for sedating medications that interfere with sleep and can make it hazardous to drive. Some are suspended and some are simply cautioned. Niagara's physicians tend to prefer cautioning as opposed to outright suspension because they are well aware of Niagara's poor transportation system and are only likely to report if the health condition deems the patient a safety risk, although many of my clients will argue with that one ;-)
Add to this the obvious barrier that many persons with disabilities face with poverty, even if they have no driving restrictions. According to CAA, it costs over $7,800 a year on average to own and maintain a vehicle. Low-income people often drive vehicles that are in poor condition that require expensive repairs and may be off the road for lengthy periods. If they seek financing at all, they are unlikely to find financing at favourable rates and many are stuck into high short-term leases. Many low-income drivers that I know do not have insurance and many of them are driving under suspension for unpaid fines. These circumstances are for the "lucky" ones that can afford to keep a vehicle at all. Most people on O.D.S.P. or Ontario Works cannot afford to own a vehicle at all. Many can't even afford bus fare to get around in their own communities, although some employment programs (but not all) do cover bus fare for short periods of time. Therefore, accessibility concerns must also include availability as a key requirement.
In terms of employment, people with disabilities do not do very well either. As a whole, twice as many persons with disabilities are not working than persons without disabilities. About half of the persons with disabilities recently surveyed for the PALS Survey are "out of the labour force". While there was not a lot of detail provided as to why there are a substantial number of persons with disabilities who are "out of the labour force" specifically in the PALS survey, other parts to this survey and other unrelated studies possibly give an indication as to reasons. While some are simply unable to work due to their disabilities or health conditions, others report barriers, such as inadequate transportation, impact of employment on income support benefits, impact of employment on subsidized housing, lack of training for what employers are expecting, perception of discrimination against people with disabilities (while many have also actually experienced discrimination), caregiving responsibilities and so forth. There are also twice as many disabled persons who identify as being in the labour force but who are unemployed than those without disabilities. Among those who are working, some surveys have suggested that up to a third or more feel they are overqualified for the jobs they are doing.
These statistics are well-known in policy circles. Another study sponsored by the Abilities Foundation (and available in my office) that was also completed online and with focus groups asked persons with disabilities who were working or were in the labour force to any extent a number of questions. It was learnt from that survey that those that had jobs tended not to find them with the assistance of employment agencies. This also appears to be true through my own informal discussions among my clients with disabilities. One fellow in particular recently told me how many agencies he tried to work with in order to find a job, but none were successful in placing him. He did however find a job when a friend of his told him a particular employer was hiring, then he applied directly to that employer and was hired. He later lost that job only to be hired at another firm where he is currently working and providing the same type of service. However, for the majority of persons with disabilities, there is not a lot of help out there. This is not a condemnation of the folks that try to support people to return to work, but a reflection of how little their work has influenced the workings of the labour market, which is why making all these accessibility regulations are essential. This has to come from employers themselves.
Employers put up a range of barriers, often times without being aware of it. I have read job ads that were progressive in nature, high paying but when required qualifications were spelled out, several items stood out that would exclude rather than include a lot of people, including people with disabilities. In that same ad, ironically, is a statement at the bottom of it stating how they are an "equal opportunity employer". When I speak with people with disabilities, they generally do not apply for these jobs, because they fear if they raise the issue of access or accommodations (such as the possibility of job sharing, task switching, minor job modifications, etc.), they feel they would not get the job at all. In Niagara Region, we have a disproportionate number of people on Ontario Works (many with disabilities that are for some reason unable to get on to other programs), as well as Ontario Disability Support Program. It is also stated in Niagara Region's most recent statistical report that the rate of growth (or the rate of increases in the number of persons) receiving or getting approved for O.D.S.P. is also disproportionately high in Niagara Region. Our overall unemployment rate tends to be higher than average, as well, our average annual income is among the lowest in Ontario.
There are many reasons for this that people like me raise again and again to what seems to be deaf ears among Niagara employers and even to some extent, political leaders. When a company moves to Niagara-on-the-Lake, for example, where there is no transit service going to and from it, only people who drive can access these jobs. Other employers unequivocally require all candidates to agree to work all shifts, which for some people with disabilities (and others with care-giving responsibilities) is a barrier. Call centres for example have day shift and afternoon shifts. I have spoken to a number of students that would love to work the afternoon shifts as they have classes during the day, but these employers appeared to be reluctant to hire them on the real or imagined necessity of every last employee having to work all shifts. Others can only work days as it fits with their daycare arrangements. To me, something as simple as allowing some shift accommodations would open the jobs to more people, many of whom are likely self-excluding now when they read "must work all shifts". For other jobs, most of which are the better paying jobs, require all candidates to have a driver's license and their own vehicle. In a dual income family, this would involve a household owning two vehicles, which according to CAA's last survey, the cost of vehicle ownership tends to exceed $7,800 a year. This leaves out: most people on social assistance, many people with disabilities and most people who recently graduated from a university or college and are carrying an exceptional debt load. Employers need to *carefully* consider this requirement. These qualifications are not just for taxi, courier and delivery companies. I've seen these qualifications stated for a very broad range of jobs, from education, social services, public relations, business management, administrative assistant, legal secretary and many more. While some of this also means Niagara Region needs to improve its transportation services, employers *also* have the responsibility to ensure their jobs are accessible as possible to the broadest range of qualified persons. Bona fide occupational requirement is in part settled by the Supreme Court in several of its decisions, as well as some Tribunal decisions impacting on gender, disability and age. As a result of vehicle requirements, I know many people in this region who are severely under-employed or who spend significant periods of time out of work. They again may hold all of the qualifications for the job, but will self-exclude because they feel the employer will not even consider them.
One needs to ask why 1 out of 6 Ontario O.S.D.P. households have a university education, while at the same time, a politically incorrect but necessary examination of existing senior employees of the public service, non-profit agencies and regulated industries needs to be done to learn of actual qualifications held by all of them. We learnt from the high profile Walkerton tainted water affair that the top guys that were looking after the water supply for that community had no qualifications. We learnt of several privately run retirement homes hiring people with little or no qualifications to provide health care to residents. We learnt of some mental health organizations that hold the ideology that all that is important is one's personal contact with the mental health system as a means to qualify for a job in working with vulnerable persons. My own profession has recently been regulated because of a few 'bad apples' that knew little of the law and seriously harmed their clients. Yet, 1 in 6 household heads on O.D.S.P. have university education that is either not being utilized or substantially under-utilized. Politicians talk about critical skills shortages in almost every sector, yet very little is being done to: (a) ensure people who get jobs that entail responsibility involving money, people or policies that affect people are qualified; and (b) to ensure that qualified persons who are under-utilized in the labour force for reasons of disability, age or country of origin access these positions. Some of this has to do with the inner workings of some of these organizations, or what some refer to as 'organizational culture'. Some of it has to do with barriers that are presented and prevent qualified persons from accessing the position or opportunity. Some of it may also involve the need to change some policies, such as how earned income affects O.D.S.P. and C.P.P. supports. Regardless of the source of this "disconnect", it needs to be corrected YESTERDAY!
I don't have all the answers. However, I do believe that moving toward the regulation of various social sectors to improve access to all Ontarians is the right move. I don't feel it is happening fast enough to satisfy me, or many of the people I work with; however, I also know how important the educational and consultative component is when imposing these regulations. Most of these regulations will cost an employer nothing, other than taking a little forethought and planning their workforce more inclusively. Some accommodations may cost something (though most studies show the majority of accommodations that cost money are under $500), and hopefully - to be fair - if there *is* a significant cost incurred or significant expenses become necessary in order to comply with any of these regulations, that those who comply are consequently rewarded or given some kind of break or financial assistance in order to assist them in meeting their requirements.
This is not rocket science. Ontario is trying to move beyond the 21st Century. It is hoping we will be there by 2025, a long ways away -- but it hopes to make incremental changes that will be noticeable as we reach that stage. Niagara has to move beyond the nineteenth century and open its eyes to opportunities that are here within the region already ... or risk the very people who are currently feeling excluded moving away and leaving it in the dust for years to come. The time is NOW for progress. The time is NOW to act. The time for defining accessibility beyond the obvious physical barriers in all aspects of its operations and sphere of influence is NOW. I speak for many of those who 'self-exclude'. Because for most of them, they feel if they approach an employer to ask if accommodations can be made regarding a listed requirement, they will NOT get the job. That's why they don't ask. That's why more and more people are relying on O.D.S.P. or staying on Ontario Works or switching between Ontario Works and low-wage temporary employment. The issue is that because more and more people -- up to one third of the labour force are involved in precarious arrangements (and becoming more common every year) - means there are less taxes being paid and less money will be around in a short period of time when we will need it to finance our future and ageing population. The time is NOW to think ahead. The time is NOW to include, accommodate and facilitate ... because our future is NOW.
Your thoughts?
Thursday, February 14, 2008
THE BULLY IN THE WORKPLACE
Many of us remember being taunted in school or watching others going through the same. At the time, we view those initiating the taunts as bigger and tougher than the rest of us. These people pushed their weight around on the school property and tried to rule the roost, as one might say. Those who were their unfortunate victims were often told to ignore the bully of the bunch, or to throw their fists back at 'em. Some of these victims grow up to recall their childhood years as traumatic in many ways and have developed low self-esteem, eating disorders and trouble forming and staying in relationships due to trust issues. However, most believe they escaped the bullies when they left the school yard; unfortunately, this is not the case.
The school yard bullies (and others who grow up to emulate them) only grow up to carry on their tirade in the workplace. This leads to the newest concept in bullying that is only beginning to gain recognition: workplace bullying. While it is not certain how many workers are or have been subjected to bullying in their jobs, a recent edition of Canadian Business estimated this is a costly enterprise. It is estimated that in terms of annual costs, loss of productivity, reliance on social benefits, legal costs, cost of staff turnover, among other direct bearers of cost, workplace bullies create an annual bill of approximately $24 billion.
How does workplace bullying take place? Workplace bullies can act in a very subtle manner, whereas they target the worker by exclusion, the initiation of rumours, forming an "in group" of workers and colleagues to build an alliance against the worker, as well as providing anything from confusing direction and supervision to outright removal of key job responsibilities. This process is designed to make the worker fail, targeting the worker for even further harassment and victimization as a result of the alleged failure.. These next steps can include forced attendance of the worker at "meetings" at which their performance becomes the target of ridicule and attack, personal criticisms of the worker are aired and encouraged to be aired in front of other co-workers and colleagues. The worker becomes blamed for all real or imagined ills of the organization to such a point where it seems that the worker has no remaining redeeming qualities. This treatment often continues to the point where the worker is isolated from others, offered little or no support and eventually, the treatment given results in the worker either quitting or taking "sick leave". It doesn't usually end there, as often the bully makes it difficult for the worker to access employment insurance benefits, short or long-term disability benefits from the workplace and often times, will try as they might to prevent that worker from obtaining another job.
Most workplace bullies are serial bullies. A colleague they might have counted on yesterday to jointly deride and attack the original worker may be chosen as their next target. Why? Because after they can bully the original worker no more, the bully has to find somebody else to taunt and victimize. Very often, workers, one by one, are taunted and bullied in succession until they are all out of the organization and the bully can replace them with his or her "friends" and "allies" to help them keep their jobs. Bullies are always the winners in 93% of the cases studied by the Workplace Bullying Institute, a think tank organized by Gary and Ruth Namie. That means, the bully is the one that gets to stay in the organization and their jobs often become even more secure, and it is not uncommon for them to even get promoted. If the bully is the chief executive officer or president of the firm, it is more than likely their board of directors is either complicit with the bullying or ignorant of it. Complaints by targets of bullying are too often overlooked or disregarded, as the bully usually possesses enough charisma to continue to manipulate how a situation is viewed.
Who are these bullies? In general, bullies tend to be persons who are generally incompetent in the positions they occupy. They may lack the requisite education or management skills to work successfully with other people or to operate even the most basic tenets of the business. As my husband often reminds me, "They want to wear the uniform, but not take the responsibility". Often, they are jealous of their targets and are constantly fearful that their targets will expose their overall incompetence. Bullies are also often, though not always, involved in unethical conduct - meaning, they may be misusing company money for personal purposes, hiring friends and relatives, operating afoul of environmental or professional regulations that may govern the organization they manage. Non-profit organizations are just as likely as private sector organizations to engage in bullying behaviour, though there are more checks and balances in place for private companies. Bullies bully simply because they can. Because non-profit organizations do not have substantial regulatory authority over them, this invites those prone to behave in this manner to join such organizations and eventually destroy them.
Who are the targets? Those who are most often targeted by bullies are individuals who demonstrate a high level of loyalty and ethical commitment to their workplace. They are usually high performers, higher than average in intelligence and work performance measures. The bullies can readily pick them out because they will not likely engage in a task that may be viewed as unethical, illegal or bordering on fraud. The target may be asked to exercise their signing authority, for example, to write a cheque for an unapproved purchase or to cover questionable expenses incurred by the bully or his or her associates. I've seen this happen in non-profit organizations when it becomes apparent that board members are getting paid, or lavish expense accounts are being covered for activities of a diffuse necessity for the organization. The bully hopes that if the organization gets targeted for review or audit that they can point to the target, esp. if the target -- fearful for their job - complies. If the target does not comply or refuses to participate, the bullying escalates. I've seen situations where a target refuses to sign a cheque for a questionable expense, only to be followed by a quick removal of the target as a signing authority - presumably to be replaced by somebody who will spend the organization's money in the manner the bully prescribes.
What happens to the targets? After the bullying gets to a certain point, most targets end up leaving the organization by quitting, being forced out or by taking a "disability leave". The unfortunate thing is that the bully and the organization are seldom held responsible for their actions. If the bully continues the manage the non-profit, the services may continue to be offered in an albeit mediocre manner. Despite this, the bully may be able to convince a few editors and outsiders that what they are doing is truly innovative and change-driven, when in fact, it is the same old same old. People may be afraid to speak up or complain because of the strong personality of the bully, or because they fear they will be cut off from receiving any services at all. I've seen situations where individuals using the services of an organization chose to spoke up, only to be accused of something outrageous like theft or assault, with only the bully and perhaps one or two of his or her associates to "back it up". Because there is little accountability for non-profit organizations, such organizations can basically do whatever they want to anybody they want. Even the limited oversight provided by the Charities Directorate tends to focus its efforts on fundraising practices, as opposed to how people are treated within and by the organization. Further, evaluation of actual services by the charitable sector tends to be completed 'internally' and has little or no external comparison to truly measure the effectiveness of the services provided.
The reason I know all of this is because I been there. When I worked in the charitable sector, I was always honest in my reporting practices. If I didn't meet targets, I said so. If I did, I provided documentation and external opinions to support it. However, because there is not a stringent oversight program set up by funders or better yet, an independent government agency (as incompetent non-profits can always keep switching funders and rely exclusively on projects that have no measurable objectives, e.g. "consumer satisfaction surveys" tend to be organized for a positive bias) - nobody really knows how well non-profit programs are actually working. In a business, accountability is built in. It's called the "free market". If a business hires and supports an incompetent manager, sooner or later it will pay. When an incompetent manager is a bully and "friend" of the owners, the person's job description usually gets shifted as opposed to having them removed. Many times, the bully will eventually be removed if there is a change in ownership or management or if the person does cause damage to the business itself. But in the non-profit sector, the incompetent person stays forever.
Targets often suffer the ill effects of bullying for a long time. Many become depressed, hypervigilant, anxious and distrusting of their own observations of reality. Many times, this transforms into physical illness, such as bowel complaints, difficulties in sleeping or staying asleep, headaches, fatigue, visual disturbances, arthritic pain, back problems and many have even developed chronic conditions later on after many years of being unable to "get over" the bullying, such as diabetes, heart problems and even in a few cases, cancer. Most targets are reluctant to re-enter the workforce and many do not work again, or they become trapped as "self-employed" perpetually. Those that do work again tend to steer far away from their previous station in the workforce, often accepting jobs that are far beneath their level of skill and education. Workplace bullying substantially increases the demands on the tax dollars for health care, social services and in some cases, emergency housing and prison. Families often split up, leading to more pressure in the courts and impacts on any children of the marriage.
In my practice, I meet with different targets of workplace bullies. Many choose to take legal action, but unfortunately, litigation against the employer may only result in a cash settlement for "time in lieu of notice". Punitive damages against the employer are rare, as the proof rests with the plaintiff to prove the employer acted in a high-handed and deliberate manner in the termination itself. The law may take prior behaviour into account, but the most this will do for a target is to increase the number of weeks owed in "lieu of notice". If the person quit their job because the workplace environment was poisonous and hostile, the worker must prove this fact as well to receive damages for what is known as 'constructive termination'. In these circumstances, it is often better for a worker to hang on until they actually get terminated, unless they can prove 'constructive termination'. However, there is case law, which I will not detail here, that does provide a standard and reasonable "tests" for a plaintiff attempting to prove 'constructive termination'. But nevertheless, the legal process is arduous, slow and by its nature, adversarial. Quite often, the bullied worker has become so weakened by their experience, that re-experiencing the same in a legal setting may be too much for them. Unfortunately, bullies know this - which is why they carefully choose their style of harassment and try to maintain tight control of the workplace (to avoid unexpected witnesses in the plaintiff's favour, for example).
What can be done about workplace bullying? To me, whatever is done must put the full financial and legal culpability on the shoulders of the person or persons responsible for the bullying or who otherwise knew about the bullying but did little or nothing to stop it. Companies and non-profits should not be allowed to hide behind the corporate veil. Bullies should not be allowed to continue in their employment with the company. Financial compensation should be provided to the target for not only lost earnings, but for counselling services, relocation, finding a new job or vocation, as well as any medical care that may not otherwise be covered under OHIP. Targets of workplace bullies should not have to turn to Ontario Works or its disability program, Ontario Disability Support Program, as neither program can even pretend to cover lost wages. Usually what follows going on these programs, especially Ontario Works, is bankruptcy, loss of one's home, loss of one's health and a downward spiral that only makes it more difficult to get oneself back up. Why should a target of workplace bullying be re-victimized after they were forced out of their job, and quite often - their vocation?
While businesses can be more tightly monitored through industry standards and regulatory bodies (and individual bullies be more closely monitored and regulated through the same), non-profit organizations and their management should be licensed and regulated because they do not have the same market pressures that businesses have, thus they don't have an incentive to keep costs down and incompetence to a minimum. At the present time, anybody even with a grade six education can show up and get hired as an executive director. While this sounds facetious, quite often this person has a brother, a spouse or a close friend on the board of directors. While technically this is not accepted, it goes on all the time. The job of executive director goes to somebody they know and like (or can convince people that they do indeed have qualifications they do not in fact possess such as claiming prior business experience), rather than somebody that can do the job.
Perhaps, there can be a law that people vying for this type of work must have a minimum level of education, as well as training specifically in human resources, finance and ethical conduct. Think this is not possible? If people that do what I do can be licensed, insured and have to follow a code of conduct, even though I can honestly say I do not earn anything ... thanks to the present government's meanderings .. so can they! To me there is absolutely NO difference between a worker in a non-profit organization that provides services and looks after money and people, than what I do. If the person is found to be bullying or committing some other offence, they can be subject to complaint and disciplinary process, possibly losing their license or being fined and/or suspended for a period of time. A manager or ED who is not a member of another licensing body can then be forcibly put off the job. If the organization continues to protect them? That organization can immediately lose all of its funding, government contracts and other privileges, such as charitable status.
Some of the above recommendations may sound tough and hard-hearted, but this is what the real world works like in an ethical private sector company, particularly one that is regulated by an outside body such as financial services, insurance, securities, etc. Yes, there are certainly companies in these sectors that do include bullies - but it becomes visible more frequently and can indeed quickly become unprofitable, thus producing the pressure necessary to remove the problem. If somebody is attracting a number of lawsuits to a private firm as a result of being a bully, this hurts for-profit companies more than non-profit organizations. Private sector companies do have other challenges, which can be addressed in other ways (such as tougher employment law enforcement, workplace safety and environmental regulations). It is almost like taking a choice between two evils.
In my view, it is BECAUSE of the lack of accountability and lack of workplace expectations in any organization that invites the abuse of workplace bullies. If a company has a reason to fear consequences for example for keeping a workplace bully or allowing such behaviour to continue, they will be more careful in applying human resource policies and ensuring people are protected as much as possible from this kind of internal strife. If workplace leaders and managers had a reason to fear consequences of poor conduct, then they will be more likely to ensure they perform professionally and treat their co-workers and subordinates with respect. If a bully wants to barge their way into a workplace because they want to wear the uniform, but not take the responsibility, they will think twice about even trying if they know they must be licensed, follow a code of ethics and be insured, etc. before they can even be hired in such a job. This certainly will not get rid of all workplace bullying, but will reduce it substantially enough so that there will be less targets and those that do exist will have real remedies as opposed to what happens now, where they are forced to be re-traumatized again and again as they struggle to basically survive.
Your thoughts?
The school yard bullies (and others who grow up to emulate them) only grow up to carry on their tirade in the workplace. This leads to the newest concept in bullying that is only beginning to gain recognition: workplace bullying. While it is not certain how many workers are or have been subjected to bullying in their jobs, a recent edition of Canadian Business estimated this is a costly enterprise. It is estimated that in terms of annual costs, loss of productivity, reliance on social benefits, legal costs, cost of staff turnover, among other direct bearers of cost, workplace bullies create an annual bill of approximately $24 billion.
How does workplace bullying take place? Workplace bullies can act in a very subtle manner, whereas they target the worker by exclusion, the initiation of rumours, forming an "in group" of workers and colleagues to build an alliance against the worker, as well as providing anything from confusing direction and supervision to outright removal of key job responsibilities. This process is designed to make the worker fail, targeting the worker for even further harassment and victimization as a result of the alleged failure.. These next steps can include forced attendance of the worker at "meetings" at which their performance becomes the target of ridicule and attack, personal criticisms of the worker are aired and encouraged to be aired in front of other co-workers and colleagues. The worker becomes blamed for all real or imagined ills of the organization to such a point where it seems that the worker has no remaining redeeming qualities. This treatment often continues to the point where the worker is isolated from others, offered little or no support and eventually, the treatment given results in the worker either quitting or taking "sick leave". It doesn't usually end there, as often the bully makes it difficult for the worker to access employment insurance benefits, short or long-term disability benefits from the workplace and often times, will try as they might to prevent that worker from obtaining another job.
Most workplace bullies are serial bullies. A colleague they might have counted on yesterday to jointly deride and attack the original worker may be chosen as their next target. Why? Because after they can bully the original worker no more, the bully has to find somebody else to taunt and victimize. Very often, workers, one by one, are taunted and bullied in succession until they are all out of the organization and the bully can replace them with his or her "friends" and "allies" to help them keep their jobs. Bullies are always the winners in 93% of the cases studied by the Workplace Bullying Institute, a think tank organized by Gary and Ruth Namie. That means, the bully is the one that gets to stay in the organization and their jobs often become even more secure, and it is not uncommon for them to even get promoted. If the bully is the chief executive officer or president of the firm, it is more than likely their board of directors is either complicit with the bullying or ignorant of it. Complaints by targets of bullying are too often overlooked or disregarded, as the bully usually possesses enough charisma to continue to manipulate how a situation is viewed.
Who are these bullies? In general, bullies tend to be persons who are generally incompetent in the positions they occupy. They may lack the requisite education or management skills to work successfully with other people or to operate even the most basic tenets of the business. As my husband often reminds me, "They want to wear the uniform, but not take the responsibility". Often, they are jealous of their targets and are constantly fearful that their targets will expose their overall incompetence. Bullies are also often, though not always, involved in unethical conduct - meaning, they may be misusing company money for personal purposes, hiring friends and relatives, operating afoul of environmental or professional regulations that may govern the organization they manage. Non-profit organizations are just as likely as private sector organizations to engage in bullying behaviour, though there are more checks and balances in place for private companies. Bullies bully simply because they can. Because non-profit organizations do not have substantial regulatory authority over them, this invites those prone to behave in this manner to join such organizations and eventually destroy them.
Who are the targets? Those who are most often targeted by bullies are individuals who demonstrate a high level of loyalty and ethical commitment to their workplace. They are usually high performers, higher than average in intelligence and work performance measures. The bullies can readily pick them out because they will not likely engage in a task that may be viewed as unethical, illegal or bordering on fraud. The target may be asked to exercise their signing authority, for example, to write a cheque for an unapproved purchase or to cover questionable expenses incurred by the bully or his or her associates. I've seen this happen in non-profit organizations when it becomes apparent that board members are getting paid, or lavish expense accounts are being covered for activities of a diffuse necessity for the organization. The bully hopes that if the organization gets targeted for review or audit that they can point to the target, esp. if the target -- fearful for their job - complies. If the target does not comply or refuses to participate, the bullying escalates. I've seen situations where a target refuses to sign a cheque for a questionable expense, only to be followed by a quick removal of the target as a signing authority - presumably to be replaced by somebody who will spend the organization's money in the manner the bully prescribes.
What happens to the targets? After the bullying gets to a certain point, most targets end up leaving the organization by quitting, being forced out or by taking a "disability leave". The unfortunate thing is that the bully and the organization are seldom held responsible for their actions. If the bully continues the manage the non-profit, the services may continue to be offered in an albeit mediocre manner. Despite this, the bully may be able to convince a few editors and outsiders that what they are doing is truly innovative and change-driven, when in fact, it is the same old same old. People may be afraid to speak up or complain because of the strong personality of the bully, or because they fear they will be cut off from receiving any services at all. I've seen situations where individuals using the services of an organization chose to spoke up, only to be accused of something outrageous like theft or assault, with only the bully and perhaps one or two of his or her associates to "back it up". Because there is little accountability for non-profit organizations, such organizations can basically do whatever they want to anybody they want. Even the limited oversight provided by the Charities Directorate tends to focus its efforts on fundraising practices, as opposed to how people are treated within and by the organization. Further, evaluation of actual services by the charitable sector tends to be completed 'internally' and has little or no external comparison to truly measure the effectiveness of the services provided.
The reason I know all of this is because I been there. When I worked in the charitable sector, I was always honest in my reporting practices. If I didn't meet targets, I said so. If I did, I provided documentation and external opinions to support it. However, because there is not a stringent oversight program set up by funders or better yet, an independent government agency (as incompetent non-profits can always keep switching funders and rely exclusively on projects that have no measurable objectives, e.g. "consumer satisfaction surveys" tend to be organized for a positive bias) - nobody really knows how well non-profit programs are actually working. In a business, accountability is built in. It's called the "free market". If a business hires and supports an incompetent manager, sooner or later it will pay. When an incompetent manager is a bully and "friend" of the owners, the person's job description usually gets shifted as opposed to having them removed. Many times, the bully will eventually be removed if there is a change in ownership or management or if the person does cause damage to the business itself. But in the non-profit sector, the incompetent person stays forever.
Targets often suffer the ill effects of bullying for a long time. Many become depressed, hypervigilant, anxious and distrusting of their own observations of reality. Many times, this transforms into physical illness, such as bowel complaints, difficulties in sleeping or staying asleep, headaches, fatigue, visual disturbances, arthritic pain, back problems and many have even developed chronic conditions later on after many years of being unable to "get over" the bullying, such as diabetes, heart problems and even in a few cases, cancer. Most targets are reluctant to re-enter the workforce and many do not work again, or they become trapped as "self-employed" perpetually. Those that do work again tend to steer far away from their previous station in the workforce, often accepting jobs that are far beneath their level of skill and education. Workplace bullying substantially increases the demands on the tax dollars for health care, social services and in some cases, emergency housing and prison. Families often split up, leading to more pressure in the courts and impacts on any children of the marriage.
In my practice, I meet with different targets of workplace bullies. Many choose to take legal action, but unfortunately, litigation against the employer may only result in a cash settlement for "time in lieu of notice". Punitive damages against the employer are rare, as the proof rests with the plaintiff to prove the employer acted in a high-handed and deliberate manner in the termination itself. The law may take prior behaviour into account, but the most this will do for a target is to increase the number of weeks owed in "lieu of notice". If the person quit their job because the workplace environment was poisonous and hostile, the worker must prove this fact as well to receive damages for what is known as 'constructive termination'. In these circumstances, it is often better for a worker to hang on until they actually get terminated, unless they can prove 'constructive termination'. However, there is case law, which I will not detail here, that does provide a standard and reasonable "tests" for a plaintiff attempting to prove 'constructive termination'. But nevertheless, the legal process is arduous, slow and by its nature, adversarial. Quite often, the bullied worker has become so weakened by their experience, that re-experiencing the same in a legal setting may be too much for them. Unfortunately, bullies know this - which is why they carefully choose their style of harassment and try to maintain tight control of the workplace (to avoid unexpected witnesses in the plaintiff's favour, for example).
What can be done about workplace bullying? To me, whatever is done must put the full financial and legal culpability on the shoulders of the person or persons responsible for the bullying or who otherwise knew about the bullying but did little or nothing to stop it. Companies and non-profits should not be allowed to hide behind the corporate veil. Bullies should not be allowed to continue in their employment with the company. Financial compensation should be provided to the target for not only lost earnings, but for counselling services, relocation, finding a new job or vocation, as well as any medical care that may not otherwise be covered under OHIP. Targets of workplace bullies should not have to turn to Ontario Works or its disability program, Ontario Disability Support Program, as neither program can even pretend to cover lost wages. Usually what follows going on these programs, especially Ontario Works, is bankruptcy, loss of one's home, loss of one's health and a downward spiral that only makes it more difficult to get oneself back up. Why should a target of workplace bullying be re-victimized after they were forced out of their job, and quite often - their vocation?
While businesses can be more tightly monitored through industry standards and regulatory bodies (and individual bullies be more closely monitored and regulated through the same), non-profit organizations and their management should be licensed and regulated because they do not have the same market pressures that businesses have, thus they don't have an incentive to keep costs down and incompetence to a minimum. At the present time, anybody even with a grade six education can show up and get hired as an executive director. While this sounds facetious, quite often this person has a brother, a spouse or a close friend on the board of directors. While technically this is not accepted, it goes on all the time. The job of executive director goes to somebody they know and like (or can convince people that they do indeed have qualifications they do not in fact possess such as claiming prior business experience), rather than somebody that can do the job.
Perhaps, there can be a law that people vying for this type of work must have a minimum level of education, as well as training specifically in human resources, finance and ethical conduct. Think this is not possible? If people that do what I do can be licensed, insured and have to follow a code of conduct, even though I can honestly say I do not earn anything ... thanks to the present government's meanderings .. so can they! To me there is absolutely NO difference between a worker in a non-profit organization that provides services and looks after money and people, than what I do. If the person is found to be bullying or committing some other offence, they can be subject to complaint and disciplinary process, possibly losing their license or being fined and/or suspended for a period of time. A manager or ED who is not a member of another licensing body can then be forcibly put off the job. If the organization continues to protect them? That organization can immediately lose all of its funding, government contracts and other privileges, such as charitable status.
Some of the above recommendations may sound tough and hard-hearted, but this is what the real world works like in an ethical private sector company, particularly one that is regulated by an outside body such as financial services, insurance, securities, etc. Yes, there are certainly companies in these sectors that do include bullies - but it becomes visible more frequently and can indeed quickly become unprofitable, thus producing the pressure necessary to remove the problem. If somebody is attracting a number of lawsuits to a private firm as a result of being a bully, this hurts for-profit companies more than non-profit organizations. Private sector companies do have other challenges, which can be addressed in other ways (such as tougher employment law enforcement, workplace safety and environmental regulations). It is almost like taking a choice between two evils.
In my view, it is BECAUSE of the lack of accountability and lack of workplace expectations in any organization that invites the abuse of workplace bullies. If a company has a reason to fear consequences for example for keeping a workplace bully or allowing such behaviour to continue, they will be more careful in applying human resource policies and ensuring people are protected as much as possible from this kind of internal strife. If workplace leaders and managers had a reason to fear consequences of poor conduct, then they will be more likely to ensure they perform professionally and treat their co-workers and subordinates with respect. If a bully wants to barge their way into a workplace because they want to wear the uniform, but not take the responsibility, they will think twice about even trying if they know they must be licensed, follow a code of ethics and be insured, etc. before they can even be hired in such a job. This certainly will not get rid of all workplace bullying, but will reduce it substantially enough so that there will be less targets and those that do exist will have real remedies as opposed to what happens now, where they are forced to be re-traumatized again and again as they struggle to basically survive.
Your thoughts?
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
PRE-BUDGET SUBMISSION (ONTARIO)
2008 ONTARIO BUDGET
Input into Budget Priorities
TO the Minister of Finance; Standing Committee
on Finance and Economic Affairs; and Cabinet
Committee on Poverty Issues
BY YOUR FAVOURITE BLOGGER
at her legal office's physical address ;-)
SUMMARY
In the mandate of the present Government, incremental and piecemeal approaches to end poverty were favoured over approaches that actually served to reduce or eliminate poverty in vulnerable sectors. It is my position that incremental or piecemeal approaches that favour some groups above others do not in fact reduce or eliminate poverty or the costs associated with it. A refreshing proposal by the present Government to define poverty and identify ways to reduce it by 25% in five years is respected and favoured; however, my question is – who gets to get pulled out of poverty first?
INTRODUCTION
I am an Independent Paralegal with a substantial practice in areas of Labour, Disability and Human Rights issues, as well as providing traditional services in the courts and tribunals where Paralegals are permitted to appear. I work with approximately 50 – 100 clients on an annual basis, ranging from short-term retainers to full cases that end in a Hearing or Appeal. I am also involved in a number of Coalitions, steering groups and panels that are involved in poverty and employment-related issues. For seven years, I also provided on a contractual basis, Employment Supports to persons with disabilities in the Niagara Region. Further, I manage or co-manage a number of Internet sites related to disability, poverty, human rights and related issues, which have a collective audience of almost 10,000 persons, most of whom are from Ontario, or from other parts of Canada. I am also a published writer who has been published over the past twenty years in a number of publications, ranging from street newspapers to news magazines to peer-reviewed journals. Because of this, my experience and work puts me in touch with poverty and labour issues on a day-to-day basis – thus putting me in a position to understand how policies and priorities set out by any Government can succeed or fail in its stated objective of poverty reduction.
This presentation is a representation of my own views and experience and does not necessarily reflect the views of mentioned organizations and committees with which I have been involved.
SUBMISSION
Like most analysts, I note a number of efforts have already been undertaken by your Government towards the amelioration of poverty. These efforts are noted as follows:
1. Ontario Child Benefit
2. Shelter Allowance (ROOF)
3. A 3%, 2% and 2% increase to Ontario Works/ODSP rates
4. Regulatory changes to permit increased earnings, assets and related measures for OW/ODSP recipients; &
5. Some other changes to related programs and services, such as WSIB, OSAP, among others.
In the last provincial election, among your renewed promises was a commitment by your Government to set up a Cabinet Committee to define, track and reduce poverty by 25% or more over the next five (5) years. This promise was one that was applauded by virtually every anti-poverty organization across Ontario and by the Toronto Star. Please understand if these same organizations become less than pleased if they do not see any new initiatives or better targeted efforts in this budget towards this end. The ‘rumour mill’ has it that your Government has no plans to add anything new, other than what it had already started in last year’s budget (e.g. Ontario Child Benefit). That in my view will not lead to any further applause from anybody.
The majority of poor people I represent or have worked with are persons with disabilities. The substantial majority of persons with disabilities are single and in some other cases, married or common law couples, with no children under eighteen years of age living with them. Many have children, but they have grown up and since started their own lives, or in the case of many persons with disabilities, remained single because ODSP itself penalizes people for engaging in relationships (unless the person they are engaging a relationship with is also on ODSP). Approximately 12%-15% are single, married or common law with children under the age of eighteen living with them.
For the most part, other than example # 3 (above), these people have not benefited from any of your new budgetary initiatives announced in 2007, and for them – the 3%, 2% and 2% increases are barely a drop in the bucket when compared to the spending power lost since 1993, when the rates were last raised before November 2004, when your Government initiated its first raise. Even with the total of all of the raises implemented, this only brings people on ODSP up to the same spending power they had in perhaps 1995 or 1996, but not much further. Yet since then, inflation, rent hikes, electricity rates, gas rates, transit fares, grocery prices have increased by more than 25% since then.
As pointed out to your Government by many participants in this process, including the ODSP Action Coalition and others, neither OW or ODSP rates are based on any rational criteria and are certainly not set in relation to the actual costs of shelter and other basic necessities. While most people on assistance do rent, many also do own their own homes. Homeowners who are in receipt of OW/ODSP have been left off your radar. Many have had their homes prior to getting put on ODSP or were able to acquire them later through the assistance of an inheritance or similar windfall. These people have no interest in joining the lengthening wait lists for social housing … they just want to be able to continue to afford to live where they live now, as well as improve their properties to reduce energy use and/or modify their surroundings to fit their family’s needs. Even for those that do rent and choose to join the wait list for social housing, the wait is quite long and it is not unheard of to be put on the list when their children are in grade school, but not be accepted until their children are of age and ready to leave home. A recent article in the Toronto Star cited the wait list in Peel Region to be approximately 22 years. In most regions, it is 7 to 10 years.
Long wait lists for social housing are not present because of demand for their ‘high quality’ abodes. In fact, most families I know that are *not* on the wait list are not there because they choose better neighbourhoods for their children and wish to live in properties that have at least an acceptable standard of maintenance in them. While it is not your Government’s choice, but large municipalities across Ontario are stuck with bills of hundreds of millions of dollars in maintenance for the housing that is already there … let alone, build any more. If my family were faced with the choice, we would rather stay where we are – despite the fact we pay over 50% of our income on housing.
Long wait lists are in fact based on artificial demand that would not be necessary at all if people had sufficient means to afford “market rents”. The wait lists are there because OW/ODSP and even minimum wage rates are set without any rational criteria of what it actually costs to meet basic needs. The answer to this is not to build more and more of this type of housing that will only meet the needs of a few, and eventually fade into disrepair and neglect, but to ensure that ALL people have the means to afford average housing costs in their region of residence and family size, using tables of average rents by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Neither housing or utility costs should be taken out of an individual or family’s ‘basic needs’ budget.
Further, many other commodities have increased in price over and above the rate of inflation over the years. For example, it was your Government’s decision to remove the cap on hydro rates and provide for hikes in the rates for natural gas. In my own family’s case, even with the purchase of CFC bulbs, washing in cold water among other methods within our control, our hydro bills have more than doubled over the past five years. We cannot afford energy-efficient appliances to reduce our output. In effect, our family, like many other families are held hostage to higher hydro rates, while families of better financial means can acquire energy-efficient appliances and home improvements to reduce their output. Despite specific lobbying efforts by organizations like the Low Income Energy Network, your Government has yet to announce a realistic program that would actually reduce output for families of low or modest means. This is the time to roll such a program out, especially if your Government wants to continue to push for the placement of smart meters and further increase utility rates.
Grocery costs go up along with the price of gas. There is a movement afoot in many communities to get more people to shop locally. However, if you are poor and have no means of transportation to get to these places, you are forced to pay higher prices for imported goods at supermarkets. Further, if you have medical problems, finding the kinds of food that you need to eat to keep healthy is more difficult and expensive. The Special Diet Allowance was significantly cut to many individuals and families with medical problems, making it even more costly and difficult for them to meet these costs. Many medical problems are not considered for the allocation of special diet, but still respond to dietary interventions. For those conditions that are listed, the amount of monies allocated is insufficient. Given that most ODSP recipients pay at least 70% or more of their income for housing alone, it becomes less rational to justify the low rates they are given to meet these costs.
As a taxpayer, I also know the cost of delivering health care is increasing to a point where health care allocations that once took 25% of our provincial spending now takes up almost half. Health care economists have stated in numerous forums that the increase in health care expenditure is not necessarily related to the ageing population, as this factor plays in less than 2% in the amount of increased spending. While part of the increase is also the cost of new pharmaceuticals, it is MY position that the largest part of the cause of increased health care costs rests with the increased burden of poverty. The Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences has already determined that diabetes, for example, is four times more likely to happen to somebody in a lower socioeconomic status than it is for somebody of more comfortable means. Low-income diabetics are also twice as likely as others to suffer from complications of the condition, such as blindness and heart disease.
Over the course of my career, I learned of many hypothetical situations that can be applied to these learnings. For example, it is not unheard of for somebody living on ODSP as a single person in my region to pay more than 75% of their income on housing, sometimes even more. In many cases, that leaves a person on ODSP with less than $100 a month to spend on food, transportation, clothing, health care, etc. If such a person is already diabetic, they are highly vulnerable to complications, such as heart disease. Older, more fragile patients may be referred to live in an assisted-care facility. Because such facilities don’t exist for younger people, they often end up in nursing homes, whereby the health care system now covers the cost of the nursing home (where monthly fees can exceed $3,500 even in a modest facility), the health care itself, plus continue to pay the person their ODSP allowance …
In another hypothetical, a working woman who does not earn enough to cover health care expenses is a fragile diabetic, where genetically, she has inherited a tendency to complications … she does all the right things, sees the right doctors and tries to follow a diet and quits smoking. However, she needs an insulin pump to defray substantial fluctuations in her blood glucose level. It is known that even for a short time if glucose levels are too high, permanent damage can ensue. She becomes too ill to work and because her workplace is not likely to have disability or sickness coverage, she is forced to turn to EI (if she is even eligible) and after that, welfare. Because she is not able to maintain a reasonable diet on OW/ ODSP rates, she becomes very ill and suffers blindness, kidney failure and/or an amputation of her leg. How much would an insulin pump cost the system if it meant this person can continue working and avoid complications? How much would it cost the system to increase the first example’s ODSP rates so that she would be able to eat properly and live independently, as opposed to spending thousands of dollars afterwards on a monthly basis to “maintain her” in a lower quality of existence? When priorities are set for the budget, not only should the costs of doing things be considered (e.g. increasing ODSP rates, broadening coverage for medical devices), but the cost of NOT doing things.
Poverty is expensive. Reducing and eliminating poverty may cost something at first, but over time – savings will be realized as we can then notice there will be reduced costs for urgent and emergency health care, assisted care facilities for younger people, policing (as the vast majority of people convicted of crime are living in poverty), band-aids (as caring for homeless persons does cost upwards of $40,000 a year in Toronto), etc. However, by not reducing poverty and allowing it to flourish, our costs for everything ranging from health care to education to policing and corrections will sharply increase. We only have the U.S. to look to for leadership in this area, where they are building more prisons than they are housing homeless people, while still imposing spiraling taxation on its people.
Many people argue that the best “cure” for poverty is a job.
However, there are many problems with this theory. More and more people have jobs, even more than one job, but they still cannot escape poverty. Other than minimum wages, labour laws do not provide for guarantees of job security, provision of benefits, number of hours and other “measures” of a job that determine the quality of the job. Nor do any laws in our country force any employer to hire any particular person …
Official unemployment statistics are not accurate so far as they do not measure involuntary part-time employment, contract or involuntary “self-employment” or people who have thus far given up looking for a job. I just learned from a friend that she had just lost a job she had for a couple of years and loved … she loved her job so much that her face literally lit up the room whenever she spoke about things she was involved with at her work. She spoke very highly about her employer, until … a new manager came in and decided he no longer liked her and let her go. She is now for the first time in her life on a job hunt in a very economically depressed region of this province. This is what it is like for somebody who is so-called “employable”.
What about those of us who are too old, too young, over-qualified, under-qualified, too disabled, too smart, too reserved, etc. for today’s seemingly competitive job market that rules out all but the most healthy, quickest and youngest of the roost? Does your Government plan to force employers to hire people from among these ‘less desirable’ categories? Because the answer is likely no, I would only demand the alternative – that those who cannot, for whatever reason, find work that pays them enough to meet their basic needs – that a social safety net be available that would provide them enough to support themselves and their families in relative dignity.
As made clear above, the existing social safety net does not do that. In fact, I am privy to a number of people who should not be working (due to a disability) who try to work anyways because our once strong social safety net has since been torn to tatters … and since returning to work, many of these people have been turfed out of their job, forced to quit, become re-injured, or ended up hospitalized as a result of an exacerbation of an illness or disability they have … but cannot get enough money on Ontario Works or ODSP to even cover basic costs, such as housing. How this work or starve mentality benefits employers is beyond me … or even the rest of us that must pay for their injuries, health care and unemployment through our taxes. At the same time, many injured workers try to return to work only to have employers illegally terminate them and WSIB deny benefits to such a point where such a worker ends up having to turn to OW /ODSP for basics. Technically, there are laws in place to protect people, but unfortunately, these same laws are broken again and again to no avail.
If your Government believes a job is the best social policy, then it must do something about jobs. That means:
1. Increase in minimum wage to $10/hour now;
2. Tying ANY government support or subsidy to a living wage policy (meaning that the minimum salary offered must be in itself able to meet all basic needs of a family in the region where the job is offered);
3. Toughening labour standards and enforcement to increase job security and reduce incidence of workplace harassment and bullying – including contracting with so-called staffing agencies;
4. Penalizing employers and company owners for labour law violations in a meaningful way;
5. Improved enforcements of the Human Rights Code (including proactive measures to prevent discrimination from starting in the first place); and
6. Targeted programs where necessary to improve the likelihood of qualified persons with disabilities, older persons, newcomers and others traditionally impacted by job discrimination, in not only obtaining work, but finding work that meets their skills/training/education.
IF all of the above is done in short order, we may expect greater job security for many people not otherwise given it. However, not everybody can work. People may be sick, disabled, or are caregivers to others (children, elderly or disabled persons) and unable to take a job. Others are looking for work and are in between jobs. These people must also have a decent income to resort to. The amount currently received on Ontario Works is shameful and an embarrassment to a wealthy province such as ours. Even ODSP rates are shameful, given that inflation has eroded its value over many years.
Social assistance rates of any kind (OW/ ODSP) must be adjusted to reflect realistic rates for shelter, utilities, telephone, transportation, clothing and a healthy diet, at minimum. Persons who are on ODSP and are either unable to work or have limited options (such as only able to work in a specific field, be self-employed or work only part-time) MUST have an income that not only includes the basics, but also includes enough to cover social costs. It is not pleasant to be a prisoner in your own home. Many people on ODSP in my region do not even have the money for bus fare to go anywhere in the community, let alone pay fees for programs once they get there. For these people, a television set that breaks down is a crisis for them. Most cannot even dream of purchasing new clothes, and often continue to wear old, damaged clothing. I have seen ODSP recipients go without winter clothing in the dead of a January freeze. Many of these people simply layer several sweaters over one another and limit the number of times they leave their homes. A true measurement of reduction of poverty is a substantial decrease in the number of people relying on food banks and emergency shelters, as well as a decrease in the number of food banks and shelters in service anywhere in the province. In my view, nobody in Ontario should be using a food bank or emergency shelter. We should be rescuing animals, not homeless people - because there should be NO homeless people.
Setting rates for OW/ ODSP should be done through an independent process that includes social policy experts, anti-poverty workers and poor people themselves. Politicians are not adequately knowledgeable about how much one needs as a bare minimum to survive … as most politicians come from comfortable backgrounds prior to being elected and after voting themselves a 27% increase last year, certainly know nothing about the availability of low-cost housing in their area or what a basic food basket actually costs an average family. Politicians however can have the political will to work with an independent process and allow significant input by people who actually know the costs of things, as well as the costs of not doing things.
Politicians through this process also need to set targets and make one another, as well as relevant departments accountable for meeting these targets. For example, anti-poverty measures are not only about getting more good-paying jobs and increasing social assistance rates. Anti-poverty measures also include: childcare policy, education policy, availability and cost of local/regional transit options, availability of home ownership, retirement options and access to community amenities.
For example, I live in a Region where politicians don’t feel there are many people that don’t drive. In their view, everybody drives or has “family and friends” to take them places. As a result, our Region’s social class structure is predicated upon whether or not you and your family have access to a personal vehicle. People that do not drive or cannot afford to do so are stuck in low-paying job ghettos – retail, service, call centres – while those that do drive do have access to better paying jobs, where they do exist. This is regardless of your education and skills. I have witnessed situations where high school or college drop-outs were favoured in a job simply because they had a car, over a better educated candidate that didn’t drive. That has to stop – IMMEDIATELY. Unless the job involves driving a taxi, delivering parcels or acting as a door-to-door salesperson, the ownership of a vehicle or driver’s license should be a NON-ISSUE.
In these other areas, priorities for the Anti-Poverty Cabinet should also include (in addition to jobs and increased OW/ODSP assistance rates), the following:
1. Funding for an inter-municipal transit system in Niagara (and similar communities across Ontario) that is accessible, affordable, reliable and convenient – as well as money for improvements in local transit systems;
2. Funding for GO Transit service beyond Hamilton. Niagara is always the “one left out”. Because Niagara has very poor transit policy, we are among the worst communities when it comes to air quality and access. There are too many people living in this Region that have never left their own city because they can’t afford the cab fare to get from one city to the next, nor can they afford the $8,000 or more a year it takes to own and maintain a vehicle on an annual basis. Many of these people cannot find work or work only in marginal jobs, because most jobs require people to own a car.
3. Better access to childcare. This is not just pre-school care, but after-school and school holiday care. If a Government believes the best anti-poverty policy is a job, then they need to help people get to the jobs as well as help people remain in the jobs, esp. if they have children. There are too many school holidays, whereby low-income families cannot afford a nanny or daycare for these school holidays and after school. Otherwise, we see the rise of ‘latch key’ children who are more likely to get into trouble than the children of families that have comfortable incomes and external family support. Not everybody has family members and neighbours that can help them in this way.
4. A different approach to public education. If a child is in a public school, it should cost them ZERO for everything … ranging from textbooks, to lab materials, to art supplies, to school trips, to school dances, etc. This should apply whether the child is from a rich family or a poor family. Children know what social class they are in just by being in school … those that “get sick” on the days of school trips or are “allergic to pizza” on pizza days, are well known to their peers and subject to ostracism. When is this going to stop?
5. Respect for and access to higher education. There are many people on ODSP – some say as many as 1 in 6 ODSP household heads – who are university educated. Why is their employment supports program only geared to helping people into low-paid, dead-end employment? If somebody with a disability is university educated and possibly experienced in a particular field, THESE FOLKS are the ones that should be getting government jobs and other good-paying jobs in their community and be assisted this way. High school drop-outs should not be given access to these jobs, but instead be assisted in their educational and/or vocational training goals, which will eventually steer them into a meaningful career goal.
The Canadian Association of Professionals with Disabilities clearly identifies the marginalization of university educated professionals that have disabling health conditions … they should be seen as potential assets to the looming labour shortage and be steered in the direction of higher paid jobs as close as possible to their fields of education and/or work experience. For those seeking a higher education, OSAP needs to be reviewed to ensure it is accessible to people with low-incomes and/or in receipt of OW/ODSP – it cannot be assumed that people on OW/ ODSP have enough $$ to meet their living expenses while attending school (by disallowing OSAP contributions to the same). Also, work needs to be done to increase access to grants and forgivable loans to people living in poverty.
5. Make the Ontario Child Benefit equally beneficial to working families and families that receive OW/ ODSP. At the current time, the implementation for the OCB is too little, too late. The total amount of income must be increased and social assistance should not be clawed-back or "restructured” in any way to accommodate the Ontario Child Benefit. If working families will benefit by up to $95 per child, so should people on assistance. The clawback of the National Child Benefit cannot be addressed by using another clawback, which leads to people on OW/ ODSP getting yet another clawback to accommodate OCB, and be only marginally better off.
6. Housing/ shelter subsidies. This should be addressed by increasing OW/ ODSP rates and by topping up the income of working poor families to enable them to afford “market rate” shelter, owned or rented. The way of measuring this is to ensure that no individual or family has to dip into the “basic needs” part of the budget or their groceries to pay for housing/utilities.
In summary, if the Ontario Government wants to reduce poverty, it must act more quickly and address the issue more broadly in order for its impact to make a difference. It must address the needs of singles and couples, as well as families – and address the needs of all low-income people better, so the “need for” expensive subsidized housing projects can be reduced – if all people can afford to pay “market” rate – rented or owned.
If the Ontario Government chooses to continue on its existing path, it will not reduce poverty and in fact, with the threat of an oncoming recession, the “poverty problem” may even become worse. In short, I want the Government to define poverty as the national emergency it is and to act accordingly, such as putting immediate priority and resources into its eradication, and to involve anti-poverty groups, social policy experts and poor communities themselves to participate in setting the new agenda. As an independently set agenda, it is removed from the political process, although politicians will also be forced to engage consideration of low-income issues on seemingly unrelated matters, such as energy policy.
Submitted by browneassociates
January 30th, 2008
Input into Budget Priorities
TO the Minister of Finance; Standing Committee
on Finance and Economic Affairs; and Cabinet
Committee on Poverty Issues
BY YOUR FAVOURITE BLOGGER
at her legal office's physical address ;-)
SUMMARY
In the mandate of the present Government, incremental and piecemeal approaches to end poverty were favoured over approaches that actually served to reduce or eliminate poverty in vulnerable sectors. It is my position that incremental or piecemeal approaches that favour some groups above others do not in fact reduce or eliminate poverty or the costs associated with it. A refreshing proposal by the present Government to define poverty and identify ways to reduce it by 25% in five years is respected and favoured; however, my question is – who gets to get pulled out of poverty first?
INTRODUCTION
I am an Independent Paralegal with a substantial practice in areas of Labour, Disability and Human Rights issues, as well as providing traditional services in the courts and tribunals where Paralegals are permitted to appear. I work with approximately 50 – 100 clients on an annual basis, ranging from short-term retainers to full cases that end in a Hearing or Appeal. I am also involved in a number of Coalitions, steering groups and panels that are involved in poverty and employment-related issues. For seven years, I also provided on a contractual basis, Employment Supports to persons with disabilities in the Niagara Region. Further, I manage or co-manage a number of Internet sites related to disability, poverty, human rights and related issues, which have a collective audience of almost 10,000 persons, most of whom are from Ontario, or from other parts of Canada. I am also a published writer who has been published over the past twenty years in a number of publications, ranging from street newspapers to news magazines to peer-reviewed journals. Because of this, my experience and work puts me in touch with poverty and labour issues on a day-to-day basis – thus putting me in a position to understand how policies and priorities set out by any Government can succeed or fail in its stated objective of poverty reduction.
This presentation is a representation of my own views and experience and does not necessarily reflect the views of mentioned organizations and committees with which I have been involved.
SUBMISSION
Like most analysts, I note a number of efforts have already been undertaken by your Government towards the amelioration of poverty. These efforts are noted as follows:
1. Ontario Child Benefit
2. Shelter Allowance (ROOF)
3. A 3%, 2% and 2% increase to Ontario Works/ODSP rates
4. Regulatory changes to permit increased earnings, assets and related measures for OW/ODSP recipients; &
5. Some other changes to related programs and services, such as WSIB, OSAP, among others.
In the last provincial election, among your renewed promises was a commitment by your Government to set up a Cabinet Committee to define, track and reduce poverty by 25% or more over the next five (5) years. This promise was one that was applauded by virtually every anti-poverty organization across Ontario and by the Toronto Star. Please understand if these same organizations become less than pleased if they do not see any new initiatives or better targeted efforts in this budget towards this end. The ‘rumour mill’ has it that your Government has no plans to add anything new, other than what it had already started in last year’s budget (e.g. Ontario Child Benefit). That in my view will not lead to any further applause from anybody.
The majority of poor people I represent or have worked with are persons with disabilities. The substantial majority of persons with disabilities are single and in some other cases, married or common law couples, with no children under eighteen years of age living with them. Many have children, but they have grown up and since started their own lives, or in the case of many persons with disabilities, remained single because ODSP itself penalizes people for engaging in relationships (unless the person they are engaging a relationship with is also on ODSP). Approximately 12%-15% are single, married or common law with children under the age of eighteen living with them.
For the most part, other than example # 3 (above), these people have not benefited from any of your new budgetary initiatives announced in 2007, and for them – the 3%, 2% and 2% increases are barely a drop in the bucket when compared to the spending power lost since 1993, when the rates were last raised before November 2004, when your Government initiated its first raise. Even with the total of all of the raises implemented, this only brings people on ODSP up to the same spending power they had in perhaps 1995 or 1996, but not much further. Yet since then, inflation, rent hikes, electricity rates, gas rates, transit fares, grocery prices have increased by more than 25% since then.
As pointed out to your Government by many participants in this process, including the ODSP Action Coalition and others, neither OW or ODSP rates are based on any rational criteria and are certainly not set in relation to the actual costs of shelter and other basic necessities. While most people on assistance do rent, many also do own their own homes. Homeowners who are in receipt of OW/ODSP have been left off your radar. Many have had their homes prior to getting put on ODSP or were able to acquire them later through the assistance of an inheritance or similar windfall. These people have no interest in joining the lengthening wait lists for social housing … they just want to be able to continue to afford to live where they live now, as well as improve their properties to reduce energy use and/or modify their surroundings to fit their family’s needs. Even for those that do rent and choose to join the wait list for social housing, the wait is quite long and it is not unheard of to be put on the list when their children are in grade school, but not be accepted until their children are of age and ready to leave home. A recent article in the Toronto Star cited the wait list in Peel Region to be approximately 22 years. In most regions, it is 7 to 10 years.
Long wait lists for social housing are not present because of demand for their ‘high quality’ abodes. In fact, most families I know that are *not* on the wait list are not there because they choose better neighbourhoods for their children and wish to live in properties that have at least an acceptable standard of maintenance in them. While it is not your Government’s choice, but large municipalities across Ontario are stuck with bills of hundreds of millions of dollars in maintenance for the housing that is already there … let alone, build any more. If my family were faced with the choice, we would rather stay where we are – despite the fact we pay over 50% of our income on housing.
Long wait lists are in fact based on artificial demand that would not be necessary at all if people had sufficient means to afford “market rents”. The wait lists are there because OW/ODSP and even minimum wage rates are set without any rational criteria of what it actually costs to meet basic needs. The answer to this is not to build more and more of this type of housing that will only meet the needs of a few, and eventually fade into disrepair and neglect, but to ensure that ALL people have the means to afford average housing costs in their region of residence and family size, using tables of average rents by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Neither housing or utility costs should be taken out of an individual or family’s ‘basic needs’ budget.
Further, many other commodities have increased in price over and above the rate of inflation over the years. For example, it was your Government’s decision to remove the cap on hydro rates and provide for hikes in the rates for natural gas. In my own family’s case, even with the purchase of CFC bulbs, washing in cold water among other methods within our control, our hydro bills have more than doubled over the past five years. We cannot afford energy-efficient appliances to reduce our output. In effect, our family, like many other families are held hostage to higher hydro rates, while families of better financial means can acquire energy-efficient appliances and home improvements to reduce their output. Despite specific lobbying efforts by organizations like the Low Income Energy Network, your Government has yet to announce a realistic program that would actually reduce output for families of low or modest means. This is the time to roll such a program out, especially if your Government wants to continue to push for the placement of smart meters and further increase utility rates.
Grocery costs go up along with the price of gas. There is a movement afoot in many communities to get more people to shop locally. However, if you are poor and have no means of transportation to get to these places, you are forced to pay higher prices for imported goods at supermarkets. Further, if you have medical problems, finding the kinds of food that you need to eat to keep healthy is more difficult and expensive. The Special Diet Allowance was significantly cut to many individuals and families with medical problems, making it even more costly and difficult for them to meet these costs. Many medical problems are not considered for the allocation of special diet, but still respond to dietary interventions. For those conditions that are listed, the amount of monies allocated is insufficient. Given that most ODSP recipients pay at least 70% or more of their income for housing alone, it becomes less rational to justify the low rates they are given to meet these costs.
As a taxpayer, I also know the cost of delivering health care is increasing to a point where health care allocations that once took 25% of our provincial spending now takes up almost half. Health care economists have stated in numerous forums that the increase in health care expenditure is not necessarily related to the ageing population, as this factor plays in less than 2% in the amount of increased spending. While part of the increase is also the cost of new pharmaceuticals, it is MY position that the largest part of the cause of increased health care costs rests with the increased burden of poverty. The Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences has already determined that diabetes, for example, is four times more likely to happen to somebody in a lower socioeconomic status than it is for somebody of more comfortable means. Low-income diabetics are also twice as likely as others to suffer from complications of the condition, such as blindness and heart disease.
Over the course of my career, I learned of many hypothetical situations that can be applied to these learnings. For example, it is not unheard of for somebody living on ODSP as a single person in my region to pay more than 75% of their income on housing, sometimes even more. In many cases, that leaves a person on ODSP with less than $100 a month to spend on food, transportation, clothing, health care, etc. If such a person is already diabetic, they are highly vulnerable to complications, such as heart disease. Older, more fragile patients may be referred to live in an assisted-care facility. Because such facilities don’t exist for younger people, they often end up in nursing homes, whereby the health care system now covers the cost of the nursing home (where monthly fees can exceed $3,500 even in a modest facility), the health care itself, plus continue to pay the person their ODSP allowance …
In another hypothetical, a working woman who does not earn enough to cover health care expenses is a fragile diabetic, where genetically, she has inherited a tendency to complications … she does all the right things, sees the right doctors and tries to follow a diet and quits smoking. However, she needs an insulin pump to defray substantial fluctuations in her blood glucose level. It is known that even for a short time if glucose levels are too high, permanent damage can ensue. She becomes too ill to work and because her workplace is not likely to have disability or sickness coverage, she is forced to turn to EI (if she is even eligible) and after that, welfare. Because she is not able to maintain a reasonable diet on OW/ ODSP rates, she becomes very ill and suffers blindness, kidney failure and/or an amputation of her leg. How much would an insulin pump cost the system if it meant this person can continue working and avoid complications? How much would it cost the system to increase the first example’s ODSP rates so that she would be able to eat properly and live independently, as opposed to spending thousands of dollars afterwards on a monthly basis to “maintain her” in a lower quality of existence? When priorities are set for the budget, not only should the costs of doing things be considered (e.g. increasing ODSP rates, broadening coverage for medical devices), but the cost of NOT doing things.
Poverty is expensive. Reducing and eliminating poverty may cost something at first, but over time – savings will be realized as we can then notice there will be reduced costs for urgent and emergency health care, assisted care facilities for younger people, policing (as the vast majority of people convicted of crime are living in poverty), band-aids (as caring for homeless persons does cost upwards of $40,000 a year in Toronto), etc. However, by not reducing poverty and allowing it to flourish, our costs for everything ranging from health care to education to policing and corrections will sharply increase. We only have the U.S. to look to for leadership in this area, where they are building more prisons than they are housing homeless people, while still imposing spiraling taxation on its people.
Many people argue that the best “cure” for poverty is a job.
However, there are many problems with this theory. More and more people have jobs, even more than one job, but they still cannot escape poverty. Other than minimum wages, labour laws do not provide for guarantees of job security, provision of benefits, number of hours and other “measures” of a job that determine the quality of the job. Nor do any laws in our country force any employer to hire any particular person …
Official unemployment statistics are not accurate so far as they do not measure involuntary part-time employment, contract or involuntary “self-employment” or people who have thus far given up looking for a job. I just learned from a friend that she had just lost a job she had for a couple of years and loved … she loved her job so much that her face literally lit up the room whenever she spoke about things she was involved with at her work. She spoke very highly about her employer, until … a new manager came in and decided he no longer liked her and let her go. She is now for the first time in her life on a job hunt in a very economically depressed region of this province. This is what it is like for somebody who is so-called “employable”.
What about those of us who are too old, too young, over-qualified, under-qualified, too disabled, too smart, too reserved, etc. for today’s seemingly competitive job market that rules out all but the most healthy, quickest and youngest of the roost? Does your Government plan to force employers to hire people from among these ‘less desirable’ categories? Because the answer is likely no, I would only demand the alternative – that those who cannot, for whatever reason, find work that pays them enough to meet their basic needs – that a social safety net be available that would provide them enough to support themselves and their families in relative dignity.
As made clear above, the existing social safety net does not do that. In fact, I am privy to a number of people who should not be working (due to a disability) who try to work anyways because our once strong social safety net has since been torn to tatters … and since returning to work, many of these people have been turfed out of their job, forced to quit, become re-injured, or ended up hospitalized as a result of an exacerbation of an illness or disability they have … but cannot get enough money on Ontario Works or ODSP to even cover basic costs, such as housing. How this work or starve mentality benefits employers is beyond me … or even the rest of us that must pay for their injuries, health care and unemployment through our taxes. At the same time, many injured workers try to return to work only to have employers illegally terminate them and WSIB deny benefits to such a point where such a worker ends up having to turn to OW /ODSP for basics. Technically, there are laws in place to protect people, but unfortunately, these same laws are broken again and again to no avail.
If your Government believes a job is the best social policy, then it must do something about jobs. That means:
1. Increase in minimum wage to $10/hour now;
2. Tying ANY government support or subsidy to a living wage policy (meaning that the minimum salary offered must be in itself able to meet all basic needs of a family in the region where the job is offered);
3. Toughening labour standards and enforcement to increase job security and reduce incidence of workplace harassment and bullying – including contracting with so-called staffing agencies;
4. Penalizing employers and company owners for labour law violations in a meaningful way;
5. Improved enforcements of the Human Rights Code (including proactive measures to prevent discrimination from starting in the first place); and
6. Targeted programs where necessary to improve the likelihood of qualified persons with disabilities, older persons, newcomers and others traditionally impacted by job discrimination, in not only obtaining work, but finding work that meets their skills/training/education.
IF all of the above is done in short order, we may expect greater job security for many people not otherwise given it. However, not everybody can work. People may be sick, disabled, or are caregivers to others (children, elderly or disabled persons) and unable to take a job. Others are looking for work and are in between jobs. These people must also have a decent income to resort to. The amount currently received on Ontario Works is shameful and an embarrassment to a wealthy province such as ours. Even ODSP rates are shameful, given that inflation has eroded its value over many years.
Social assistance rates of any kind (OW/ ODSP) must be adjusted to reflect realistic rates for shelter, utilities, telephone, transportation, clothing and a healthy diet, at minimum. Persons who are on ODSP and are either unable to work or have limited options (such as only able to work in a specific field, be self-employed or work only part-time) MUST have an income that not only includes the basics, but also includes enough to cover social costs. It is not pleasant to be a prisoner in your own home. Many people on ODSP in my region do not even have the money for bus fare to go anywhere in the community, let alone pay fees for programs once they get there. For these people, a television set that breaks down is a crisis for them. Most cannot even dream of purchasing new clothes, and often continue to wear old, damaged clothing. I have seen ODSP recipients go without winter clothing in the dead of a January freeze. Many of these people simply layer several sweaters over one another and limit the number of times they leave their homes. A true measurement of reduction of poverty is a substantial decrease in the number of people relying on food banks and emergency shelters, as well as a decrease in the number of food banks and shelters in service anywhere in the province. In my view, nobody in Ontario should be using a food bank or emergency shelter. We should be rescuing animals, not homeless people - because there should be NO homeless people.
Setting rates for OW/ ODSP should be done through an independent process that includes social policy experts, anti-poverty workers and poor people themselves. Politicians are not adequately knowledgeable about how much one needs as a bare minimum to survive … as most politicians come from comfortable backgrounds prior to being elected and after voting themselves a 27% increase last year, certainly know nothing about the availability of low-cost housing in their area or what a basic food basket actually costs an average family. Politicians however can have the political will to work with an independent process and allow significant input by people who actually know the costs of things, as well as the costs of not doing things.
Politicians through this process also need to set targets and make one another, as well as relevant departments accountable for meeting these targets. For example, anti-poverty measures are not only about getting more good-paying jobs and increasing social assistance rates. Anti-poverty measures also include: childcare policy, education policy, availability and cost of local/regional transit options, availability of home ownership, retirement options and access to community amenities.
For example, I live in a Region where politicians don’t feel there are many people that don’t drive. In their view, everybody drives or has “family and friends” to take them places. As a result, our Region’s social class structure is predicated upon whether or not you and your family have access to a personal vehicle. People that do not drive or cannot afford to do so are stuck in low-paying job ghettos – retail, service, call centres – while those that do drive do have access to better paying jobs, where they do exist. This is regardless of your education and skills. I have witnessed situations where high school or college drop-outs were favoured in a job simply because they had a car, over a better educated candidate that didn’t drive. That has to stop – IMMEDIATELY. Unless the job involves driving a taxi, delivering parcels or acting as a door-to-door salesperson, the ownership of a vehicle or driver’s license should be a NON-ISSUE.
In these other areas, priorities for the Anti-Poverty Cabinet should also include (in addition to jobs and increased OW/ODSP assistance rates), the following:
1. Funding for an inter-municipal transit system in Niagara (and similar communities across Ontario) that is accessible, affordable, reliable and convenient – as well as money for improvements in local transit systems;
2. Funding for GO Transit service beyond Hamilton. Niagara is always the “one left out”. Because Niagara has very poor transit policy, we are among the worst communities when it comes to air quality and access. There are too many people living in this Region that have never left their own city because they can’t afford the cab fare to get from one city to the next, nor can they afford the $8,000 or more a year it takes to own and maintain a vehicle on an annual basis. Many of these people cannot find work or work only in marginal jobs, because most jobs require people to own a car.
3. Better access to childcare. This is not just pre-school care, but after-school and school holiday care. If a Government believes the best anti-poverty policy is a job, then they need to help people get to the jobs as well as help people remain in the jobs, esp. if they have children. There are too many school holidays, whereby low-income families cannot afford a nanny or daycare for these school holidays and after school. Otherwise, we see the rise of ‘latch key’ children who are more likely to get into trouble than the children of families that have comfortable incomes and external family support. Not everybody has family members and neighbours that can help them in this way.
4. A different approach to public education. If a child is in a public school, it should cost them ZERO for everything … ranging from textbooks, to lab materials, to art supplies, to school trips, to school dances, etc. This should apply whether the child is from a rich family or a poor family. Children know what social class they are in just by being in school … those that “get sick” on the days of school trips or are “allergic to pizza” on pizza days, are well known to their peers and subject to ostracism. When is this going to stop?
5. Respect for and access to higher education. There are many people on ODSP – some say as many as 1 in 6 ODSP household heads – who are university educated. Why is their employment supports program only geared to helping people into low-paid, dead-end employment? If somebody with a disability is university educated and possibly experienced in a particular field, THESE FOLKS are the ones that should be getting government jobs and other good-paying jobs in their community and be assisted this way. High school drop-outs should not be given access to these jobs, but instead be assisted in their educational and/or vocational training goals, which will eventually steer them into a meaningful career goal.
The Canadian Association of Professionals with Disabilities clearly identifies the marginalization of university educated professionals that have disabling health conditions … they should be seen as potential assets to the looming labour shortage and be steered in the direction of higher paid jobs as close as possible to their fields of education and/or work experience. For those seeking a higher education, OSAP needs to be reviewed to ensure it is accessible to people with low-incomes and/or in receipt of OW/ODSP – it cannot be assumed that people on OW/ ODSP have enough $$ to meet their living expenses while attending school (by disallowing OSAP contributions to the same). Also, work needs to be done to increase access to grants and forgivable loans to people living in poverty.
5. Make the Ontario Child Benefit equally beneficial to working families and families that receive OW/ ODSP. At the current time, the implementation for the OCB is too little, too late. The total amount of income must be increased and social assistance should not be clawed-back or "restructured” in any way to accommodate the Ontario Child Benefit. If working families will benefit by up to $95 per child, so should people on assistance. The clawback of the National Child Benefit cannot be addressed by using another clawback, which leads to people on OW/ ODSP getting yet another clawback to accommodate OCB, and be only marginally better off.
6. Housing/ shelter subsidies. This should be addressed by increasing OW/ ODSP rates and by topping up the income of working poor families to enable them to afford “market rate” shelter, owned or rented. The way of measuring this is to ensure that no individual or family has to dip into the “basic needs” part of the budget or their groceries to pay for housing/utilities.
In summary, if the Ontario Government wants to reduce poverty, it must act more quickly and address the issue more broadly in order for its impact to make a difference. It must address the needs of singles and couples, as well as families – and address the needs of all low-income people better, so the “need for” expensive subsidized housing projects can be reduced – if all people can afford to pay “market” rate – rented or owned.
If the Ontario Government chooses to continue on its existing path, it will not reduce poverty and in fact, with the threat of an oncoming recession, the “poverty problem” may even become worse. In short, I want the Government to define poverty as the national emergency it is and to act accordingly, such as putting immediate priority and resources into its eradication, and to involve anti-poverty groups, social policy experts and poor communities themselves to participate in setting the new agenda. As an independently set agenda, it is removed from the political process, although politicians will also be forced to engage consideration of low-income issues on seemingly unrelated matters, such as energy policy.
Submitted by browneassociates
January 30th, 2008
Sunday, January 20, 2008
UPDATE: ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT
A while back, I posted the turbulent history of Ontario's regulation of Independent Paralegals, which includes me.
A lot has happened since that post and it is important for me as a professional to keep the public informed on its progress. As stated in the last post, the Law Society of Upper Canada was legislated to take over the regulation of Independent Paralegals, as well as the regulation of many Paralegals that work for employers but do similar work to those that work independently. The Law Society of Upper Canada, despite no financial assistance from the provincial Government, has undertook this position well and has thus far kept on track.
It appears that the number of Independent Paralegals applying for the "grandparent" or "transitional" categories exceeded even the Society's expectations. Many applied in the last ten days of the time frame permitted to submit their applications for consideration as a candidate for licensing. Shortly after determining eligibility for candidates to write the Licensing Exam, people were individually notified and invoiced for that next step. It turns out that my own experience with this process is not too difficult, because as one of the Independent Paralegals who welcomed some type of regulation, I expect to adhere to specific guidelines, procedures and oversight. I then submitted payment for my Exam and at the next opportunity when I was in Toronto, picked up the materials for preparation. Last week, I made the trek as most Independent Paralegals did and wrote my Examination in Toronto on January 17, 2008. Of the approximately 2,500 candidates that chose to undertake this step, most wrote the exam in Toronto; others wrote it in Ottawa, London, North Bay and Thunder Bay (?). This was done to accommodate the needs of Paralegals that practise in regions that are further away from Toronto. In the next week or so, candidates will learn if they passed the examination and in either case, what their next steps are. Some people will be required to re-write the Exam if they want to proceed to Licensing.
Regardless, after May 2008, Ontario will be the first jurisdiction in North America to have a regulated class of non-Lawyer court agents that can legally represent people in a number of legal tribunals. Members of the public who are considering retaining the services of Independent Paralegals will now have a way of determining if that Paralegal is licensed and competent to perform their duties, as well as have an avenue in which to resolve any complaints they might have. This is not the ideal situation that Independent Paralegals wanted to have, but as I ventured through this process, I learnt there were a series of compromises on all sides of the issue. The Code of Conduct drafted for us is really not that much different than the one we proposed in our own White Paper to the Attorney-General in 2005-2006, except replacing the proposed College with a Paralegal Standing Committee and Convocation. Further, one of the key tenets of the Law Society of Upper Canada is responsible self-regulation and independence of the legal profession, whether this now be Paralegal or Lawyer. The question remains if Convocation (or the Board of Directors) of the Law Society should ever find itself in conflict with issues where the interests of Paralegals and Lawyers conflict. Nobody is sure how this will be dealt with at all, as this is the first time any Law Society ever took on this joint responsibility for two professions. I certainly hope that if such issues arise that they can be discussed openly between the two professions and resolved in such a way that leaves all parties feeling heard and respected.
Paralegal colleagues who read this blog have often commented to me about how I am not angry enough, not revolutionary enough or don't protest enough about all of these changes. I am not happy with everything, but then again - if the shoe were on the other foot, I bet I can find many Lawyers who are not happy with everything either. The fact of life is this regulation process was a major compromise between many, many interests ... and regardless of what direction it eventually took, there will always be a number of unhappy participants. As I went through this process, I often asked myself too if I considered it worth the investment of my time and money. Each time I asked lately, the answer more often became yes. Why? To me, this is not about ME. It is about my clients, prospective clients and the integrity of my profession. I realized how much my clients rely upon ME, not only for who I am, but for the integrity and standards I hold up in order to serve them. I want to not only continue to serve them, but participate in continuous quality improvement of my standards and services so that I become better and better as years go by and partake in upholding the dignity of this profession. This is something that should be first and foremost on the minds of ALL of my colleagues.
At this time, we need to take stock of the positive measures this new regulation will bring. We are pioneers of a sort. We are the first group of Independent Paralegals to find our rightful and lawful place within the courts and administration of justice. We will not only be permitted to appear, but have a RIGHT to appear in forums where our licenses permit. In the past, any judicial officer can throw any one of us out of their court or tribunal if he or she did not feel we were 'competent' or acting 'respectfully'. In turn too, this imposes a responsibility on all of us to respect the courts and tribunals in which we appear. This will make a large difference to many of us who have been in the courts for a long time and have felt we had less rights, for example, to be there than the opposing party that is represented by a Lawyer (and some Paralegals who practise in the criminal courts have felt this many times before - now, this will not be an issue). Certain restrictions on our practises in the past, such as the right to charge a contingency fee for certain types of cases, will now be granted to us. There will be rules as to when and how these agreements can be entered into, but then Lawyers have to follow these rules as well.
The next positive thing this brings is that we are now among a group of respected and regulated professionals. To the public that count on us, this IS a plus. How many of us in the past have encountered clients that wanted to know everything about you, from where you learnt how to be a Paralegal to whether you have insurance and whether you belong to a professional organization? Perhaps, this client was wary about engaging the services of somebody they were unsure about. Now, every person who comes through your door can have the confidence that you are not only able to provide the services they are seeking, but will be assured that you will carry out your duties in a responsible and professional manner. It creates that sense of trust that you alone cannot generate until your client has worked with YOU for awhile. In turn, it makes us responsible to dispatch our duties in a professional and responsible way. This forces us to think about things before we carry them out and to ensure that we are truly doing our utmost to maintain the level of professionalism the public now has a right to expect from each and every one of us.
What I like the most about this is the degree of respect and purpose we endorse with every client that comes to see us - a respect for their safety, confidentiality and interests. Together with this, our profession is completely independent of government controls and regulation. Many times, our opponents in a case include government agencies or departments themselves ... and we can feel confident to continue to advocate in this manner to promote the interests of those we are representing. Our regulators are concerned with how we dispatch ourselves and how we protect the interests of our clients - but do not compromise that independence.
There are things I am not happy about with this process, but then again - I have to think about it in one way. This is the first time anybody did this with respect to Independent Paralegals. There will be bumps in the road, but we have to prepare to continue to stand up against any potential problems, identify them and be willing to work with others to find a suitable compromise. One of the issues that concerns me is the restrictions from participating in family law matters, as well as some other areas that many trained Paralegals are otherwise capable of performing on their own. Permitting a broader range of practise areas could not be considered when the first set of Independent Paralegals came on board simply because we don't know which among them will be able to carry on these other services with dispatch and professionalism, although those coming on stream have been required to demonstrate they have had a certain level of experience in providing permitted areas of service. Remember the issue about public confidence and trust, knowing that any Paralegal they approach must be seen as competent to provide services in their permitted/practised areas.
It is my belief given my knowledge about the way organizations develop and the interaction of interests within these organizations, that someday there may be a greater role for Paralegals in family law as well as some other areas, such as simple incorporations. Because this is not law today does not mean it won't be law tomorrow. We need to continue to demonstrate why it may be in the public interest to allow a broader range of permissible areas of practise and to provide a way to ensure that Paralegals interested in practising in these other areas can gain and maintain appropriate levels of competence and knowledge in these areas. There may at some point be a need to expand or extend certain Paralegal Licenses to these areas, provided those seeking these designations can either take certain courses, pass exams or otherwise prove competence in these areas. But, at this point, we need to demonstrate that we can be trusted to be the competent professionals that we are ... as I once told somebody, this is like being on probation for a job - during such time we need to prove to our employers that we are the right fit and can do what is expected of us. At some point in the future, this may well extend to a deserved promotion of sorts. We just have to hang in there while the eyes of the legal world remain on us; we must be the pioneers to bring this profession to its newly respected status.
A lot has happened since that post and it is important for me as a professional to keep the public informed on its progress. As stated in the last post, the Law Society of Upper Canada was legislated to take over the regulation of Independent Paralegals, as well as the regulation of many Paralegals that work for employers but do similar work to those that work independently. The Law Society of Upper Canada, despite no financial assistance from the provincial Government, has undertook this position well and has thus far kept on track.
It appears that the number of Independent Paralegals applying for the "grandparent" or "transitional" categories exceeded even the Society's expectations. Many applied in the last ten days of the time frame permitted to submit their applications for consideration as a candidate for licensing. Shortly after determining eligibility for candidates to write the Licensing Exam, people were individually notified and invoiced for that next step. It turns out that my own experience with this process is not too difficult, because as one of the Independent Paralegals who welcomed some type of regulation, I expect to adhere to specific guidelines, procedures and oversight. I then submitted payment for my Exam and at the next opportunity when I was in Toronto, picked up the materials for preparation. Last week, I made the trek as most Independent Paralegals did and wrote my Examination in Toronto on January 17, 2008. Of the approximately 2,500 candidates that chose to undertake this step, most wrote the exam in Toronto; others wrote it in Ottawa, London, North Bay and Thunder Bay (?). This was done to accommodate the needs of Paralegals that practise in regions that are further away from Toronto. In the next week or so, candidates will learn if they passed the examination and in either case, what their next steps are. Some people will be required to re-write the Exam if they want to proceed to Licensing.
Regardless, after May 2008, Ontario will be the first jurisdiction in North America to have a regulated class of non-Lawyer court agents that can legally represent people in a number of legal tribunals. Members of the public who are considering retaining the services of Independent Paralegals will now have a way of determining if that Paralegal is licensed and competent to perform their duties, as well as have an avenue in which to resolve any complaints they might have. This is not the ideal situation that Independent Paralegals wanted to have, but as I ventured through this process, I learnt there were a series of compromises on all sides of the issue. The Code of Conduct drafted for us is really not that much different than the one we proposed in our own White Paper to the Attorney-General in 2005-2006, except replacing the proposed College with a Paralegal Standing Committee and Convocation. Further, one of the key tenets of the Law Society of Upper Canada is responsible self-regulation and independence of the legal profession, whether this now be Paralegal or Lawyer. The question remains if Convocation (or the Board of Directors) of the Law Society should ever find itself in conflict with issues where the interests of Paralegals and Lawyers conflict. Nobody is sure how this will be dealt with at all, as this is the first time any Law Society ever took on this joint responsibility for two professions. I certainly hope that if such issues arise that they can be discussed openly between the two professions and resolved in such a way that leaves all parties feeling heard and respected.
Paralegal colleagues who read this blog have often commented to me about how I am not angry enough, not revolutionary enough or don't protest enough about all of these changes. I am not happy with everything, but then again - if the shoe were on the other foot, I bet I can find many Lawyers who are not happy with everything either. The fact of life is this regulation process was a major compromise between many, many interests ... and regardless of what direction it eventually took, there will always be a number of unhappy participants. As I went through this process, I often asked myself too if I considered it worth the investment of my time and money. Each time I asked lately, the answer more often became yes. Why? To me, this is not about ME. It is about my clients, prospective clients and the integrity of my profession. I realized how much my clients rely upon ME, not only for who I am, but for the integrity and standards I hold up in order to serve them. I want to not only continue to serve them, but participate in continuous quality improvement of my standards and services so that I become better and better as years go by and partake in upholding the dignity of this profession. This is something that should be first and foremost on the minds of ALL of my colleagues.
At this time, we need to take stock of the positive measures this new regulation will bring. We are pioneers of a sort. We are the first group of Independent Paralegals to find our rightful and lawful place within the courts and administration of justice. We will not only be permitted to appear, but have a RIGHT to appear in forums where our licenses permit. In the past, any judicial officer can throw any one of us out of their court or tribunal if he or she did not feel we were 'competent' or acting 'respectfully'. In turn too, this imposes a responsibility on all of us to respect the courts and tribunals in which we appear. This will make a large difference to many of us who have been in the courts for a long time and have felt we had less rights, for example, to be there than the opposing party that is represented by a Lawyer (and some Paralegals who practise in the criminal courts have felt this many times before - now, this will not be an issue). Certain restrictions on our practises in the past, such as the right to charge a contingency fee for certain types of cases, will now be granted to us. There will be rules as to when and how these agreements can be entered into, but then Lawyers have to follow these rules as well.
The next positive thing this brings is that we are now among a group of respected and regulated professionals. To the public that count on us, this IS a plus. How many of us in the past have encountered clients that wanted to know everything about you, from where you learnt how to be a Paralegal to whether you have insurance and whether you belong to a professional organization? Perhaps, this client was wary about engaging the services of somebody they were unsure about. Now, every person who comes through your door can have the confidence that you are not only able to provide the services they are seeking, but will be assured that you will carry out your duties in a responsible and professional manner. It creates that sense of trust that you alone cannot generate until your client has worked with YOU for awhile. In turn, it makes us responsible to dispatch our duties in a professional and responsible way. This forces us to think about things before we carry them out and to ensure that we are truly doing our utmost to maintain the level of professionalism the public now has a right to expect from each and every one of us.
What I like the most about this is the degree of respect and purpose we endorse with every client that comes to see us - a respect for their safety, confidentiality and interests. Together with this, our profession is completely independent of government controls and regulation. Many times, our opponents in a case include government agencies or departments themselves ... and we can feel confident to continue to advocate in this manner to promote the interests of those we are representing. Our regulators are concerned with how we dispatch ourselves and how we protect the interests of our clients - but do not compromise that independence.
There are things I am not happy about with this process, but then again - I have to think about it in one way. This is the first time anybody did this with respect to Independent Paralegals. There will be bumps in the road, but we have to prepare to continue to stand up against any potential problems, identify them and be willing to work with others to find a suitable compromise. One of the issues that concerns me is the restrictions from participating in family law matters, as well as some other areas that many trained Paralegals are otherwise capable of performing on their own. Permitting a broader range of practise areas could not be considered when the first set of Independent Paralegals came on board simply because we don't know which among them will be able to carry on these other services with dispatch and professionalism, although those coming on stream have been required to demonstrate they have had a certain level of experience in providing permitted areas of service. Remember the issue about public confidence and trust, knowing that any Paralegal they approach must be seen as competent to provide services in their permitted/practised areas.
It is my belief given my knowledge about the way organizations develop and the interaction of interests within these organizations, that someday there may be a greater role for Paralegals in family law as well as some other areas, such as simple incorporations. Because this is not law today does not mean it won't be law tomorrow. We need to continue to demonstrate why it may be in the public interest to allow a broader range of permissible areas of practise and to provide a way to ensure that Paralegals interested in practising in these other areas can gain and maintain appropriate levels of competence and knowledge in these areas. There may at some point be a need to expand or extend certain Paralegal Licenses to these areas, provided those seeking these designations can either take certain courses, pass exams or otherwise prove competence in these areas. But, at this point, we need to demonstrate that we can be trusted to be the competent professionals that we are ... as I once told somebody, this is like being on probation for a job - during such time we need to prove to our employers that we are the right fit and can do what is expected of us. At some point in the future, this may well extend to a deserved promotion of sorts. We just have to hang in there while the eyes of the legal world remain on us; we must be the pioneers to bring this profession to its newly respected status.
Sunday, December 30, 2007
THE ETHICS OF CHARITY
I don't give to many charities, except those that have demonstrated an empowerment philosophy or preserve the lives of innocent animals.
Unfortunately, in order to legally become a charity, empowerment of others cannot be the mainstay of your organization's objectives. Further, using your organization's voice as a tool for advocacy is also severely restricted, which only results in further covering up the real problems your organization may be trying to address. In particular, if you want to become a charity that assists low-income people, you can't predicate your mission on reducing and/or eradicating the root causes of poverty. You can only propose to provide band-aids. You can become a food bank, a second hand clothing distributor or one of those organizations where you can "sponsor" a child in a Third World country. Most of these charities have existed in this country for a very long time, yet the rate of poverty among people - including those who have jobs - has increased by leaps and bounds.
There are some people who actually believe that if we eliminate government support services to people living in poverty, they will no longer be poor because either the "market" will fix their situation or "families" or "charity" will step in. Let me repeat that point I made in the above paragraph. The number of charities geared to serving the poor have more than quintupled since 1980, yet our rate of people living in poverty has almost doubled since. The rate of poverty has particularly increased after cuts to social programs began. Contrary to what some people say who believe that social programs lead to poverty, their reduction has actually caused a spike in poverty and an increase in the number of homeless people over the past twenty-five years. After Mike Harris cut welfare rates by 21.6% in 1995, a large number of people "disappeared" from the social services statistics. When they were contacted (or an attempt was made), many had their phones disconnected or have been evicted from their housing. Yes, a few people found other housing, but it is offices like the legal clinics, advocacy paralegals like myself, and others, who have only seen the spike in the number of slumlords and unsafe, Third-World conditions many of these people were living in. As I stated before in these posts, more than half of my OW to ODSP clients are homeless or have had spells of homelessness while living on OW, prior to getting onto ODSP. Some others went into shared housing situations, only to find the shared arrangements were destructive: their "roommate" moves out suddenly leaving them holding the bag only to get evicted for non-payment; the person buys food and others in the household eat it; items are stolen from the person by "roommates" and sold to pawn shops and to others on the "street"; and so forth. If middle class dictates make you feel these kinds of conditions would not be good for you, why are they good enough for others?
At Christmas time and Thanksgiving, there is often an explosion of media coverage about the need to give to food banks, women's shelters and so forth. People do tend to give more at these times. However, I am a bit of a skeptic in some ways, particularly when it comes to some of the businesses in the region that give large amounts to these charities at Christmas time. My questions to these businesses are obvious: (a) Do you employ low-income people and pay them decent wages that get them out of poverty? (b) Do you pay your existing workers decently enough so they will never have to rely on the services of charities to which you are donating?; and (c) Does your business have a social conscience, whereby you do not continue to push for more and more tax cuts, which you know will only translate into a reduction of services to low-income people? Don't believe that? Well, even when Mike Harris cut personal taxes by 30%, grants and pay-offs to big business did not stop; however, services in health care, education and social services significantly deteriorated. To me, if I were a business, my "charity" would begin at home first ... hire and pay my employees well, offer some benefits and a certain level of job security and where possible, growth within the company. To further exemplify this point, did you know that stores like Wal-Mart donate to a lot of charities, including poverty band-aid programs, while they continue to pay their own employees so little that they often have to use these very charities for basic survival? To me, this is not acceptable.
This ethic is charity by example. I would show respect for people by offering wages that a person can survive on, as after all - it is these very employees that are making ME money. Therefore, these employees deserve a decent pay package. Some businesses argue against minimum wage increases, saying that less jobs get created as a result of legislated pay hikes. There are plenty of arguments that have proven this wrong. If this was the case, wages would have remained at the same rate of pay as it did in the 1920's ... a few pennies a day, perhaps. As the cost of living increased, so did minimum wage. Some people would argue why should they hire relatively low-skilled workers for more money? It doesn't matter ... if the job needs to be done and you can't get chimpanzees to do these jobs for free, then you need to hire human beings. If a person doesn't work out, you can fire them. No big deal. Also, if you were literate in business as I am, you can get hold of numerous publicly traded company reports and learn that many of these companies that earn substantial profit are those that pay its workers minimum wages or close to them. Yes, some of these profits have to go to the executives and shareholders and there is nothing wrong with that (but I do question multi-million dollar pay packages), but a large portion of these profits go to GROWTH strategy. They keep wages low, shaving themselves more and more money, so they can put it towards more and more stores .... call centres are developing this strategy as well. Why else do you think they are sprouting like weeds in communities all over Canada, especially in economically depressed regions?
While the shrewd executives of these stores would argue that they are creating a lot more jobs by building more and more stores, there is a point at which this reaches saturation. That means, there will become a point where Wal-Mart, Starbucks, Tim Hortons and other similar franchises simply cannot serve more people ... and if more of the jobs in their serviced communities are on the lower paid end of things, less people will have large amounts of disposable income to spend at these kinds of places. Further, these franchises will have to fight harder and harder to find and retain workers, particularly if people can't afford to live on what these franchises pay. With an aging population, there are less workers available that are able and willing to work at these wages, particularly if they still have offspring living at home or are still paying off a mortgage. Statistics Canada has found that the average age that a child leaves home has increased substantially over the past twenty years. At one time, we were all ecstatic to leave the nest at the age of seventeen or eighteen, but today - it is quite possible for children to still live at home until they are in their late twenties. This places financial pressure on their often older parents, who cannot afford to earn only minimum wage at Wal-Mart or Starbucks and to compete with their children for the same jobs ... this is a reality created by governments that have a drive-down philosophy. While governments will speak out of one side of the mouth to say they are reducing its expenditures, the only areas that are actually cut are those that impact the most vulnerable people.
To me, there should be no reason for people living in Canada to be relying on food banks, homeless shelters, clothing assistance places and similar programs. If a charity were to be proposed, I would rather see it developed with the goal of eliminating poverty for every person that uses the charity. Recipients of charity do not benefit from the use of charity over the long term. However, those who operate and manage charities often make very good salaries. Because of this, there is no incentive on the part of charities to eliminate their purpose and reason for being. The more "need" there is, the more these charities will crop up. There can be hundreds of these charities in a large urban area, while absolutely none of their charges ever gets out of poverty. The charitable sector sadly admits this, though not directly. A reading of many of Toronto's United Way reports tells you the increased depth of poverty and the minimal impact charities actually have. When a charity tries to be more pro-active in its purposes, they get shut down by by Canada Revenue Agency for failing to promote "charitable objects". See the recent case of ICAN and a former case re the National Association of Minority Women. More on the charitable sector as a whole later ...
During their early development, food bank leaders did not want to become a permanent part of the landscape. They did not ask for government funding and hoped that the need for their programs will diminish over time. Graham Riches wrote an excellent history on the development and growth of food banks and the growth of food insecurity. However, as time went on, United Way and other community-based funding came available to these organizations, and they were able to grow and thus, have less incentive to shut down. This is not an evil conspiracy; this is a reality of the charitable sector. I was executive director at one time of a national charity and had no other goals than to assist the organization in its growth and breadth of services. It is only natural and that is what your Board of Directors wants you to do. However, we had a bit more leeway as a charity as our focus was on public education, as opposed to providing direct services. However, I have sat on boards of other charities, where there was almost a sense of competitiveness in terms of providing more and more services, while not necessarily studying the impact of such services on its recipients.
Because charities are not licensed or regulated outside of their fund raising methods, nobody knows if anything is getting better because any particular charity is at work. At this point in time, there is no rule against hiring somebody to run a charity that has a grade six education and is a convicted felon. While some charities require police checks for their staff and volunteers, these are usually only for those who are working directly with children or the elderly. There is also no rule about how much compensation the charity's executive staff get paid, not that there really should be, but when you consider my earlier posts about the number of well-educated people who are unemployed or under-employed, the education and skill level of the staff and administrators in all charities should be examined. I am aware of several charities operating in my region, which I will not name, who have high school drop-outs at the helm of these organizations, or who are directly involved in dealings with vulnerable persons. Many of them have not undergone police checks. In a private business, for example, I can *choose* to hire somebody who is a high school drop-out, or even a convicted felon, as it is my risk if this person makes a serious mistake in judgment. Only I lose money if this person does not work out. However, charities and publicly funded non-profit organizations are putting the public's money at risk whenever a hiring or spending decision is made, and to some extent - the well-being of vulnerable people served may also be compromised with poorly qualified workers.
If the same government that throws multiple units of billion dollar checks to hundreds of thousands of these organizations, decided to regulate people like me who deal directly with vulnerable people, why are these people working in the non-profit sector also not similarly regulated? I think in many ways, taxpayers would feel a little better about how their tax dollars are being spent if they knew that well-qualified, dedicated and motivated staff that adhere to a Code of Conduct are working in these organizations and that the services provided are regularly monitored to ensure that they are producing results. I have seen lots of publicly-funded poor results, and so have many other people, hence the frequent calls for tax cuts. In many western European countries, citizens pay way more taxes than we do in Canada, but rarely complain of their burden. Why? It's likely because they see results from the goods and services funded through their taxes.
Further, the definition of charity needs to be broadened to allow organizations that have as a primary purpose to empower their clients to lift themselves out of poverty, for example, as well as organizations that choose to advocate directly for or against government policies. For example, I should be able to register as a charity an organization that focuses on providing financial and mentoring assistance to persons with disabilities (or other low-income groups) to start and operate a small business, advocates for these same people to all levels of government on how social assistance rates MUST be raised and regulatory claw backs must be removed to aid such persons to reach their goals. OR an organization that invests its money on behalf of its "consumers" to purchase goods and services they may need to escape poverty, e.g. pay for a college course, obtain an up-to-date computer system, help somebody access a driver's license, or provide start-up funding for a small business. The reason I say this is there is a charity that I provided consulting advice and services to from time to time that WANTS to be an empowering agency, but ever since I assisted them in getting their charitable number - their advocacy efforts have waned. I asked them at one time about this and their concern was they did not want to cross the line on this, as they benefit substantially from their fund raising efforts in town here. The same concerns came from other charities I respect in town here.
As a result of this thwarted freedom of speech and in some cases, lack of specific direction towards actual results and empowerment of disadvantaged persons, this same group of people have no voice except their own. Given what gets written in the media about "homeless people" and "low-income" people, it would take a very brave person from this disadvantaged group to speak up and demand respect for themselves and their peers. They are forced to prove they are innocent of typical stereotypes, such as aggressive panhandling, so-called mental illness and/or addictions first (yet when CEOs and respected middle class people suffer from the same issues, they are not viewed as 'incompetent'), as well as have access to resources to empower themselves and get themselves to the next rung on the ever rising ladder out of poverty. I am talking about people who do not drive, therefore, they cannot get a job they can otherwise do. Or people who don't have ID, and can't get a bank account. Or can't get a home outside of a homeless shelter, which has not historically been effective in moving people into their own housing. Or getting their OWN income so they can purchase their OWN housing, their OWN food, their OWN clothing, etc. Charities are forced to continue to do for, as opposed to do "with" - leaving their charges forever dependent on them.
In my own informal studies of people who have used the various band-aid charities, as well as the limited academic research that has been done in the community psychology community, I have found that those who had to use these services more than once tend to have lower self-esteem, and continue to lack resources to empower themselves ... in other words, a charity may feed them for one day, but they are still hungry the next. More work has to be done towards making their services unnecessary. I don't think the charities can do this on their own because they will always lack enough money and volunteers to do what is truly necessary. Government policy must be changed to enable all of us - working or not - to live decently. Some of this can be corrected through a change in business ethics, whereby salaries truly reflect the area's cost of living and worth of an employee to that business, as well as increased income supplements to those that either cannot work or who have trouble securing work due to some type of disadvantage. Workplace barriers need to be identified and removed for those that may be otherwise employed. And finally, an economy CANNOT and SHOULD NOT be predicated upon bringing in more big box stores like Wal-Mart, Starbucks, etc. as the "answer" to the region's economic woes. Workers come from a variety of skills, education, career aspirations and economic requirements ... when programs are set up to assist folks with these issues, the individual's needs should be the foremost objective in achieving financial goals for them.
So, in conclusion, contrary to the neo-cons that seem to want less and less government spending, to Hell with the consequences, we should instead be demanding better results for our tax dollar and be asking for equal dignity being afforded to all persons in the community, regardless of their economic circumstances. People should not have to beg for their bare necessities of life or receive them from "sympathetic volunteers", whose services may not be a reliable and consistent effort, or delivered in a non-partisan way. Everybody has a right to feel they are contributing to the community, and not always be the recipient.
Unfortunately, in order to legally become a charity, empowerment of others cannot be the mainstay of your organization's objectives. Further, using your organization's voice as a tool for advocacy is also severely restricted, which only results in further covering up the real problems your organization may be trying to address. In particular, if you want to become a charity that assists low-income people, you can't predicate your mission on reducing and/or eradicating the root causes of poverty. You can only propose to provide band-aids. You can become a food bank, a second hand clothing distributor or one of those organizations where you can "sponsor" a child in a Third World country. Most of these charities have existed in this country for a very long time, yet the rate of poverty among people - including those who have jobs - has increased by leaps and bounds.
There are some people who actually believe that if we eliminate government support services to people living in poverty, they will no longer be poor because either the "market" will fix their situation or "families" or "charity" will step in. Let me repeat that point I made in the above paragraph. The number of charities geared to serving the poor have more than quintupled since 1980, yet our rate of people living in poverty has almost doubled since. The rate of poverty has particularly increased after cuts to social programs began. Contrary to what some people say who believe that social programs lead to poverty, their reduction has actually caused a spike in poverty and an increase in the number of homeless people over the past twenty-five years. After Mike Harris cut welfare rates by 21.6% in 1995, a large number of people "disappeared" from the social services statistics. When they were contacted (or an attempt was made), many had their phones disconnected or have been evicted from their housing. Yes, a few people found other housing, but it is offices like the legal clinics, advocacy paralegals like myself, and others, who have only seen the spike in the number of slumlords and unsafe, Third-World conditions many of these people were living in. As I stated before in these posts, more than half of my OW to ODSP clients are homeless or have had spells of homelessness while living on OW, prior to getting onto ODSP. Some others went into shared housing situations, only to find the shared arrangements were destructive: their "roommate" moves out suddenly leaving them holding the bag only to get evicted for non-payment; the person buys food and others in the household eat it; items are stolen from the person by "roommates" and sold to pawn shops and to others on the "street"; and so forth. If middle class dictates make you feel these kinds of conditions would not be good for you, why are they good enough for others?
At Christmas time and Thanksgiving, there is often an explosion of media coverage about the need to give to food banks, women's shelters and so forth. People do tend to give more at these times. However, I am a bit of a skeptic in some ways, particularly when it comes to some of the businesses in the region that give large amounts to these charities at Christmas time. My questions to these businesses are obvious: (a) Do you employ low-income people and pay them decent wages that get them out of poverty? (b) Do you pay your existing workers decently enough so they will never have to rely on the services of charities to which you are donating?; and (c) Does your business have a social conscience, whereby you do not continue to push for more and more tax cuts, which you know will only translate into a reduction of services to low-income people? Don't believe that? Well, even when Mike Harris cut personal taxes by 30%, grants and pay-offs to big business did not stop; however, services in health care, education and social services significantly deteriorated. To me, if I were a business, my "charity" would begin at home first ... hire and pay my employees well, offer some benefits and a certain level of job security and where possible, growth within the company. To further exemplify this point, did you know that stores like Wal-Mart donate to a lot of charities, including poverty band-aid programs, while they continue to pay their own employees so little that they often have to use these very charities for basic survival? To me, this is not acceptable.
This ethic is charity by example. I would show respect for people by offering wages that a person can survive on, as after all - it is these very employees that are making ME money. Therefore, these employees deserve a decent pay package. Some businesses argue against minimum wage increases, saying that less jobs get created as a result of legislated pay hikes. There are plenty of arguments that have proven this wrong. If this was the case, wages would have remained at the same rate of pay as it did in the 1920's ... a few pennies a day, perhaps. As the cost of living increased, so did minimum wage. Some people would argue why should they hire relatively low-skilled workers for more money? It doesn't matter ... if the job needs to be done and you can't get chimpanzees to do these jobs for free, then you need to hire human beings. If a person doesn't work out, you can fire them. No big deal. Also, if you were literate in business as I am, you can get hold of numerous publicly traded company reports and learn that many of these companies that earn substantial profit are those that pay its workers minimum wages or close to them. Yes, some of these profits have to go to the executives and shareholders and there is nothing wrong with that (but I do question multi-million dollar pay packages), but a large portion of these profits go to GROWTH strategy. They keep wages low, shaving themselves more and more money, so they can put it towards more and more stores .... call centres are developing this strategy as well. Why else do you think they are sprouting like weeds in communities all over Canada, especially in economically depressed regions?
While the shrewd executives of these stores would argue that they are creating a lot more jobs by building more and more stores, there is a point at which this reaches saturation. That means, there will become a point where Wal-Mart, Starbucks, Tim Hortons and other similar franchises simply cannot serve more people ... and if more of the jobs in their serviced communities are on the lower paid end of things, less people will have large amounts of disposable income to spend at these kinds of places. Further, these franchises will have to fight harder and harder to find and retain workers, particularly if people can't afford to live on what these franchises pay. With an aging population, there are less workers available that are able and willing to work at these wages, particularly if they still have offspring living at home or are still paying off a mortgage. Statistics Canada has found that the average age that a child leaves home has increased substantially over the past twenty years. At one time, we were all ecstatic to leave the nest at the age of seventeen or eighteen, but today - it is quite possible for children to still live at home until they are in their late twenties. This places financial pressure on their often older parents, who cannot afford to earn only minimum wage at Wal-Mart or Starbucks and to compete with their children for the same jobs ... this is a reality created by governments that have a drive-down philosophy. While governments will speak out of one side of the mouth to say they are reducing its expenditures, the only areas that are actually cut are those that impact the most vulnerable people.
To me, there should be no reason for people living in Canada to be relying on food banks, homeless shelters, clothing assistance places and similar programs. If a charity were to be proposed, I would rather see it developed with the goal of eliminating poverty for every person that uses the charity. Recipients of charity do not benefit from the use of charity over the long term. However, those who operate and manage charities often make very good salaries. Because of this, there is no incentive on the part of charities to eliminate their purpose and reason for being. The more "need" there is, the more these charities will crop up. There can be hundreds of these charities in a large urban area, while absolutely none of their charges ever gets out of poverty. The charitable sector sadly admits this, though not directly. A reading of many of Toronto's United Way reports tells you the increased depth of poverty and the minimal impact charities actually have. When a charity tries to be more pro-active in its purposes, they get shut down by by Canada Revenue Agency for failing to promote "charitable objects". See the recent case of ICAN and a former case re the National Association of Minority Women. More on the charitable sector as a whole later ...
During their early development, food bank leaders did not want to become a permanent part of the landscape. They did not ask for government funding and hoped that the need for their programs will diminish over time. Graham Riches wrote an excellent history on the development and growth of food banks and the growth of food insecurity. However, as time went on, United Way and other community-based funding came available to these organizations, and they were able to grow and thus, have less incentive to shut down. This is not an evil conspiracy; this is a reality of the charitable sector. I was executive director at one time of a national charity and had no other goals than to assist the organization in its growth and breadth of services. It is only natural and that is what your Board of Directors wants you to do. However, we had a bit more leeway as a charity as our focus was on public education, as opposed to providing direct services. However, I have sat on boards of other charities, where there was almost a sense of competitiveness in terms of providing more and more services, while not necessarily studying the impact of such services on its recipients.
Because charities are not licensed or regulated outside of their fund raising methods, nobody knows if anything is getting better because any particular charity is at work. At this point in time, there is no rule against hiring somebody to run a charity that has a grade six education and is a convicted felon. While some charities require police checks for their staff and volunteers, these are usually only for those who are working directly with children or the elderly. There is also no rule about how much compensation the charity's executive staff get paid, not that there really should be, but when you consider my earlier posts about the number of well-educated people who are unemployed or under-employed, the education and skill level of the staff and administrators in all charities should be examined. I am aware of several charities operating in my region, which I will not name, who have high school drop-outs at the helm of these organizations, or who are directly involved in dealings with vulnerable persons. Many of them have not undergone police checks. In a private business, for example, I can *choose* to hire somebody who is a high school drop-out, or even a convicted felon, as it is my risk if this person makes a serious mistake in judgment. Only I lose money if this person does not work out. However, charities and publicly funded non-profit organizations are putting the public's money at risk whenever a hiring or spending decision is made, and to some extent - the well-being of vulnerable people served may also be compromised with poorly qualified workers.
If the same government that throws multiple units of billion dollar checks to hundreds of thousands of these organizations, decided to regulate people like me who deal directly with vulnerable people, why are these people working in the non-profit sector also not similarly regulated? I think in many ways, taxpayers would feel a little better about how their tax dollars are being spent if they knew that well-qualified, dedicated and motivated staff that adhere to a Code of Conduct are working in these organizations and that the services provided are regularly monitored to ensure that they are producing results. I have seen lots of publicly-funded poor results, and so have many other people, hence the frequent calls for tax cuts. In many western European countries, citizens pay way more taxes than we do in Canada, but rarely complain of their burden. Why? It's likely because they see results from the goods and services funded through their taxes.
Further, the definition of charity needs to be broadened to allow organizations that have as a primary purpose to empower their clients to lift themselves out of poverty, for example, as well as organizations that choose to advocate directly for or against government policies. For example, I should be able to register as a charity an organization that focuses on providing financial and mentoring assistance to persons with disabilities (or other low-income groups) to start and operate a small business, advocates for these same people to all levels of government on how social assistance rates MUST be raised and regulatory claw backs must be removed to aid such persons to reach their goals. OR an organization that invests its money on behalf of its "consumers" to purchase goods and services they may need to escape poverty, e.g. pay for a college course, obtain an up-to-date computer system, help somebody access a driver's license, or provide start-up funding for a small business. The reason I say this is there is a charity that I provided consulting advice and services to from time to time that WANTS to be an empowering agency, but ever since I assisted them in getting their charitable number - their advocacy efforts have waned. I asked them at one time about this and their concern was they did not want to cross the line on this, as they benefit substantially from their fund raising efforts in town here. The same concerns came from other charities I respect in town here.
As a result of this thwarted freedom of speech and in some cases, lack of specific direction towards actual results and empowerment of disadvantaged persons, this same group of people have no voice except their own. Given what gets written in the media about "homeless people" and "low-income" people, it would take a very brave person from this disadvantaged group to speak up and demand respect for themselves and their peers. They are forced to prove they are innocent of typical stereotypes, such as aggressive panhandling, so-called mental illness and/or addictions first (yet when CEOs and respected middle class people suffer from the same issues, they are not viewed as 'incompetent'), as well as have access to resources to empower themselves and get themselves to the next rung on the ever rising ladder out of poverty. I am talking about people who do not drive, therefore, they cannot get a job they can otherwise do. Or people who don't have ID, and can't get a bank account. Or can't get a home outside of a homeless shelter, which has not historically been effective in moving people into their own housing. Or getting their OWN income so they can purchase their OWN housing, their OWN food, their OWN clothing, etc. Charities are forced to continue to do for, as opposed to do "with" - leaving their charges forever dependent on them.
In my own informal studies of people who have used the various band-aid charities, as well as the limited academic research that has been done in the community psychology community, I have found that those who had to use these services more than once tend to have lower self-esteem, and continue to lack resources to empower themselves ... in other words, a charity may feed them for one day, but they are still hungry the next. More work has to be done towards making their services unnecessary. I don't think the charities can do this on their own because they will always lack enough money and volunteers to do what is truly necessary. Government policy must be changed to enable all of us - working or not - to live decently. Some of this can be corrected through a change in business ethics, whereby salaries truly reflect the area's cost of living and worth of an employee to that business, as well as increased income supplements to those that either cannot work or who have trouble securing work due to some type of disadvantage. Workplace barriers need to be identified and removed for those that may be otherwise employed. And finally, an economy CANNOT and SHOULD NOT be predicated upon bringing in more big box stores like Wal-Mart, Starbucks, etc. as the "answer" to the region's economic woes. Workers come from a variety of skills, education, career aspirations and economic requirements ... when programs are set up to assist folks with these issues, the individual's needs should be the foremost objective in achieving financial goals for them.
So, in conclusion, contrary to the neo-cons that seem to want less and less government spending, to Hell with the consequences, we should instead be demanding better results for our tax dollar and be asking for equal dignity being afforded to all persons in the community, regardless of their economic circumstances. People should not have to beg for their bare necessities of life or receive them from "sympathetic volunteers", whose services may not be a reliable and consistent effort, or delivered in a non-partisan way. Everybody has a right to feel they are contributing to the community, and not always be the recipient.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
