POVERTY IS BAD FOR BUSINESS!!!

Every once in awhile, the new Right through its various associations and accomplices chooses to attack government for the costs it generates. Their only solution it appears is to lower taxes, ease the burden on the upper classes to "encourage" investment. However, these same organizations are not present when it comes to how the government is going to cover the added costs of poverty that seems to almost always follow huge tax decreases for the well-heeled. The well-heeled just turn to a 'law and order' agenda and wonder why people are "going crazy" all of a sudden and how society is no longer safe. People even in small towns are interviewed and they tell the media how they used to keep their doors unlocked and can longer do so.

In my own community, while the rate of homicide and violent crimes seem to be decreasing, the rate for property-related and fraud-related crimes seems to be on the rise. We are constantly hearing about how debit machines are getting "rigged" to copy valuable information from people's magnetic strip on their cards and somehow high tech keypads pick up the P.I.N. numbers that are associated with the cards. The new fraudsters then go home to make copies of the unaware victims' debt cards and clean out their bank accounts. Home repair "contractors" go door to door to sign up unsuspecting customers who will give the "repair person" a down-payment who will then disappear with their money, never to return again to actually carry out the repairs. Telephone "fraudsters" will call and claim to represent a legitimate company or charity and ask for your credit card information to "upgrade" your existing cable, telephone or utility service that you currently subscribe to. Others with less cunning and less resources hang out on street corners to ask for spare change to take a bus or to buy a coffee. These incidents have risen geometrically over the past 20 years; however, our taxpayer federations continue to cry out how much we pay in taxes and how many people are "abusing" social services. They fail to see the connections I see with the rising rate of non-violent crimes involving property and fraud.

I talk to many of the business owners I know well in the downtown of my community. They feel bad about it, but they say if it were not for the drug dealers in the area, they'd probably be out of business. Legitimate consumers are decreasing in population, while those who are obtaining their profits through crime are increasing, it seems. We all complain that "somebody" needs to do something to "crack down" on fraud and so-called illegitimate claims for legitimate avenues, such as insurance cases, welfare benefits, worker's compensation, etc. At the same time, I am seeing a sharp increase in the number of legitimate claimants appearing at my office who have been unfairly robbed of their claims and are now losing their homes, businesses and families because of this. Where does this end? I know members of the general public have no clue what a legitimate claimant has to go through in order to claim what is legitimately theirs by law. Webpages, discussion groups and public forums are filled to the brim with people that think that "90% or more" of those claiming disability for example are perfectly able to work, but just don't want to. Others advocate that people with disabilities should be paid less because the writers are under the impression that disabled persons are less capable of contributing than a "regular person". Others complain of increased taxes going to "immigrants, welfare fraud and scammers", when in fact none of these people EVER personally experienced what they claim the "others" they speak of either experienced or claimed to be experiencing. The taxpayer's federations want more money to spend on foreign investments, foreign vacations and foreign products, because these particular individuals ALREADY have more than enough to spend on domestic products and services, so they just want to get greedy and get more.

A report called "Growing Gap" has been published by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, which shows that the top 10% of the income bracket (or those most likely to complain about so-called higher taxes) actually gained more than 16% in terms of real growth of net incomes over the past twenty years. Those in the so-called "middle classes", if there is such a thing anymore, have not gained much, except possibly a net gain of $53 per annum in real money (constant $2005 dollar) over the past twenty years. The lowest income brackets actually lost almost 20% of their real income over the past twenty years (and this is working low-income ... those forced to rely on government transfer programs are argued to have lost more than 30% over the past 20 years). This is not good enough apparently for those that want further taxes shaved off their annual tax bill ... they don't see any connection to how the suffering of the very poor can very well be connected to more taxes in the future for all of us (including the well-heeled that complain the loudest) and less property security.

All one has to do is sit in a bar or a doughnut shop or a drop-in centre to listen to what people are forced to do, the choices they are being forced to make -- one of course can always choose the honest path, but it turns out that if one does so, they will only fall further behind. If you want a clearer idea about how honesty destroys any chances of getting ahead, read "Why is it so tough to get ahead?" by John Stapleton and his associates at the Metcalf Foundation, which can be downloaded from here. People in subsidized housing are shot down the minute they declare earnings in excess of $100 a month; people on social assistance are shot down by 50% for any dollar they earn whatsoever; people whose annual income exceeds $20.000 a year even by a little bit, begin to lose access to subsidized housing and many other child-related benefits. Those that do not want to lose have to cheat to win, thus which is why we have laws to catch the so-called "scammers". Of course, Kimberly Rogers, of Sudbury, Ontario, who "cheated" welfare in order to get an education and get off the system eventually, was convicted of scamming welfare, because she was not permitted to collect welfare AND go to school. A whole inquest and dozens of recommendations later, nothing changed. Our taxpayers' coalitions and uneducated right continue to clamour on for more and deeper cuts, so they can afford two or even three SUVs and Florida vacations, while "other people" starve.

The reality of the matter is that we are ALL paying for poverty and allowing it to continue. The upper classes may not feel it as much, as most of their investments and concerns are not domestic. However, for everybody else, ranging from the barber, the baker and the candlestick-maker, they have all noticed the impact of increased and tolerated poverty in the past twenty years. Why?

The facts:

1. Poor people do not go to movies, rent videos, buy new clothing, buy jewellery, or eat out.

The more poor people there are, the less people there are in a community that is doing all of those things. This affects small business. Wealthy people who are now allowed to pay less taxes are not going to buy MORE domestic products, because they already have what they need. Why would a wealthy family, for example, go out and buy MORE groceries than they need just because they have more 'disposable' income? Those who are earning less, or getting less on their welfare incomes, are not spending as much, because the cost of their housing is crowding out any other income that would normally be used on groceries, clothing, transportation, eating out, etc.

2. Poor people have poorer health outcomes and are subject to higher health care costs.

One statistic that is particularly shocking is that poor people have four times as much chance of becoming diabetic than those of middle and upper income brackets, even when weight is factored in. Complications from diabetes, such as amputations, heart disease, blindness and high blood pressure are at least twice as likely in low-income diabetics than in diabetics from other social classes. This is even after access to medical plans and universal health care in Canada is accounted for. The poor are twice as likely to develop irreversible heart conditions as others. They are more than three times as likely to suffer from nosocomial (or hospital-based) infections than other people and are more likely to be put into nursing homes, where care is less than optimal. Some people have argued this is almost a deliberate strategy to save money, but most of these people do not die right away, but end up costing hundreds of thousands of more dollars to the system -- even the U.S.-based health care system -- than middle and upper class persons do.

3. Poor families are more likely to be a target of child protection services.

How many of you heard of a wealthy family having their children apprehended from them for reasons of supposed neglect? If this happens at all, it is rare. The wealthy have good lawyers and are also able to hide any neglect they might impose if they were prone to this. The statistics also show that 87% of families that have children's aid involved with them on an ongoing basis are low-income or working class families. The poor are more likely to have a child apprehended from them, usually on the basis of 'environmental conditions'. Perhaps, their teachers reported seeing them without a proper winter coat or regularly coming to school without lunches. Explored further, there are always skeletons that can be exposed in ANY family, but wealthy families do not attract this kind of attention. At a cost of $2,300 per month per child, we as taxpayers need to ask good questions about the accountability of the child protection system and whether or not it is being operated on the basis of social class and culture, as opposed to actual signs of abuse and neglect.

4. Poverty breeds crime.

Middle and upper income people believe that welfare is "prone" to abuse and that because of this, tighter controls need to be placed on recipients. Some even advocate food stamps and direct-pay for rental housing (which if studies of these policies were examined would learn that social class becomes caste-like and stratification between classes becomes impossible for most). What happens to people who have little in a society that seems to have plenty is that some of the poor will attempt to acquire what they feel they deserve through illegal or illicit means ,,, people turn to prostitution, drug dealing, small time theft rings, fraud, etc. to supplement their meagre incomes. Who are these people defrauding? You and me. You and I are the people that answer our phones to "charities" asking for our credit card numbers. You and I use "debit machines" where fraudsters are learning more and more sophisticated skills in skimming. You are I are working in the retail business that is becoming more and more subject to shoplifters and outright robberies. You and I are having to lock our doors, install security systems and take taxis home in order to protect ourselves from the 'seedy' side of our population.

While criminals may have a later motive for drug purchases and addiction, they almost always started with a motive of poverty. They have to pay their rent. They have to eat. They have to earn an income. They have to pay child support. Around them are commercials for fancy home renovations, brand new computerized cars, fancy cell phones, computers and other gadgets that "the rest" of society can afford without having to turn to crime. We think nothing of replacing our car every two or three years, replacing a computer every four years and buying new clothes to attend the latest gala function or wedding of a family or friend. People living in poverty cannot do these things. Some of them suffer because they do not want to risk committing a crime; others become less shy about knocking off the nearest variety store to get what they want ... or get engaged in the drug trade. In seedy neighbourhoods, the drug trade is open and available and for young kids that get nothing at home, the opportunity to drive a nice car, wear expensive jewellery and dress in fashionable clothing is too great. What are we doing as a society other than worsening the situation by sending out non-verbal signals that people of low-incomes are somehow less deserving of a modern life?

Mental health is a major loser as well in all this throw for show societal expectations among us. People who live in subsidized housing and CANNOT get ahead because of housing rules are bound to break them. People who cannot get ahead due to stringent treatment of earnings on welfare are bound to break them. Think about it. If you were forced to pay 80% of your income on taxes today, only to pay a bit more as your income goes up ... will you be less likely to claim your extra income? The rate of tax evasion and "cheating" on income taxes outnumbers the number of people who cheat on welfare by 10 to 1, not because welfare recipients are more honest, but because the dogs are on them all the time! Unfortunately, for many -- NOT claiming their income while on welfare or in subsidized housing is probably the only way they will break the cycle of poverty. This certainly needs to be looked at by the government folks assigned to look into poverty, but even doing this is not going to get poor people to spend more or make them healthier.

This is a very complex situation that needs more of an examination than the cursory one that is given today. Unfortunately, it is the food banks, the charities and the homeless shelters, as well as certain public services that benefit from the presence of the poor ... and these organizations need to be dealt with, not put in charge of any anti-poverty strategy. There are staffers of food banks and homeless shelters making $80,000 and above - why would they want to truly see poverty ended? Wouldn't there be a better incentive by government for example to fund people on the basis of poverty-reduction, as opposed to continuation of the same old - same old? I am not saying many of these people do not have a conscience or are not concerned, but their very livelihoods and thus, their financial interests are geared toward the rapid increase of poverty today!

Poverty is bad for business because poor people do not spend. Poverty is bad for business because poor people cost more in terms of health care, corrections, social services and related expenses. Businesses do not benefit from having to pay more taxes to cover the costs of these things. Poverty is bad for business because there will soon be less and less places to safely locate one's business without having to put up with panhandlers and drug dealers outside your front door. Because we ALL know inherently this is true, I am calling on ALL OF YOU to push the government into developing a serious -- and not superficial or politically smooth sounding plan -- to not only reduce, but to eliminate poverty altogether! It should be considered the scourge of a modern society to even accept the presence of poverty amidst our so-called wealth!

Your thoughts?

THE RISE OF THE MEDIOCRE

More people today than ever hold university degrees and college diplomas than before in our educational history. It is said that at some point in the future, 70% of all jobs will require some type of post-secondary education. More than one in five Ontarians have at least one university degree, and approximately one third completed training at a community college level. Students graduating from post-secondary institutions are fraught with problems of student debt. Others have trouble finding work in their field.

At the same time, we hear about employers crying out about a so-called 'skills shortage'. We hear that hundreds of thousands of civil servants, professionals, tradespersons, etc. are all going to be retiring in the next ten years and somebody has to replace them! The facts look grim. People are having less children. That means there will be fewer workers to support those who end up retiring in the years to come. Skills development is a major issue with many employers in both the public and private sectors. However, how come many services continue to provide what is at best mediocre responses to these problems?

For some of this, I blame the situation on 'consumerism'. In the past twenty-five years, consumers of a variety of types of services, ranging from addictions, to social services, to mental health to employment supports, have wanted and deserved a greater say in how these services are shaped and delivered. In fact, during the 1990's the move went to the point of hiring unqualified consumers to actually provide many of these same services that we generally expect to received from trained individuals. Consumers who were unable to succeed academically have decried what they referred to as 'credentialism' and pushed for the emphasis on 'life experience' as an actual criteria upon which to make hiring decisions, as opposed to actual skills for the job. People who lived in poverty can best help others who live in poverty. People with mental health problems can best help others with mental health issues, and the list goes on.

When somebody with any type of credential accidentally slips through the hiring process, movement leaders soon try to find a way to get rid of them, on the grounds that somebody with a disability that actually has legitimate credentials couldn't really be disabled or really couldn't be truly disadvantaged. While it is true that a lower percentage of persons with disabilities, for example, have completed college and university than their non-disabled peers, but the numbers among persons with disabilities are not insignificant. So throughout the 1990's, consumers were hired in a broad range of jobs to provide support services to other consumers, counselling, advocating on their behalf and to set up consumer-run initiatives, like drop-in centres and such. However, most of these programs -- though funded -- were not successful in capturing true consumer representation at the political level, or developing programs that truly met the needs of the whole population of consumers they were to serve.

Please do not take this as an anti-consumer rant, as the concept of hiring consumers in various positions is a good one, but required skills, qualifications and expectations of these positions should not differ whatsoever from the requirements for positions open to non-consumers. In discussing this with various consumer leaders in Ontario, I have still not ascertained from any of them how "life experience" can be measured objectively in a way to contribute to one's candidacy for a paid position. What about your "life experience" itself makes you more qualified to be an accountant? What about "life experience" and how it applies to your capability in handling a multi-million dollar budget and programming objectives? If you were a recovering alcoholic, does this make you more capable of running a large residential program for addiction treatment services?

In any kind of job, we set out what we require the worker to do on a regular basis and some tasks that may be done on an infrequent basis, and what types of skills or training we might expect in the individual at the minimum to fill these duties. For example, if you are looking for an administrative assistant for your non-profit organization that provides supportive housing to people, what skills and qualities might you look for in such an individual? I would expect that this person have excellent oral and written communication skills, significant skills in organization, training and experience in working with Windows business applications, good listening skills, and the ability to use accounting software and to manually re-check figures down to a monthly trial balance. A radical consumer perspective would say this person must be homeless or have been homeless, which to me is not as important as having those other above skills.

Why is it important to consumer groups that people have "been there"? They want people who have empathy and understanding toward their client group. They do not want to have people serve them that have bad attitudes and prejudice against people in their 'group'. Empathy is an important trait to have, but empathy does not necessarily come strictly from "being there" and even among those who have been there, this does not make them necessarily "empathetic". I have been in positions of authority that involved the hiring of personnel, as well as dealing with personnel issues and policies. In one agency where I was in charge of human resource issues, I successfully made an argument to the board to create a job sharing arrangement for the position of its executive director. This type of arrangement was practically unheard of at the time, as the board naturally would want a full-time executive to oversee its $2.5 million budget and 14 ongoing initiatives. The existing executive director wanted to temporarily reduce her hours as she had young children at home and the person with whom she would share her duties was somebody who was seeking greater challenges within the organization. At the time, I had no children. However, this executive director was a fine worker and did have children and it was important for her psychologically to seek a better 'work-life' balance. This would lead to her 'in office' hours to be even more productive, knowing that she had more time for her family.

I remember long after this initiative passed and she since returned to her full-time duties. She wondered why I was able to understand her needs, when I had no children at the time and wasn't concerned about daycare issues and so forth. I responded that as chair of human resources my responsibility is to our employees and to maximize their productivity and support a 'work-life' balance. For her, the issue was children. For somebody else, it may be the care of an elderly parent. For another person, it may be a disability issue. I do not have LIVE these issues in order to understand how they relate to that person's happiness and productivity within the organization. As human resource chair, I took the term resource seriously. How an organization sets up, designs and designates its human resources effects how services are delivered to those in need.

In another example, I have experience as a person with a disability. I know how it affects me, as well I know how I am best accommodated regardless of the type of job I am doing. However, a colleague of mine may also have experience as a person with a disability; her experience may have reflected even more negatively on her life or more positively than my issues did on mine. How does a potential employer of either of us justify hiring one or the other of us based on "life experience" as the primary factor when indeed both of our perspectives, while both valid, differ substantially from one another? Even two people with the same disability deal with their issues in completely different ways ... I've met many examples of the "angry blind man", as well as the "passive user of a scooter" (that didn't think social issues were important to her life). Again, both perspectives are important, but neither addresses how much skill either of these people have in doing a particular job.

What this "life experience" issue does is politicize the positions and make them open to a form of favourtism and bias, based solely on the opinions and political views of those doing the interviewing and hiring. I have heard from women who did marvellous work in the community for victims of rape and post-traumatic stress disorder, but who were turned away from prospective positions on a board or on staff because they did not believe Karla Homolka was completely innocent of her crimes, or that they did not share the sexual orientation of the key leader in the organization. I have nothing against persons with different political opinions or people with different sexual orientations; it is just that none of these things determine whether you can do or not do a particular job. People in these situations certainly do have a right to an opinion, but an opinion does not equal expertise.

For example, there was once a program where people who dropped out of high school were solicited to sit on a panel and write a report on how to keep people in school until they graduate. I don't think it is necessary to be a high school drop-out to provide expertise in this area, although I do feel high school drop-outs can contribute their opinions and experience to an expert panel that has training and knowledge in educational and curriculum matters to explain how their school experience could have been made different for them to encourage them to stay. Then the experts can translate that experience, while continuing to consult with the drop-outs and others with an interest in the issue, to re-formulate the school experience to make it better for everybody.

But unfortunately, this is not what we're getting. We have untrained mental health consumers providing counselling to other mental health consumers, many of whom could be quite fragile at that point in their lives. Some consumers do not believe in psychiatry and medicine, for example, for the treatment of mental health issues ... while this belief is not necessarily without grounds, it is risky to pursue this option with somebody who may be better in an environment where trained professionals can work with them. These same untrained consumers go to boards, councils and policy meetings to try to get more money for theirs and other similar organizations by trying to make the argument that consumers have some kind of "preference" to work with other consumers. This assertion is of course not backed up by research, but should be considered suspect once in funder's hands ... although it is never questioned in the way it should be, or are funders pushing for any kind of quality control.

Again, I am not saying people who have problems should not be delivering services to people of the same experience. Many independent living centres have developed a broad range of services for persons with disabilities and at least half of their staff must be persons with disabilities. From the want ads for many jobs in the independent living centre, they do expect some type of credentials as well as some "direct experience in working with persons with disabilities". Boston University's Centre for Psychiatric Rehabilitation has as its director a person who is trained as a Psychiatrist, but he has also been diagnosed as having schizophrenia. Jean Campbell runs a large consumer-controlled research and evaluation network and she is endowed with a PHd, as well as being a consumer herself. Mary Ellen Copeland has written a number of books on coping with various mental health issues, and has herself advanced to a Master's Degree. However, this does not seem to be the case here in Ontario, where anti-education and anti-credentialism continue to rule the roost.

This does not only apply at the local level but also at the provincial and federal level as well. An experiment people can try is to ask the paid leadership of consumer-based organizations what levels of education they have and if they claim nothing beyond high school (or even nothing beyond grade ten or eleven), ask again how they feel they developed the skills to do the work they are doing. If they are doing legal research, this takes training. If they are doing financial management and budgetary planning, this also takes training. If they are doing public relations and advocacy, this also takes training. If they are developing a skills-based course, and are attempting to evaluate its effectiveness, this also requires training. No amount of "personal life experience" in the world is going to teach people how to do these essential elements of a job.

One does not need to look very far to learn that many (though not all) of these organizations provide mediocre services and advocacy work. I personally do not feel I am represented as a person with a disability by any of the mental health and most of the cross-disability groups although a few of the cross-disability groups are starting to "get it" and understand what a democratic process is about and what inclusion really means. For example, I enjoy working with ODSP Action Coalition, Citizens with Disabilities - Ontario, Canadian Association of Professionals with Disabilities, as well as a few more traditional groups that are attempting to develop and broaden their democratic processes. The leadership of these organizations structure themselves into committees which everybody with a disability can join and everybody's voice gets heard on a near consensus basis. While not a disability organization, but utilizing a 50% structure of persons with disabilities on all committees, the work being done on the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act is also very broad-based, representative and has the set-up to bring in broad public input into its deliberations.

But what is mediocrity? Mediocrity is a consumer offering 'self-help' group meetings, where the facilitator often does not show up and if they do, they do not know how to truly facilitate discussion and maintain confidentiality of their proceedings. I once managed a small consumer group here in the Niagara Region that was set up for both families and consumers and some of my members attended meetings and events held by other groups, both in the region and the province. In the small meetings, discussions tended to go off course. People's private information somehow accidentally gets disclosed or discussed in other groups. At the provincial level, a workshop on board development ended up to be a rant on how the gays and lesbians empowered themselves, as the facilitator for this workshop walked around the room smoking a cigarette. I've also heard of cases where people were seeing these consumer leaders for "counselling", often coming back more confused ... often they were told they should be going off their drugs or seek so-called "naturopathic therapies". While I have nothing against these choices, these choices need to be delivered and explained by a professional person and monitored as they are chosen.

People who are paid to facilitate these groups must have training in human behaviour, as well as how to deal with people who may be in deeper need than what the group situation can offer. Psychologists and social workers that operate these types of groups have this training. Others do as well, but most "consumer" leaders don't. Just as I, as a Licensed Paralegal, has to know the difference between the type of work I can competently assist or represent a client with ... and what work I either should or must refer to another Licensed Paralegal or Lawyer. As part of being licensed, regulated and accountable, you are ensuring that a consumer of service is receiving the right type of service and is getting it from the most competent provider. For example, many of my colleagues in the legal profession - Paralegal or Lawyer - know very little about human rights law, so they refer to me. I, in turn, refer them work in provincial offences or bankruptcy matters. Other times, economics rules and Lawyers refer to Paralegals that specialize in certain areas because the law office cannot complete a certain type of file economically (e.g. an accident benefit claim that does not have a tort component, a landlord/tenant issue).

I also speak up a lot at Coalitions, meetings, councils, position papers, etc. While I do not disclose private or confidential matters of clients, I generally speak of how people are affected by a certain law or policy. I talk to my clients too on important matters and register their concerns. For example, many of my clients cannot work at all, so I do talk a blue streak about how this group of disabled persons is being discriminated against. This does not include me, as I consider myself in the labour force, just not happy being self-employed (though the work I do is fine). I continue to speak of single people with disabilities, even though I am married with children. I speak of those with additional income sources, such as private pensions, EI, etc. and how unfairly they are treated. For me, I only push the CAP-D agenda and the need for more accountable services.

In employment, for example, our only national mental health consumer group thinks it is fine to replicate a program of somebody else's creation, BUILT Network, and develop and enhance its growth across the province. But, did any of you who have mental health problems ever get asked by anybody about the type of work you want to do? Of course not. BUILT Network, while suitable for mildly disabled individuals who are job ready and possibly high school educated who may know their way moderately around a computer, is not suited for everyone. This will not get people with higher education and professional qualifications into their careers. It will not help those for whom only self-employment is an option, nor will it help people that require a substantial amount of job coaching. For those entering call centre type careers, this is high risk ... most of those jobs have high turnover and for many employees in this type of work, they find it stressful - particularly somebody with problems to begin with.

Did anybody ask ME what I wanted? Of course not. Nor is there a detailed evaluation of the program carried out by an external body with no interest in the results. BUILT Network is not the only program that is guilty of mediocrity and promotion of mediocrity; many job programs are developed so that participants do not enter jobs that pay more than $8 - $10/hour. BUILT Network is just following where the money is, as opposed to what consumers really want and need, much like other programs. I said the same about the Job Bus, ODSP, Ontario Works, etc. It is easier to put your eggs in one basket and not challenge the status quo by truly improving the lives of your consumers. A large component of these programs must be advocacy, but unfortunately, this is sadly lacking - possibly because many of these organizations are based as charities, or because the people running them do not know how to effectively "bite the hand that feeds them, but still get fed".

But unfortunately, as long as the public and those served by the various programs passively accept less than satisfactory and services that are not consumer-based, individualized services, the majority of people needing these types of supports will continue to be without service or receiving ineffective service. It is important now to look at what qualifications these jobs require, hire better trained and skilled staff and invite professionals with disabilities, skilled immigrants, older persons with significant experience in these areas, and our labour market needs will be more than met ... until then, we are wasting too many people who are now wasting their lives on OW, ODSP or in low-paid jobs that do not take their skills into account or even pay their bills ... while some others continue to work in jobs that are well over their heads and remain accountable to nobody.

IS RELIGION THE OPIATE OF THE MASSES?

I am not a fan of Karl Marx, as there are many viewpoints -- some of which I shared on here -- and others I have yet to share -- that reflect my preference for a market-based economy, as opposed to a socialist one.

That does not mean I do not support viable programs of government intervention or support where the market fails to deliver or cannot meaningfully deliver in the public interest; it simply means I support people's freedoms and have a preference for promoting positive choices for themselves.

However, that being said, Marx did say something interesting about religion. Religion was thought to be the tool of the power elites to convince the masses to placate themselves about the state of being they are forced to live in. The thought of a higher power and a 'better place' is supposed to promote the so-called proletariat to consider their misery on this Earth as temporary and that after they die, they will be in a 'better place' and blessed by God.

I don't buy religion. It is not that I am against it. I just don't have a religious belief or faith to call my own. This doesn't mean that if you are being harassed or attacked because of your own religious beliefs, my firm will not fight its damnedest to ensure you maintain your right to uphold and practise your faith. I have defended various people, ranging from Muslims to Hindus to Rastafrarians to even a Jehovah's Witness. Many times, certain tenets of a person's faith gets them into trouble with their employment, their housing or even in the community. To me, we cannot have real freedoms in our society if we do not have the right to practise and express our faith.

However, that being said, I also support the separation of church and state. In countries where religion and faith dictate the law, there is no such freedom of religion. You must adhere to the state's religion or be subject to harassment and in some cases, even torture and imprisonment. To me, that is wrong. I am related to some members of the Jehovah's Witnesses, and while I am not engaged in this faith, I see the happiness this faith brings to its adherents. There are countries of the world where people of this faith were at best barred from practising and ministering this faith; many were put in prison and tortured. I read about cases where small groups of Jehovah's Witnesses would meet in people's basements to sneak in their Bible study and prayer ... and have to hide themselves from authorities that did not allow this form of religion from being practised.

I prefer a country where people can openly practise whatever religion they choose and minister to others in their community and express their faith openly. Jehovah's Witnesses have specific tenets for example in their religion that they feel strongly about. One is blood transfusions. We have heard stories in the media where members of this faith had lost custody of a child to the state where the child was then forced to endure blood transfusions, usually for treatment of some disorder or injury. These stories are often followed up by people who condemn the religion for its belief and query loudly as to why a loving parent may deny their child a "life saving" treatment. The Jehovah's Witnesses feel very strongly about this issue and in fact, have advanced medical research to the extent that would make blood transfusions in most cases unnecessary, if alternatives were explored.

In this situation, how do I feel about it? To me, to force somebody to act against their faith by forcing them to take a blood transfusion when they have made an informed decision not to is equivalent to rape. People have the right to their faith to that extent and I would back them 100% on it. This also applies to other religions as well, as many religions have dietary issues, clothing issues, as well as sacred Holy days. Fridays are the Holy Day for those of the Muslim faith. Adherents to this faith pray five times a day and this needs to be accommodated in situations of employment and study.

However, strong adherents to any religion tend to believe members of other religions are foolish or hoodwinked into having their beliefs. To me, these are beliefs. Just because I may not share these beliefs does not make them less legitimate for those that do have them. For many adherents, these beliefs are more important than other vital issues in our lives, such as having enough money or keeping certain friendships. Because there are people of many faiths in our country, we have to be tolerant and develop a barrier-free society for folks that choose to practice their religion (as long as the practice is not harming other people).

Only in a free society can people be provided with the opportunity to explore, study and make informed decisions as to what faith (or any faith) they will choose. Many faiths provide "open houses" to their religious services at certain times of the year to give members of the public an opportunity to learn about what they believe. I am fortunate that in my profession, I encounter people of a variety of faiths and many are quite pleased to share with me their customs and ideas. I learned a lot about many different faiths and hold no prejudice against any of them; in fact, there is probably more in common between the different faiths than there are differences.

However, to me it is important that faith not be part of any political or legal processes. Once this becomes the case, freedom of to have and to practise one's own religion becomes restricted and accurate information about unsupported faiths (e.g. faiths the government does not include in its political or legal processes) is difficult to find. In cases where a state religion is present, it may be next to impossible to even practice a different faith. If you find this hard to believe, try being a Christian and ministering the Bible in an Islamic country, or try to bring the Qu'aran to a strictly Jewish state and impose this view. State religions force people to hate those that are different. In some countries -- even today -- even the defence of freedom of religion is barred.

I read a very depressing article in today's Toronto Star about how China wants to present itself as a state that adheres to the "rule of law" and independence of the legal profession. In countries like our own (Canada, Great Britain and the U.S.), the legal profession is independent and the "rule of law" is intact. That means that in Canada, Great Britain, the U.S., and several other countries as well, its legal profession can challenge the laws that are passed, fight for minority interests against the state and use the legislative/judicial system to force the state to do things it might not otherwise choose to do. With an independent legal profession and judiciary, legal advocates can oppose the state on many matters and not suffer any personal harm or consequences for this act alone. An independent profession can defend the rights of a minority -- even somebody whose practises are offensive to the state -- to allow that person to engage in their practises and beliefs.

In China, there is not an independent bar. Legal professionals are trained and licensed in China, but they are expected to respect and support the practises of the Communist government. Their executive, legislative and judiciary are not independent of one another, but are fused with the interests of the state. If a lawyer in China goes on the limb on human rights cases, they can be abducted, imprisoned, tortured and disbarred -- simply for taking on the state and challenging its interests. In Canada and other western democracies, I think we take this for granted at times ... we laugh at people filing human rights complaints against the RCMP, for example, so they can be allowed to wear a turban or think an employer is playing favourites if they permit an employee to take Sundays off to participate in their Christian faith.

In places like China, this type of dialogue is not allowed. The state knows best. Minority religions, such as those of Tibet and the Falun Gong are prohibited and its practitioners are barred from practising their religion. If they choose to challenge the state by hiring a lawyer, for example, and taking the government to court - their lawyer is doing this at great personal risk to themselves. Therefore, most members of the profession would not engage in anything as controversial as pushing for such freedoms or human rights of the minority. In Pakistan, when its leader recently declared its state of emergency, it suspended the rule of law and put the Chief Justice under house arrest. The first participants to challenge this leader were members of the legal profession. When "rule of law" is suspended, so are our freedoms. So is just about every human right you take for granted and enjoy today ...

While I am not particularly a person of faith, I can understand the need for it. One of the reasons I don't get too involved in religion is because each religion presents a world view that its adherents are expected to believe. I don't believe in anything just on faith ... I have to see and understand things for myself, sometimes choosing ideas from different religions, sometimes ideas strictly from science and nature. This collage of a belief system to me is just as important as having as any particular formal belief system. Further, I have trouble with many religions as they predict some type of 'doomsday' that is supposed to come around "soon" because we all sinned and we evolved from Adam and Eve, or their equivalents in other faiths. This doomsday is the 'storming of the Bastille' so to speak, the condemnation of the money changers from the temple at a larger scale ... we are all going to go through it, so by high waters -- join whatever faith that is describing your doom to be and you will be 'saved'.

At the same time as predicting doom and gloom and thereafter, a very positive future for everybody that sustains themselves through this predicted turbulence, these same faiths prefer their adherents not to become involved politically, as some say this is attaching oneself too closely to the ways of the world and others, being more gentle, simply feel that any forward action by individuals or groups is either going to move us more quickly toward doomsday or not make a difference in our fate whatsoever. This kind of thinking has its origins, although its reasoning and promises have changed over time. During the days of the feudal state, its serfs were discouraged from uprising against the system because to change the order of things could only lead to disaster. Some of this was thought to be an extreme version of thinking from Edmund Burke on the French Revolution, but even Burke can be saved as he did not promote passive acceptance - he promoted gradual and consensual change of the order. To have the serfs rise up would not necessarily destroy the 'order' of things but would simply challenge the role of the lords and the monarchy.

Religious beliefs at the time were that people who were in the monarchy were somehow deserving of their status and were more worthy than the serfdom. The idea that a serf or a group of serfs can replace them in status and value was feared and not spoken of. Religion provided a world view for the wealthy classes that preserved a sense of order, while religion for the serfs preserved a sense of the deserving afterlife. Sure, this life sucks -- but after you are gone, things would be so much Holier for you. All religion is rooted in some form of order and the preservation of this order. It is not that order is not important to me; it is just that with the type of order this originates from, there can be no freedom.

I question everything. To me, that is only a natural thing to do. And yes, sometimes it is best that there be some form of preservation of order in place to ensure some protection and confidence of society. For example, I tend to be conservative in some of my views, which drives some people around me crazy. They can't understand how I support a regulated environment and "rule of law" with the supremacy of authority arising from competing forces of the executive, judiciary and legislature. The key word for me here is 'competing'. As each of these forces and centres of power evolve and 'dialogue' as one might mildly say, progress is initiated. We become concerned about the environment, but somehow don't want to pay the price of gas ... so somebody invents biofuels. Then we don't want to face the ultimate food crisis this may lead to, so somebody else is researching other alternatives ... so that perhaps, one day we may not be dependent on any fossil fuel for example but have a choice from a number of alternatives that through a strange form of market competition, can both keep their prices in check and protect the interests of the environment at the same time.

I look to evolution of technology and the constant conflict arising from Karl Popper's analysis of how scientific questions are asked and answered and how the answer may not necessarily be the same one next year as it is this year. All progress in this direction is based on the hypothesis, testing and replication of experimentation and keen skills of observation. I don't believe in doomsday. I believe that since the origin of human kind, there was always a crisis in the making, whether that crisis be the invention of fire (and the subsequent struggle and final success in learning how to control it), hunting and gathering of animals in the wild (and the very risk that we ourselves can become prey just the same), the discovery and conquering of many diseases (and subsequent discovery and elimination or amelioration of the same by vaccine or other means), the destruction of our environment (and the growing technology that is becoming more based on renewable resources), as well as other incidents -- which have always been unintended consequences of earlier discoveries and "cures". As humankind is imperfect, it is always going to struggle. Our struggles will only be different at one point of time to the next, where for awhile there may appear to be no solution other then pending apocalypse for the faithful (until some genius finds a new trick that will deal with the pending disaster).

However, some religious folks don't like the idea of there always being a crisis. They fear a crisis because a crisis represents the very dissolution of order that they try so hard to maintain. In the 1930's, nobody could ever imagine, for example, how almost every home in the western world is inhabited by at least one PC. Nobody really knew what a PC was or could even imagine what power and authority it could represent. Some religious folks point to the huge generation of knowledge and how it has geometrically grown in the past hundred or so years ... but these folks are only thinking from our generation. They did not think the way people did in 4 BC, for example, and try to imagine what life would be like in 1400 AD (where in fact knowledge has also geometrically increased) The invention of the printing press has opened a brand new world that never existed before that. We hear of people talk about the horrible and evil things lurking in our society and how much they claim this has not been the case before ... the fact is, it always was the case. Because time moved on from a very primitive sphere where knowledge about the outside world was very limited to a time where knowledge expanded exponentially, we become more aware of these horrible things ... and in turn, because of the increased access to communication and media devices, people with these horrible ideas are in a greater position to communicate them to others.

Even if we went back to Biblical times, there were very horrible people living back then. What about King Herod who issued a decree to kill all babies under two in the country? How about the one of two references given to birthdays in the Bible where the head of John the Baptist was offered on a plate? How about the burning of Sodom and Gomorrah? How about the folks that dared pollute the church with the engagement of the money changers? Further, Jesus was said at the time to be surrounded by prostitutes, thieves and other criminals - all living among those at the time who were more saintly. Times haven't changed much; our way of communicating information or receiving information about these issues has. I don't think human kind is going to figure out how to become less sinful and greedy; however, societal problems will all eventually be dealt with through the efforts of individuals or groups of individuals that can develop better technology or ideas. An example of this is the "discovery" and present status of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS). When it was first discovered, it appeared in a cluster of gay men in a particular community and later spread to other communities, even across continents. The causes or transmission of AIDS was soon discovered and while it started out as almost always deadly and fatal within a few years at most, it has now been developed into a chronic disease that is treatable. We are on the way to finding a vaccine where it may be possible to even eliminate AIDS. Yes, new diseases will appear ... but we've been afflicted that way throughout all of history ... the Black Plague, Yellow Fever, Tuberculous, Small Pox, Polio ... all busted.

It is perhaps my own system of beliefs that keep me actively interested. I also believe that we have to be active politically to ensure there is progress in the structures we consider important in our society. If we decide not to vote, for example, or just avoid politics (because nothing will ever change), we will fulfil that prediction by not acting and for sure, nothing changes. We did not always have the "rule of law". Remember such historical events as the Crusades, the Holocaust, various wars over the ages ... and the fact that slavery of Blacks was once considered an acceptable part of Christian society in the U.S. and parts of Canada ... and only half a century ago, it was okay to annihilate whole populations of people on the basis that they were "life unworthy of life". These ideas were put forth and accepted by the world religions, not opposed. To me, we have to ask questions and keep right on asking them and take NOTHING on faith ... because I know where faith can sometimes lead.

We all know what road was paved with good intentions. My good intention however is to keep right on asking.

A MORAL IMPERATIVE

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?

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?

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?