curt_b
08-26-2009, 07:32 AM
This article was written by a guy I know pretty well (and work in coalitions with). Our County has/is firing 47% of the largest Social Services Agency in the county, under the guise of hard times. He's a Leftist and it's interesting how he moves back and forth between the individual and collective.
Social Workers, Liberate Thyselves: The Cost of Political Apathy
Guest article by Suhith Wickrema
http://www.cincinnatibeacon.com/index.php/contents/comments/social_workers_liberate_thyselves_the_cost_of_political_apathy/
First published in Streervibes July 15 2009
(curt here: Streetvibes is a street paper sold by the homeless. It's by far the most Left publication in town.)
Imagine what a Cincinnati City Council meeting would like if city council were in the process of laying off 47 percent of the police department. The council chambers would be packed to capacity with uniformed officers, their family members, neighborhood vigilante groups, and ordinary citizens.
Imagine what the school board meeting would look like if Cincinnati Public Schools were in the process of laying off 47 percent of its employees. The school board meeting would be packed with teachers, their spouses, students, parents and ordinary citizens.
Do you remember the Hamilton County Commission meetings when the commissioners propose to reduce the sheriff department’s budget? The hearing room was filled with sheriff’s deputies, their spouses, their kids, their parents, and, community members.
Do you remember what the city budget hearings looked like two years ago, when council members proposed to close down a number of city health centers? The hearing rooms were full of health department employees, health care advocates, consumers, and ordinary citizens, all waving socks: “SOC – Save Our Clinics.” The clinics were not closed.
When the city manager suggested selling the Cincinnati Water Works, threatening the quality of our water and union jobs, workers, union leaders, civil rights organizations, consumer advocates and ordinary citizens initiated a petition drive to stop the sale.
Yet when the Hamilton County Department of Jobs and Family Services – the department that issue food stamps, provide day care vouchers, protects abused and neglected children, protects elderly people, enforces child-support orders, provide cash assistance to the very poor, helps people to join the workforce – is about to lose 47 percent of its employees, there is only a murmur of protest.
Why is that?
Those of us who work at the Department of Jobs and Family Services see ourselves as social workers, advocates for the poor and injured and as a part of the helping profession. On a daily basis, we motivate our customers and other professionals to do tasks that they might not want to do. We facilitate meetings with people who might have opposing viewpoints to a given problem and develop a consensus solution.
Given these skills, one would think we would be able launch a successful campaign against these decimating cuts. However, we have been unable or unwilling to organize and pressure the politicians to stop the hemorrhaging at our work place. People in the helping profession seem inherently incapable of organizing into a political force.
Funding is always about political power and influence. We social workers seem reluctant to develop this political power and influence. This malady permeates the entire human service/social work profession. The reluctance of social workers and helping professionals to demand a valued place in this society has baffled me.
Over the years I have come up with many different explanations for why members of the helping profession are unwilling or unable to organize and demand respect.
Explanation one: Women dominate the helping profession. Misogyny still prevails in our culture. The de- valuing of a profession dominated by women is just a reflection of this misogynistic culture.
I do not find this theory convincing. Women dominate the teaching and the nursing professions. Teachers’ unions have become a force to reckon with. The power of the California Nurses Association has become legendary. Teachers and nurses have gained by this organized action – the median income of a teacher with over 20 years experience is $58,000. The median income of a registered nurse with over 20 years experience is $63,000. The median income of a social worker with 20 years experience is $41,000. So, the misogyny of our culture does not appear to be a determining factor in the economic subjugation of the helping profession.
Explanation two: Social workers are overworked and underpaid, thus not having any surplus time or energy to organize. This is circular reasoning. If social workers were well organized, they would not be underpaid and overworked, but we cannot organize because we are overworked and underpaid.
At one time, teachers and nurses were also overworked and underpaid. Somehow, members of these two professions found time to organize into strong unions, giving them political power and influence. This translated into better pay.
Explanation three: The tolerance of low wages by social workers has been explained by saying that social workers see their work as a “calling,” thus willing to work for low wages. A recent Government Accountability Office report estimated that the turnover rate among child-welfare workers is between 30 and 40 percent. It is hard to believe that this many people would leave their “calling” on a regular basis.
I do not find any of the above arguments convincing. I am not sure if there is a simple answer to explain the apathy of social workers. However, I would like to offer the following reasons as significant contributing factors.
Factor one: We social workers have started to emulate some of the characteristics of the people we serve – blaming others and social conditions without taking responsibility for one’s situation are a common characteristic of the troubled people social workers encounter. In social work jargon this is known as the “victim stance.”
We social workers blame the county commissioners, the legislature, the governor, the union, and the society for not valuing social work and social workers. We blame everyone else for our condition, without doing anything to correct it – the “victim stance.”
Factor two: We, social workers have become victims of our own rhetoric: “You cannot change others or the world, you can only change yourself.” This is a mantra said by many social workers to their clients. It is this kind of self-centered, individualistic thinking that has made us sit at our desks and passively watch while our co-workers’ livelihood is stripped away from them.
Social workers function as agents of social control to maintain the status quo. We use concepts such as “victim stance” and “you can only change yourself” to keep the poor in check, when the poor question social inequality. We, appear to have internalized these concepts of oppression.
Social Workers, Liberate Thyselves: The Cost of Political Apathy
Guest article by Suhith Wickrema
http://www.cincinnatibeacon.com/index.php/contents/comments/social_workers_liberate_thyselves_the_cost_of_political_apathy/
First published in Streervibes July 15 2009
(curt here: Streetvibes is a street paper sold by the homeless. It's by far the most Left publication in town.)
Imagine what a Cincinnati City Council meeting would like if city council were in the process of laying off 47 percent of the police department. The council chambers would be packed to capacity with uniformed officers, their family members, neighborhood vigilante groups, and ordinary citizens.
Imagine what the school board meeting would look like if Cincinnati Public Schools were in the process of laying off 47 percent of its employees. The school board meeting would be packed with teachers, their spouses, students, parents and ordinary citizens.
Do you remember the Hamilton County Commission meetings when the commissioners propose to reduce the sheriff department’s budget? The hearing room was filled with sheriff’s deputies, their spouses, their kids, their parents, and, community members.
Do you remember what the city budget hearings looked like two years ago, when council members proposed to close down a number of city health centers? The hearing rooms were full of health department employees, health care advocates, consumers, and ordinary citizens, all waving socks: “SOC – Save Our Clinics.” The clinics were not closed.
When the city manager suggested selling the Cincinnati Water Works, threatening the quality of our water and union jobs, workers, union leaders, civil rights organizations, consumer advocates and ordinary citizens initiated a petition drive to stop the sale.
Yet when the Hamilton County Department of Jobs and Family Services – the department that issue food stamps, provide day care vouchers, protects abused and neglected children, protects elderly people, enforces child-support orders, provide cash assistance to the very poor, helps people to join the workforce – is about to lose 47 percent of its employees, there is only a murmur of protest.
Why is that?
Those of us who work at the Department of Jobs and Family Services see ourselves as social workers, advocates for the poor and injured and as a part of the helping profession. On a daily basis, we motivate our customers and other professionals to do tasks that they might not want to do. We facilitate meetings with people who might have opposing viewpoints to a given problem and develop a consensus solution.
Given these skills, one would think we would be able launch a successful campaign against these decimating cuts. However, we have been unable or unwilling to organize and pressure the politicians to stop the hemorrhaging at our work place. People in the helping profession seem inherently incapable of organizing into a political force.
Funding is always about political power and influence. We social workers seem reluctant to develop this political power and influence. This malady permeates the entire human service/social work profession. The reluctance of social workers and helping professionals to demand a valued place in this society has baffled me.
Over the years I have come up with many different explanations for why members of the helping profession are unwilling or unable to organize and demand respect.
Explanation one: Women dominate the helping profession. Misogyny still prevails in our culture. The de- valuing of a profession dominated by women is just a reflection of this misogynistic culture.
I do not find this theory convincing. Women dominate the teaching and the nursing professions. Teachers’ unions have become a force to reckon with. The power of the California Nurses Association has become legendary. Teachers and nurses have gained by this organized action – the median income of a teacher with over 20 years experience is $58,000. The median income of a registered nurse with over 20 years experience is $63,000. The median income of a social worker with 20 years experience is $41,000. So, the misogyny of our culture does not appear to be a determining factor in the economic subjugation of the helping profession.
Explanation two: Social workers are overworked and underpaid, thus not having any surplus time or energy to organize. This is circular reasoning. If social workers were well organized, they would not be underpaid and overworked, but we cannot organize because we are overworked and underpaid.
At one time, teachers and nurses were also overworked and underpaid. Somehow, members of these two professions found time to organize into strong unions, giving them political power and influence. This translated into better pay.
Explanation three: The tolerance of low wages by social workers has been explained by saying that social workers see their work as a “calling,” thus willing to work for low wages. A recent Government Accountability Office report estimated that the turnover rate among child-welfare workers is between 30 and 40 percent. It is hard to believe that this many people would leave their “calling” on a regular basis.
I do not find any of the above arguments convincing. I am not sure if there is a simple answer to explain the apathy of social workers. However, I would like to offer the following reasons as significant contributing factors.
Factor one: We social workers have started to emulate some of the characteristics of the people we serve – blaming others and social conditions without taking responsibility for one’s situation are a common characteristic of the troubled people social workers encounter. In social work jargon this is known as the “victim stance.”
We social workers blame the county commissioners, the legislature, the governor, the union, and the society for not valuing social work and social workers. We blame everyone else for our condition, without doing anything to correct it – the “victim stance.”
Factor two: We, social workers have become victims of our own rhetoric: “You cannot change others or the world, you can only change yourself.” This is a mantra said by many social workers to their clients. It is this kind of self-centered, individualistic thinking that has made us sit at our desks and passively watch while our co-workers’ livelihood is stripped away from them.
Social workers function as agents of social control to maintain the status quo. We use concepts such as “victim stance” and “you can only change yourself” to keep the poor in check, when the poor question social inequality. We, appear to have internalized these concepts of oppression.