Carers .... And Their Role \ Place In Today's Sad New World
Jun 14 2009 11:41
Hi ..... as a former 24 \ 7 carer , and active on several independent carer run carer forums , I will be interested to hear from any readers on the subject of carers , and their place in today's Sad New World.
By the use of the definition " Carer " , I refer to the several million individuals in this country who are not paid a wage for caring , merely having to exist on income provided by their caree , or from Carers Allowance paid at a rate of 20% less than Job Seekers Allowance for providing care for a minimum of 35 hours per week.
Any contributions welcomed .....
Jun 30 2009 22:52
#2
Caring for ones relatives, friends or others who need some form of help is a basic human characteristic, and from the historical recorded would appear to have been some thing basic to early human social groups. Under capitalism this care has been turned into a form of oppression for many millions of people who cannot bear the idea of their relatives being carried for in poorly funded state care facilitates or under funded health services. As FROWNLAND underlines millions of people in Britain and around the world carry out such are in the most terrible of circumstances, having to live in near poverty, caring 24, having to fight with services in order to get care. There are also millions of others who suffer terrible guilt because they are not able to do this because of where they live, their work etc.
Charles Fourier (the Utopian socialist from the beginning of the 19th Century)said you can tell the state of a society by the way it cares for its old. Well for capitalism the old are a burden because they cannot produce surplus value. As each winter thousands of old people are eradicated due to their poverty. it is the same for any other group that puts demands upon society but cannot produce surplus value. Care for those with learning disabilities within health services is very poor, whilst any form of 'community care' has become more and more thread bear.As for those with mental health problems getting help is becoming ever more of a lottery.
There is also the weight of isolation for carers and those they help. Subjected to poverty, lack of transport, poor housing, people can become trapped within their homes.
Add to this the deliberately humiliating process of claiming what little benefits there are. And even once you have the benefits there is the constant fear of losing them, in yet another re-definition of the criteria.You are criminalised, because all those on benefits are presented as potential 'benefit cheats' and being undeserving.
As to what these carers can do, the struggle of the mental health care workers, in Alicante Spain, and the families of those who are care for shows that it is not necessary to remain isolated. Faced with cuts in services, working conditions etc these workers called general assemblies to unite the workers, families and I presume the 'patients', and other workers in order to develop a collective struggle to defend jobs, and services. I cannot find the necessary links on our site at the moment (I am rather tired) but I will look for them.
Jul 1 2009 18:30
#3
This thread is a bit close to the bone for me, having been on and off sick, in and out of jobs and study for nearly twenty years, trying to cope - along with my partner - with the changing needs of, and lack of social care for, our son with severe learning disabilities. Our situation tested not only our relationship (what with disfunctional ways to deal with the chronic stress - booze, and god knows what else), but also our friendships. Among the first friends to fall by the wayside were our 'political' ones, although perhaps it was easier for some of them to contrive a political pretext for blowing us out than to admit that they couldn't deal with disability or the gravity of our situation. It was particularly galling to see some of these self-righteous brothers (and sisters) move into the 'caring professions' - youth work, social work, etc. - funny how the most smug, heartless bastards have to show that they care.
Our dealings with social work departments, anxious not to spend on any but the most severe cases, has ensured that our situation developed to a 'most severe case' on several occasions. When I read, a few years ago, that an angry parent of a disabled child had stabbed to death a social worker at a 'planning meeting' at a special school, I thought 'There but for the grace of God go I'. We've been put through that process (where we tell them what we need, and they say no...). Unfortunately, I've also got an abiding distrust - rightly or wrongly - of those who parade their 'right-on' credentials (anarchists included), wearing their 'caring' hearts on their sleeves.
Jul 1 2009 21:02
#4
This topic came up at an internal SF dayschool a while back, as I believe one of our comrades in Manchester is in the situation of being a carer (and thus unable to do much else). We talked about the difficulties faced by anyone who is a carer and the difficulties of them being able to do much about it.
It was suggested that a network of carers, sharing experiences and trying to actually do some action, would be a good thing. However, there was a general recognition that such a thing would only come about if the main drivers were no longer full time carers, simply because they wouldn't have the time, nor I suspect the mental and physical energy.
SF would be supportive of such an organisation, were one to come about. If it's something you'd be interested in, I will ask internally to see where we have people with an interest or experience. I think the situation is likely to become more urgent, as the cuts that we all know are coming will fall heavily on things like respite care and other social services.
Regards,
Martin
Jul 2 2009 11:28
#5
Thank you for responding to my initial post.
I'll take this opportunity to post a link to one of the leading carer run carer forums ( one needs to register to post ) wherein any reader may find detailed discussions on many carer issues ( many political ) :
http://carerwatchdotcom.myfineforum.org/index.php?sid=6ae7bbe48f2da713864950cf86210d1a
I can post links to other sites ( such as Carers UK ) but , as they are not run by carers directly , I leave these on the back burner unless requested.
Jul 2 2009 16:31
#6
It must be much harder for you fighting for the needs of someone who can not make that fight for themselves. At least I have my partner expressing her needs for her self even if I have make them happen.
Punching bureaucrats: I have had to say to my self "it is only business to them- try not to take it personally" when in meetings with the bureaucrats. I know to them it is just a job, but I do have to sit on my fists some time. It is amazing just how fucking heartless some of them are- I wonder if they started out as lefties trying to help or were always shits, a bit of both probably.
I find myself having big attacks "Anderson's" disease and want a holocaust of the middle-classes; it always a middle class person who is paid to say "no".
The experience of being a carer is isolating and personal- atomised workers at the most atomised. Our work is usually not paid so in a market system by definition has no value- but it is absolutely vital- literally vital. It is a labour of love for most of us and as such we can not negotiate better terms or take action. As a result we a worked like dogs physically and stressed to the limits mentally.
I do not know what I can contribute from this position- only I know that I feel the need to be part of a bigger community and to propagandise for communism within that community.
I hope we can find a way of taking this forward.
Jul 2 2009 18:32
#7
For many carers , particularly lone carers , one's individuality disappears .... you become an extension of your caree , existing solely to care , with no real sense of what's happening in the outside world .... for all intents , your caree IS your world.
Doctors \ nurses \ other medical staff may be the only people one sees from week to week .... they have not come to see you , they have come to see your caree. Their only concern for you is your ability to care regardless of your own needs , or health. It is not uncommon to find two 80 years old + senior citizens , probably married , wherein as long as one of them is able to care for the other , the authorities turn a blind eye. Any help for either of them comes at a price .... around £ 15 per hour ... unless it is on rare occasion that such help falls within the NHS's ambit.
Just a few thoughts ...... again , I would refer any reader to the Carer Watch site ( URL posted earlier ) ..... therein you'll find many posting across the whole spectrum of caring , and the failure of the System to consider us any more than mere slaves.
Jul 2 2009 19:26
#8
Hi
I'm Dugsie, an elderly 24/7 carer for my wife. I'm part of Carer Watch too. At what age should carers be entitled to retire ?
Jul 2 2009 21:30
#9
Dugsie wrote:
HiI'm Dugsie, an elderly 24/7 carer for my wife. I'm part of Carer Watch too. At what age should carers be entitled to retire ?
Hi, and welcome to libcom.
This site is a libertarian communist one, so we are inherently opposed to wage labour, and instead propose a society based on "from each according to ability, to each according to need".
Therefore, a "retirement" age would not really be relevant, as "work" would cease to be a a distinct area, separated from other aspects of life.
Care work shows up the hypocrisy of capitalism, which designates much of this incredibly socially useful work not as work at all, which is not rewarded with wages. The economy depends on the unwaged labour of millions of people like carers and housewives. Meanwhile millions of others work socially useless jobs like telesales, marketing, insurance, millions of others work useful jobs for example in nursing, public transport, manufacturing and are overworked and forced to work long hours, and still millions more are unemployed and desperate for work.
This is clearly an irrational system.
On social work, I don't think some of people's comments have been fair. Of course, I can understand people's frustration with the social work system which you are right does not provide adequately for people's needs in the slightest.
However, this is not due to individual social workers being bastards, but due to the institutional structures in which they must work.
I'm not a social worker, but I work in a department related to it, and represent lots of social workers in my union capacity. Social work in the UK is chronically underfunded. It is also significantly understaffed. Staffing levels are already way too low to provide a decent service, and insufficient resources are available to help. On top of that 10% of social work posts are unfilled, putting on an even bigger strain.
Excessive workloads, huge amounts of unpaid overtime, stress, and management bullying necessary to enforce these means there is a very high turnover of staff - a high proportion of social work posts are filled by agency workers who move around quickly.
Rather than provide a decent service, staff are forced against their wishes to work for the government's agenda - which is basically covering its own arse to avoid media scandals if something goes wrong. This basically means making sure all the right boxes on databases are ticked.
Social workers have to spend 80%-90% of their time sitting in front of a computer.
All the ones I know went into it because they wanted to help people. However, their caseloads are so high that they basically have two choices: try to do a decent job and so work way over their contracted hours, unpaid, and then either get in trouble with management for working too slowly, or make themselves ill with stress, or else try to do the bare minimum, meet the targets, and keep their jobs.
Most people end up straddling the two, because the former is just not possible to maintain. Social workers already suffer from high levels of work-related stress. The hours they end up having to do just crazy - even though they make more money than me, there is no way that I would do that.
Working in a situation like this for a long time, that would make anyone begin to stop caring. Trying to detach yourself from the cases you work with is something that you have to do just to stay sane. Because you know most of the time there is not enough you can do to help.
In my council recently management have introduced charges for home care services - the workers tried to stop this, but were unsuccessful. Social workers do try to resist these policies which harm clients and themselves, but it is very difficult, especially with so many agency workers and high staff turnover.
Jul 3 2009 00:13
#10
Steven wrote:
Quote:
On social work, I don't think some of people's comments have been fair. Of course, I can understand people's frustration with the social work system which you are right does not provide adequately for people's needs in the slightest.However, this is not due to individual social workers being bastards, but due to the institutional structures in which they must work.
Steven, I know what you're saying, and, yes I haven't been 'fair' (or fair, if anyone objects to the parentheses). Me and my partner have had some very good, mutually-respectful relationships with professionals dealing with aspects of our son's care, where we all know the score about issues of funding, 'inclusion' (as a mask for budget cuts), and the inability (with much soul-searching) of said professionals to resist or confront budgetary and institutional pressures. Part of the problem, I feel, is within the whole concept of professionalism itself (Here and Now magazine had some very good critiques of the 'professional attitude', which I couldn't do justice to now). As parents of a disabled child we had, and have, a certain degree of freedom as to what we can say about what we think about certain situations which have arisen, which professionals do not have. If anything, there seems to be an unwritten code, applicable across different departments, institutions, charities, etc., that professionals do not criticise each other in front of, or in the interest of service users or their carers. Additionally, within certain departments - with honourable exceptions - there's almost an esprit-de-corps, where you sense a pride in taking, or defending the decisions that will make the lives of the carers and the cared-for hell. Two situations to illustrate these points...
Our son attended, years ago, a Saturday morning session run by the autonomous local branch of a national charity...let's call it 'Anytown' M**crap. One day, we were called to pick him up early, because he'd 'had a fall'. When I got there I found him in a listless state, with a graze on his chin. He'd evidently been pushed around in a swivel chair in the carpark by another child and fallen onto the tarmac. I got him home, where he continued to be listless and threw up - we took him to casualty - slight concussion. We came to learn of the other shenanigans that went on there - fire doors locked; kids pushing each other around the car park in shopping trolleys; fire extinguishers being locked in the cupboard because our son had an obsessive interest in tapping on them; clients washing a staff member's car as an activity...A charity worker who supported our son on this scheme, wrote a letter of complaint about these 'shortcomings', alongside our letter of complaint - she got in the shit for going against fellow professionals. The scheme still runs, I gather on the same ad-hoc, cack-handed basis, while the manager rakes it in, being on parent-partnership schemes and a 'community champion' - talk about parasiting.
Another situation...Residential care is a complete no-no - we're all inclusive now! After our son came out of an emergency residential placement (placed because our respite arrangement had broken down...his needs were too high for what they could provide for, and at that time we couldn't cope) we were offered 'shared care' with another family who could look after him for part of the week. The arrangement was put in place...a couple on the other side of town, who also looked after other disabled children. Initially, the arrangement worked fairly well, but we were worried about the pressure this other couple were put under. Our misgivings were not ill-founded - as well as their pet tortoises, rabbits, dogs, cats - social services placed more and more children with them - five in a cramped council house - with different, sometimes incompatible needs, while our son had his bedroom changed three times in as many months. All this time, social services had been implying we were failures for not being able to care for our son 24/7, while they could never lavish enough praise on this selfless couple. However, they (the couple, and the social worker - all three had worked previously together as carers) began to impute things to him that we did not recognise, and knew (know) not to be true - like he'd stamp his foot next to the head of a girl, lying prone on the floor being fed through a drip, out of malice while laughing wickedly, like he knew what he was doing...Or his distress, and crying for no apparent reason, which we could understand if he was not getting the one-to-one attention that he needed. This led on to their demand for him to be medicated/sedated during the day - just as a means of control, so that they could attend to the needs of the other four children that social services had knowingly overloaded them with. Not being in a position to undertake the full-time care of our son at that time, we nevertheless expressed our absolute opposition to any attempt to socially medicate him. We went away for a short break, having warned our GP about any 'spurious' prescription requests. We subsequently found out that such a request had been granted by a locum, with the blessing of the social worker. When we went to collect our son, for the last time, from these people, we found the social worker stood across the room, silent, like some nightclub bouncer. As we shepherded our son to the front door, after a 'dignified' and low-key exchange, I turned to him, pointing, saying, 'You're a disgrace'. Two days later I got a letter from Hampshire Constabulary warning me to not say anything to, and stay away from C* M*...
Quote:
I find myself having big attacks "Anderson's" disease and want a holocaust of the middle-classes; it always a middle class person who is paid to say "no".
Tart, I know exactly where you're coming from (at least as far as the 'gatekeepers' of the system are concerned).
Jul 3 2009 07:07
#11
As far as the supporting circus is concerned , many carers take great exception to the businesses masquerading as charities , recognised by the Government as being mouth pieces for carers .... this is despite no elections to nominate them , and no input at all from carers in their policy making.
In fact , many receive handouts from the taxpayers via the Government in order to survive , and , at the same time , paying their own employees " the going rate ". When carers want real change , it is these entities that are representing carers ..... akin to a Trade Union watering down it's demands as it is financed by the employer, and will not bite the hand that feeds it.
I would repeat that when using the term " Carer " , I refer to the low millions of people caring for , usually , a family member .... age is not a barrier , carers can be as young as 5 , and as old as 97 ( reported cases ) .... there are no barriers to becoming a carer , many citizens are just one illness \ accident \ birth away from joining our ranks .... for many , it is only on the death of the caree that a carer stops caring.
There are no rules , no protection , and , in many cases , no support without a price tag .... one is on their own , either as a lone carer , or a carer with the support of family members.
Jul 3 2009 08:16
#12
Quote:
Part of the problem, I feel, is within the whole concept of professionalism itself
Depends what you mean there, as a careworker i think its important to maintain a professional distance. Most of the time i'd prefer paid professionals who generally speaking treat it like a job rather than well meaning charity types.
Blaming the espirit de corps thing your describing on profgessionalism would seem to me to be a red herring, the issue is about attacks on whistleblowing, something i've encountered frequently in care services, the medical profession and social services more than an issue of social attitudes.
Jul 3 2009 11:09
#13
cantdocartwheels wrote:
Blaming the espirit de corps thing your describing on profgessionalism would seem to me to be a red herring, the issue is about attacks on whistleblowing, something i've encountered frequently in care services, the medical profession and social services more than an issue of social attitudes.
I don't know, while the attacks on whistleblowing are a big problem, it's a mistake to underplay the impact that "professionalism" has when it's used to discipline care workers. To give you an example, recently, the company I work for decided that a tenant of the home I work in had to move, because they wanted to shut the home down and sell off the building*. They pounced on the first available space in a home that was completely unsuitable for her needs (I don't want to go into details, both for confidentiality reasons and because I'd rather my employers didn't find out I was posting about this stuff hear), we were repeatedly told that our objections were "unprofessional", simply because we openly disagreed with upper management in conversations with the family and clearly stated that we didn't think the move was appropriate. People lose their jobs over this shit and there's a real fear of speaking out within the company.
Luckily, the move didn't go ahead, but only because the family told the company that they didn't think the new home was acceptable, a similar move for another tenant was quashed because the advocate thought it was a bad idea, so now the home is staying open.
Basically, there's a difference between the kind of professional distance you're talking about (which is a necessary survival technique, getting emotionally involved can fuck you up) and the "professionalism" being talked about here, which essentially means that the company's word is law and nobody is allowed to question it openly.
*Not a problem for us, there'd still be jobs elsewhere in the company, luckily it's damn near impossible to get sacked, unless you upset somebody in senior management.
Jul 3 2009 13:12
#14
madashell shows the problem with care workers - do the right thing or get the sack.
I don't blame the care-workers- they are stuck . The market system of distribution does not give them the opportunity to give their work where it is needed- only where it is financed. The fucks who run the industry do not regard their activity as a system to provide care but as a system to extract profits. They hold their staff to that priority and will force people into horrific ethical dilemmas. Workers carry the guilt of implementing decisions they have no control over. I fear that this happens so much in the life of a care worker that the threshold drops- this I believe is what others call "professionalism".
I need care workers. I need their expertise and the services they provide. I need to trust them. Sadly I don't.
I have met some absolute wonders and the few absolute shits stand out so much because of them, friends of mine work in the care industry and I know how much they care but I have never met an agency- private or public that is trust worthy. They will only do what you can force them to do.
Jul 4 2009 16:44
#15
Quote:
Part of the problem, I feel, is within the whole concept of professionalism itself (Here and Now magazine had some very good critiques of the 'professional attitude', which I couldn't do justice to now).
I obviously didn't make myself very clear when I said part of the problem was professionalism. By 'professionalism', I didn't mean the code of conduct whereby 'thou shalt not grass up, blow the whistle on, or criticise fellow professionals' - even if the examples I gave seemed to imply that. Perhaps I used the incorrect terminology. Part of the problem - a symptom of a generalised social disfunction (class society, capitalism), rather than ultimate cause - is the very existence of a 'professional caste' itself. A couple of hundred years ago these would have been the Overseers of the workhouse - the 'Bastilles' the poor were sent to - and other defenders of the poverty managed by the Poor Law - the Board of Guardians and suchlike. This parasitocracy (whose jobs are presumably still advertised in The Guardian every Wednesday (I stopped taking it because of the nauseating Blairism and support for the Iraq war)) now even has the effrontery to pass itself off as 'socially necessary' specialists on a par with doctors, if job titles like Senior Practitioner 
are anything to go by (and I know the medical profession is worthy of criticism). And, just to make it clear, I'm not talking about the whole army of poverty-wage support workers and care workers, which we've relied on and continue to.
As far as the management of the generalised poverty is concerned, though, there seems to be a whole raft of people employed to emphasise individual solutions (another aspect of equal opportunities capitalism) to whatever shit people find themselves in. One person I know of makes home visits to check larders and lecture on 'healthy eating' to people several stones lighter than herself, while reporting on the state of tidiness, when she lives in a tip herself. If I could have been arsed years ago, when it was 'flavour of the minute', I'd have mocked up a picture of an abandoned, burnt-out car with the Sure Start logo emblazoned on it. This whole area seems to be the natural environment of the leftist - and I don't mean in the Richard Gombin sense. Leftism seems to be the default mode for a lot of class struggle anarchists...Don't get me started.
Whatever abstract principles I might have had or have, the experience of helping raise a child with profound learning disabilities has taught me that the nuclear family and the socially-managed atomisation within which we exist is not adequate.
Jul 5 2009 21:41
#16
Wellclose Square wrote:
Quote:
Whatever abstract principles I might have had or have, the experience of helping raise a child with profound learning disabilities has taught me that the nuclear family and the socially-managed atomisation within which we exist is not adequate.
This is a key question that has forced me to try to recommit to communism. I understand now much more what I need to be fighting for. Communist methods of helping people make the most of their lives. Mutual aid placed at the heart of systems of living. This isolation is not viable on an individual or community level.
We need each other so much.
Jul 12 2009 19:58
#17
I cared for my elderly Mother who suffered from Dementia and Cancer until she died last year.It was obviously terribly distressing and stressfull and i finally managed to get care in place in the last few days.The social workers are caught in a vex of an overload of work and underfunding and carers are constantly banging their heads against brick walls in order to gain fast track access to facillities.On a wider point the "Libertarian" Right and the social ethos and individualist social darwinism that arose under Thatcher has pushed back gains by struggle wherebye the State was forced to provide adequate care and so as a contributer stated carers suffer the oppression of caring single handedly while the State relieves itself of any responsibility.
Hi- I am a full time carer for my partner who has much advanced progressive MS. I am not in the UK and right now cant think of much to say but please get back to me... I am very interested in discussing the subject.