I want to say something about accountability and I'll probably be blown up for it.

I trained and worked for many years in the counseling field. My background included practice as well as policy and program development and implentation, and I had the opportunity to work closely with physicians, psychologists, attorneys, and teachers. I met many very professional and excellent people in all of those fields who were willing to work together to help others. However, I have also met some real stinkers who were incompetent and incapable of doing the best job possible to provide the optimal amount of benefit to those they were serving. Personally, I have tried to do my best to act as an advocate for the person when those professional standards of care have not been met by a member of the treatment team and was a whistleblower at one point when I observed financial and care abuses occurring (there was a court case which was won by our side). This background has been provided to assure folks that I'm not just disgrunted country grandma sitting back lobbing complaints.


Whether you are talking about a professional organization for which professionals have mandated membership or a union, it has been my experience that those organizations do not weed these people out effectively. You can run the gamut of reasons for inadequate policing of ranks, they just don't fly. Accountability needs to have teeth, especially because inadequate redress of problems facing those who must receive these services will never occur. I have personal knowledge of a doctor in the area who was known to be incompetent and was protected in his position for decades and was only turned out after he killed someone. I have known teachers as well who had no business being in those jobs, and I've seen other counseling practitioners more interested in what their clients could do for them than what they could provide for their clients. In my personal life, I had the experience of needing to deal with a teacher who believed that because my son's first language was not English, he was incapable of learning anything. He's now an engineer in spite of that teacher's unwillingness to do her job. My advocacy for my child finally moved him to another classroom and at time when it was crucial for him to recieve the extra attention. There were other children in that class who had similar backgrounds who undoubtedly were treated by her in the same way.


The bottom line is that no profession should be above accountability, and I firmly believe that the accountability for every profession should not be left entirely to the members of that profession--that every ethics board should have community representatives on it, and that the "stinkers" should be eliminated. I would daresay that any person working in these professions can name people who deserve to be ousted from those professions early and have not been. The main point of this thread is to lay on the table that no organization or profession is so sacrosanct that it or its institutions or members cannot be held to be beyond reproach or scrutiny--not Wall Street financiers nor corporate executives/boards nor helping professionals. We have an obligation to be stewards of our institutions as well.

Flame away.

Totally agree with you. And it is a factor in health care costs, doctors not weeding out malpractice magnets.

IIRC, it's a small number of doctors who garner the most complaints and lawsuits.

Same with police, teachers etc.

If it's 30 years of regressive punishing conservative policies meant to destroy a democratic community institution then accountability is just corp speak for slash and burn right wing greed.
The final step in Milton Friedman's playbook.

Really?

I've read the same baloney from republicans for decades making excuses for punishing good people for policies republicans created specifically to destroy a public institution or democratic social program.

I'm all for accountability but not when it is blindly applied to forward backward conservative policies.

what you are attempting to angle in here. I am speaking of something very basic--our responsibilities to one another in this social contract we forge. While trying to protect democratic social programs and public institutions, we need not assume that every person working in them who deserves to be held accountable is a swipe at the institution. If measures of accountability or standards of care are lived up to then there would be no room for criticism.

have leaders with a strong moral compass and a reservoir of backbone to rely on when situations call for it...

I agree with your thesis.

:hi:

What does this mean?

"I'm all for accountability but not when it is blindly applied to forward backward conservative policies."

And I applaud the OP for bringing up the necessity of people being held accountable. It needs to be applied to everyone no matter what their profession or role in life. Accountability is about what actions create. For example, if Senator Bunning has his way he is accountable for the misery he creates in people by cutting off their last means of subsistence. It doesn't matter whether he takes responsibility for his nasty choices. He's still accountable for what he does. And accountability also encompasses what people don't do such as silently allowing crimes to be committed.

k/r :applause:

I've always said this, and for the life of me, do not understand the push back when someone seeks justice from an organization that shields incompetents, solely because they are a *member*.

Are these organizations so big or so insulated from reality that they do not (or cannot) see the damage done to the entire group's reputation? Negative stories reported by the press are then further exacerbated by lack of accountability and protection of the bad actor harms the entire group - because their clients cannot TRUST them entirely without accountability.

Thank you for your post. I've been saying much of this for years.

Hm.

n/t

I think the problem many see is it is being used as a tool to break public education/bust unions, and that is being unequally enforced. Wall Street, Xe, and KBR can fuck up from here until Tuesday and STILL not be held accountable.

just as lawyers are advocates for their clients.

It looks like you're asking them to do a task that flies in the face of their mission.

of service to their target populations?

I am fine with unions advocating for the interests of their members, which vary considerably. Often those interests coincide with the needs of the public, as those involved in delivering services understand their own profession best. But not under all circumstances: sometimes there's a conflict between the interests of customers (ie the public who use public services) and providers (who deliver said services). Insofar as many public services are a monopoly, public service workers can sometimes find themselves on the wrong side of the argument without realizing how they got there, because they are not directly impacted by competitive pressures.

For example, in California the CCPOA (prison officers' union) is the most powerful union in the state, financially and politically...but they're assholes who have supported a lot of really bad legislation because it brought them short-term gain. San Francisco's Transit Worker's Union is rapidly losing the support of the riding public in what is otherwise a very transit friendly city (http://www.sfbg.com/2010/02/23/open-letter-transit-workers-union for example - and this is in the SF's most liberal newspaper), the SEIU and the UHW have been digging themselves into a pit over some stupid turf war and wasting large amounts of members' dues in the process.

I'm not saying that these three examples are characteristic of unions in general, but pointing out what can happen when such an organization focuses too narrowly on its own interests.

That doesn't preclude them working with other stakeholders on service delivery, but the latter is not part of their core mission afaik anyway.

in order to serve their clients' best interest, they must help ensure that their "product" is not contaminated.

In order to protect your "charges" you sometimes have to protect them from their own coworkers. Those who would give you a bad name, whose behaviour/performance influences public opinion and/or overall accountability?

If you protect the bad, aren't you letting the "good" down?

Not the responsibility of the group representing the employees' interest.

that person with all your force? Isn't it just bad for everyone in the longrun? Including the credibility/reputation of the people you represent - and yourself?

The job of the union is to negotiate pay and working conditions for the bargaining unit and to go after the company if and when it fails to fulfill the terms of the contract.

but lawyers do have the right to refuse to represent a client.

Unions have similar options with respect to their members.

to represent every employee in the bargaining unit. It would also be illegal to have employees pre-approved by the union, as that would be what is called a Closed Shop, in which only members of the Union get to work there.

Not schools, maybe, but jobs where ONLY Union employees can work? In fact, in the construction jobs I've worked with, you called the union for X# of employees (pipefitters, roofers) and they sent them.

has to pay representation fees (most choose to join fully) to the union, but the union is not allowed to get a contract that makes membership to the union a pre-condition to employment. If your boss is outsourcing his HR division to the union though, that's laziness on his or her part.

and jobsites with no HR within hundreds and hundreds of miles.

It's just the ways it's done. (or was - admittedly, it's been quite some time since I worked a jobsite.)

that wasn't what we were talking about specifically, was it?

I was speaking in generalities per your examples.

or the collective?

and to be a "good advocate" for the collective - then should you try and support someone who makes everyone else look bad? Or should you institute your own standards/counseling/remediation?


I mean, if a bricklayer can't lay brick properly, what does the union do?

If a guy shows up to work unable to work, what does the union do?

If a person has a consistently "bad attitude" that is affecting the work environment for everyone, what does the union do?

to see DU trying to find a way to blame teachers AND now teachers unions for the gutting of the American public school system.

I grew up in the Deep South - the South isn't very "union friendly". I worked on Union jobsites, but was non-union myself (office). There's a lot of the finer details I don't know about unions.

So I'm asking questions for edification/clarification. I love learning in any way shape or form, basically. If I'm wrong about something, I'll be the first to admit it - but have to understand it first. 'k?

"I mean, if a bricklayer can't lay brick properly, what does the union do?" The union didn't choose to hire the guy who can't lay bricks. The employer had every opportunity to choose whom to hire

"If a guy shows up to work unable to work, what does the union do?" Nothing. The employer should refer to the part of the contract covering disciplinary policy, and if the company oversteps its bounds, the union should sue.

"If a person has a consistently "bad attitude" that is affecting the work environment for everyone, what does the union do?" Once again. Employer's job. Take disciplinary in accordance with the policies referred to in the contract.

we picked up the phone and called the union hall if we needed three bricklayers and they'd show up the next day. "We" didn't pick out anyone. The unions sent their people and we put them on the payroll.

committee - including community representation - comes in?

... "no organization or profession is so sacrosanct that it or its institutions or members cannot be held to be beyond reproach or scrutiny."

Until then this is all bullshit. Sounds nice. All platitudes do. Still bullshit.

Don

imo-

I completely agree that the last administration should be held accountable for what they did, but to justify not holding ANYONE accountable until they are prosecuted, is just plain foolish- and destructive.

You may call it bullshit- but the either/or black/white all/nothing attitude is childish and self defeating.

:shrug:

Teacher's unions are, like other unions, in the business of backing up their members. The ones who have the power to hire and fire, the local school administration, can and has done so. This nonsense that teachers can't be fired is simply bullshit. Example A: Central Falls RI, where every single teacher was thrown out. Not to mention thousands of teachers who are fired each year due to poor performance, whether they're tenured or not.

You are somehow trying to say that it is the job of the unions to weed out the bad teachers, it isn't, that is the job of the local school administration. Yes, a union will offer support for a union teacher, that is their job, but that support will not, cannot prevent that teacher from being fired.

So why are you asking the unions to do the dirty work that rightfully falls to the local school administrators? That isn't their job.

Nor do unions prevent school districts from getting rid of bad teachers, if you think that is the case you are seriously mistaken and I suggest that you go talk to some actual teachers to find out how ridiculously easy it is to get rid of any teacher, good or bad.

Your post is nothing more than a red herring, trying to blame unions for things they don't do. I suggest that you either educate yourself, or stop engaging in this sort of intellectual dishonesty.

Because I am aware of no such organization.

I see lot of dead armadillo arguments followed by "not my job." Whose job is oversight and accountability, in your estimation? Is it the job of the government, the professional organization, the community? All of the above, none of the above. Currently, government generally lets professional organizations police their own.

Having also been in the counseling field for 20+ years, I can attest to every example cited in your post. Sadly, accountability is often measured in terms of quantity rather than quality.

Recommended.

for those that do stuff they should be held accountable for.



Of course what we're seeing now is a hardcore effort to shitcan the good along with the bad. Y'all must have a different definition of accountability from mine. It's also weird how all this accountability seems to be fired directly at teachers and not military contractors or war criminals. Apparently you're only accountable to this administration if you're too small to fight back. It kind of destroys their "OMFG we hold people accountable!" argument.

get no flames from me.

I think you've said it quite well and I heartily agree!

:hi:

My time as president was one of a siege. In the end, the good ol boys lost, but we paid the price as they wrecked the joint on their way out. Ten years hence and the profession is starting to get back on an even - and far more professional - keel.

I do not regret one moment of it.