Résumés
Summary
The global financial crisis beginning in 2008 resulted in a ballooning public debt and government efforts to constrain public expenditures. Responses to the financial crisis and its impact on human services in Ontario demonstrate the complex interactions across key actors – employers, government, unions, and family advocates. Building on previous scholarship which has explored the role of end-users as industrial relations actors (Bellemare, 2000; Kessler and Bach, 2011) this study deepens our understanding of the role and impact of end-users on the process and outcomes of industrial relations in the social services sector. The main contribution of the paper shows how end-users play unique and complex roles as industrial relations actors in Ontario’s developmental services sector. End-users have had a significant impact at three distinct levels of the industrial relations system (Bellemare, 2000). First, at the strategic level of public policy, in addition to the more traditional forms of grassroots lobbying, end-users have taken on formal roles in the governance network shaping public policy. The impacts of end-user advocacy have contributed to the significant transformation of the developmental services sector, including the closure of the remaining provincially-run institutions in 2009. Second, at the organizational level, end-users have displaced the traditional roles of employers. In some cases, this displacement has resulted in end-users operating as co-managers, with end-user management rights enshrined in collective agreements. In more significant ways, end-users have entirely replaced agency-based managers and become the employer of direct support staff. Third, end-users have driven changes at the level of the work process itself, going beyond the co-production of services, contributing to changes in the nature of direct support work. The work process has shifted from a focus on custodial care to more complex objectives of community development and social inclusion.
Keywords:
- direct support workers,
- developmental services,
- unions,
- transformation
Résumé
Dans la foulée de la crise financière et économique, le gouvernement de l’Ontario s’est engagé à réduire les dépenses publiques. Sur la base d’une étude détaillée, cet article illustre comment, dans ce contexte, les usagers s’imposent comme des acteurs-clés des transformations qui touchent le secteur des services d’aide et de support aux personnes souffrant d’un handicap. L’étude permet ainsi de mieux saisir le rôle important, mais complexe, joué par les usagers dans les transformations qui ont lieu dans les formes de prestations des services et de régulation du travail. Les usagers ont un impact significatif à au moins trois niveaux du système des relations industrielles (Bellemare, 2000). Au niveau stratégique, ils sont des acteurs de la gouvernance des réseaux d’élaboration des politiques publiques sans pour autant délaisser les activités traditionnelles de lobbying. Les organisations représentant les usagers ont, par exemple, joué un rôle central dans la fermeture des établissements publics de traitement des personnes avec des déficiences intellectuelles en faveur de l’insertion dans la communauté. Au niveau organisationnel ensuite, les usagers occupent de plus en plus le rôle d’employeur. Cela peut prendre la forme d’un régime de cogestion des services avec, en plus, l’inscription des droits des usagers dans les conventions collectives de travail ou encore celui d’employeur à part entière et ainsi se substituer aux agences gouvernementales. Enfin, les usagers participent à la transformation du procès de travail lorsque, par exemple, ils redéfinissent la finalité du rôle d’intervenant social pour y inclure des objectifs complexes de développement de la personne et d’inclusion sociale. Bref, le cas du secteur des services aux personnes handicapées illustre que les réponses à la crise financière sont façonnées par l’action des usagers qui doivent être considérés comme des acteurs du système des relations industrielles.
Mots-clés:
- travailleur de soutien direct,
- services de développement,
- syndicats,
- transformation
Resumen
Bajo el impacto de la crisis financiera y económica, el gobierno de Ontario se ha comprometido a reducir los gastos públicos. Sobre la base de un estudio detallado, este artículo ilustra cómo, en este contexto, los usuarios se imponen como actores claves de las transformaciones que afectan el sector de servicios de ayuda y de apoyo a las personas que sufren de un hándicap. El estudio permite captar mejor el rol importante, pero complejo, que juegan los usuarios en las transformaciones que se llevan a cabo en las formas de prestaciones de servicios y de regulación del trabajo. Los usuarios tienen un impacto significativo al menos en tres niveles del sistema de relaciones industriales (Bellemare, 2000). A nivel estratégico, ellos son actores de la gobernanza de redes de elaboración de políticas públicas sin abandonar sin embargo las actividades tradicionales de lobbying. Las organizaciones que representan los usuarios han jugado, por ejemplo, un rol central en el cierre de establecimientos públicos de tratamientos de personas con deficiencias intelectuales favoreciendo así la inserción en la comunidad. A nivel organizacional, los usuarios ocupan cada vez más el rol de empleador. Eso puede tomar la forma de un régimen de cogestión de servicios con la inscripción de derechos de los usuarios en las convenciones colectivas de trabajo o también, del empleador de pleno derecho pudiendo remplazar las agencias gubernamentales. Por ultimo, los usuarios participan a la transformación del proceso de trabajo cuando, por ejemplo, redefinen la finalidad del rol de intervención social para incluir los objetivos complejos de desarrollo de la persona y de inclusión social. En resumen, el caso del sector de servicios a las personas con hándicap ilustra que las respuestas a la crisis financiera son forjadas por la acción de los usuarios que deben ser considerados como actores del sistema de relaciones industriales.
Palabras claves:
- trabajador de apoyo directo,
- servicios de desarrollo,
- sindicatos,
- transformación
Parties annexes
References
- Baines, D. 2004a. “Caring for Nothing: Work Organization and Unwaged Labour in Social Services.” Work, Employment and Society, 18 (2), 267-295.
- Baines, D. 2004b. “Pro-Market, Non-Market: The Dual Nature of Organizational Change in Social Services Delivery.” Critical Social Policy, 24 (1), 5-29.
- Baines, D. 2010. “In a Different Way: Social Unionism in the Nonprofit Social Services: An Australian/Canadian Comparison.” Labor Studies Journal, 35 (4), 480-502.
- Baines, D., and I. Cunningham. 2011. “‘White Knuckle Care Work’: Violence, Gender and New Public Management in the Voluntary Sector.” Work, Employment and Society, 25 (4), 760-776.
- Barnes, M., and D. Prior. 1995. “Spoilt for Choice: How Consumerism Can Disempower Public-Service Users.” Public Money and Management, 15 (3), 53-58.
- Barnes, M., and A. Walker. 1996. “Consumerism versus Empowerment: A Principled Approach to the Involvement of Older Service Users.” Policy and Politics, 24 (4), 375-393.
- Bellemare, G. 2000. “End-users: Actors in the Industrial Relations System?” British Journal of Industrial Relations, 38 (3), 383-405.
- Beresford, P., and S. Croft. 2004. “Service Users and Practitioners Reunited: The Key Component for Social Work Reform.” British Journal of Social Work, 34 (1), 53-68.
- Borbasi, S., V. Bottroff, R. P. Williams, J. Jones and H. Douglas. 2008. “‘No Going Back’ to Institutional Care for People with Severe Disability: Reflections on Practice through an Interpretive Study.” Disability and Rehabilitation, 30 (11), 837-847.
- Braddock, D. L., and D. Mitchell. 1992. Residential Services and Developmental Disabilities in the United States: A National Survey of Staff Compensation, Turnover, and Related Issues. Washington, DC: American Association on Mental Retardation.
- Breihan, A. W. 2007. “Who Chooses Service Providers? The Spread of Consumer Choice, 1992-2004.” Intellectual Developmental Disabilities, 45 (6), 365-372.
- Bronfenbrenner, K. 1997. “The Role of Union Strategies in NLRB Certification Elections.” Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 50 (2), 195-212.
- Bronfenbrenner, K., and R. Hickey. 2004. “Changing to Organize: A National Assessment of Union Organizing Strategies.” Rebuilding Labor: Organizing and Organizers in the New Union Movement. R. Milkman, and K. Voss, eds. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 17-61.
- Brook, P. 2007. “Customer Oriented Militants? A Critique of the ‘Customer Oriented Bureaucracy’ Theory on Front-line Service Worker Collectivism.” Work, Employment and Society, 21 (2), 363-374.
- Caldwell, J. 2006. “Consumer-directed Supports: Economic, Health, and Social Outcomes for Families.” Mental Retardation, 44 (6), 405-417.
- Carr, S. 2007. “Participation, Power, Conflict and Change: Theorizing Dynamics of Service User Participation in the Social Care System of England and Wales.” Critical Social Policy, 27 (2), 266-276.
- Cumella, S. 2008. “New Public Management and Public Services for People with an Intellectual Disability: A Review of the Implementation of Valuing People in England.” Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities, 5 (3), 178-186.
- Cunningham, I. 2008. “A Race to the Bottom? Exploring Variations in Employment Conditions in the Voluntary Sector.” Public Administration, 86 (4), 1033-1053.
- CUPE. 2008. CUPE Ontario Submission on Bill 77: The Services for Persons with Disabilities Act. CUPE Research, Canadian Union of Public Employees.
- Denhardt, J. V., and R. B. Denhardt. 2003. The New Public Service: Serving, Not Steering. Armonk, N.Y.: M. E. Sharpe.
- Drummond, D. 2012. Public Services for Ontarians: A Path to Sustainability and Excellence. Toronto: Queen’s Printer for Ontario.
- Dunlop, J. T. 1958. Industrial Relations Systems. New York: Holt.
- Eakin, L., and M. Thelander. 2005. Beyond Numbers: The Implications of Financial Restraints and Changing Needs on Developmental Services. Lynn Eakin and Associates for the Metro Agencies Representatives Council.
- Finlay, W. M. L., C. Walton and C. Antaki. 2008. “Promoting Choice and Control in Residential Services for People with Learning Disabilities.” Disability and Society, 23 (4), 349-360.
- Giddens, A. 1984. The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Cambridge: Polity Press.
- Hatton, C., M. Rivers, E. Emerson, C. Kiernan, D. Reeves, A. Alborz, H. Mason, and L. Mason. 1999. “Staff Characteristics, Working Conditions and Outcomes amongst Staff in Services for People with Intellectual Disabilities.” Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 12 (4), 340-347.
- Hatton, C., J. Rose and D. Rose. 2004. “Researching Staff.” The International Handbook of Applied Research in Intellectual Disability. E. Emerson, C. Hatton, T. Thompson, and T. Parmenter, eds. Chichester: Wiley, 581-605.
- Hefetz, A., and M. Warner. 2004. “Privatization and its Reverse: Explaining the Dynamics of the Government Contracting Process.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 14 (2), 171-190.
- Hemmings, M. 2011. “‘What Problems You Got?’: Managerialisation and Union Organising in the Voluntary Sector.” Industrial Relations Journal, 42 (5), 473-485.
- Hewitt, A., and S. Larson. 2007. “The Direct Support Workforce in Community Supports to Individuals with Developmental Disabilities: Issues, Implications, and Promising Practices.” Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews, 13 (2), 178-187.
- Hulgin, K. M. and J. O’Brien. 2004. “Person-Centered Services and Organizational Context: Taking Stock of Working Conditions and Their Impact.” Mental Retardation, 42 (3), 169-180.
- Kastner, T. A., and K. K. Walsh. 2008. “Divided We Stand, United We Fall: Personal Budgets versus Universal Coverage.” Intellectual Developmental Disabilities, 46 (3), 239-242.
- Kessler, I., and S. Bach. 2011. “The Citizen-Consumer as Industrial Relations Actor: New Ways of Working and the End-user in Social Care.” British Journal of Industrial Relations, 49 (1), 80-102.
- Kochan, T. A., H. C. Katz and R. B. McKersie. 1994. The Transformation of American Industrial Relations. Ithaca, N.Y.: ILR Press.
- Lakin, K. C., B. Polister, and R. W. Prouty. 2003. “Wages of Non-State Direct-Support Professionals Lag Far Behind Those of Public Direct-Support Professionals and the General Workforce.” Mental Retardation, 41 (2), 141-146.
- Lopez, S. H. 2010. “Workers, Managers, and Customers: Triangles of Power in Work Communities.” Work and Occupations, 37 (3), 251-271.
- Lord, J., and P. Hutchison. 2003. “Individualised Support and Funding: Building Blocks for Capacity Building and Inclusion.” Disability and Society, 18 (1), 71-86.
- Lord, J., and P. Hutchison. 2007. Pathways to Inclusion: Building a New Story with People and Communities. Concord, Ont.: Captus Press.
- McCarter, J. 2011. 2011 Annual Report of the Office of the Auditor General of Ontario. Queen’s Printer for Ontario. Government of Ontario.
- MCSS. 2006. Opportunities and Action: Transforming Supports in Ontario for People who Have a Developmental Disability. Toronto: Government of Ontario.
- Osborne, D., and T. Gaebler. 1992. Reinventing Government: How the Entrepreneurial Spirit is Transforming the Public Sector. New York, N.Y.: Plume.
- Pedlar, A., and P. Hutchison. 2000. “Restructuring Human Services in Canada: Commodification of Disability.” Disability and Society, 15 (4), 637-651.
- Pedlar, A., P. Hutchison, S. Arai, and P. Dunn. 2000. “Community Services Landscape in Canada: Survey of Developmental Disability Agencies.” Mental Retardation, 38 (4), 330-341.
- Pedlar, A., M. Schneider, and B. Fowke. 2000. “Diverse and Inclusive Communities: Fostering a Textured Life.” Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 44, 426-426.
- Reinders, H. 2008. “The Transformation of Human Services.” Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 52 (7), 564-572.
- Riddell, S., C. Pearson, D. Jolly, C. Barnes, M. Priestley, and G. Mercer. 2005. “The Development of Direct Payments in the UK: Implications for Social Justice.” Social Policy and Society, 4 (1), 75-85.
- Salamon, L. M., and O. V. Elliott. 2002. The Tools of Government: A Guide to the New Governance. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.
- Sanders, L. 2012. “‘You’re Not You’: Caregiver Autonomy and Disability Rights.” Annual meeting of the Western Political Science Association. Portland, Oregon.
- Savas, E. S. 2000. Privatization and Public-Private Partnerships. New York: Chatham House.
- Sclar, E. 2000. You Don’t Always Get What You Pay For: The Economics of Privatization. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
- Smith, M., M. Gallagher, H. Wosu, J. Stewart, V. E. Cree, S. Hunter, S. Evans, C. Montgomery, S. Holiday, and H. Wilkinson. 2011. “Engaging with Involuntary Service Users in Social Work: Findings from a Knowledge Exchange Project.” British Journal of Social Work.
- Sweeney, B., S. McWilliams, and R. Hickey. 2012. “The Centralization of Collective Bargaining in Ontario’s Public Education Sector and the Need to Balance Stakeholder Interests.” Dynamic Negotiation: Teacher Labour Relations in Canadian Elementary and Secondary Education. S. Slinn, and A. Sweetman, eds. Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
- Tarrow, S. G. 2011. Power in Movement: Social Movements and Contentious Politics. 3rd ed. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.
- Test, D. W., C. Flowers, A. Hewitt, and J. Solow. 2003. “Statewide Study of the Direct Support Staff Workforce.” Mental Retardation, 41 (4), 276-285.
- Warner, M., and A. Hefetz. 2002. “Applying Market Solutions to Public Services: An Assessment of Efficiency, Equity, and Voice.” Urban Affairs Review, 38 (1), 70-89.
- Wilberforce, M., C. Glendinning, D. Challis, J. L. Fernandez, S. Jacobs, K. Jones, M. Knapp, J. Manthorpe, N. Moran, A. Netten, and M. Stevens. 2011. “Implementing Consumer Choice in Long-term Care: The Impact of Individual Budgets on Social Care Providers in England.” Social Policy and Administration, 45 (5), 593-612.