# Ask the organizer of the Ottawa Panhandlers' Union **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [August 1, 2009, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-organizer-of-the-ottawa-panhandlers-union/504982 "2009-08-01T16:53:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Justin\_Bailey](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/justin_bailey/32/8792_2.png) [@Justin\_Bailey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Justin_Bailey)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2009, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-organizer-of-the-ottawa-panhandlers-union/504982/121 "2009-08-02T19:31:18Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > If I recall correctly, a strike is when you stop (or threaten to stop) a business or service you provide in order to get better working conditions. If you stop(or threaten to stop) _someones else’s_ business or service, though-isn’t that called extortion? Depending upon what the “strikers” :rolleyes: are asking for, it could also be considerd a form of racketeering. > **[Racketeering](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racket_(crime))** > > In the United States, racketeering is a type of organized crime in which the perpetrators set up a coercive, fraudulent, extortionary, or otherwise illegal coordinated scheme or operation (a "racket") to repeatedly or consistently collect a profit. The term "racketeering" was coined by the Employers' Association of Chicago in June 1927 in a statement about the influence of organized crime in the Teamsters' Union. Specifically, a racket was defined by this coinage as being a service that Original... ---
**Author:** ![SmashTheState](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e36b37/32.png) [@SmashTheState](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SmashTheState)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2009, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-organizer-of-the-ottawa-panhandlers-union/504982/122 "2009-08-02T19:32:04Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > So the panhandlers are effectively panhandling their dues from a socialist/anarchist union? A more perfect union could not be entered into. First, the Wikipedia article is in error. The IWW does not “pay the dues” for our members. The OPU itself raises funds to pay the initiation fees for new members. Monthly dues beyond that are the responsibility of the member, though, as I noted earlier, the payment of dues has no effect on whether or not a person remains a member in good standing of the OPU (thought they may fall into bad standing with the larger IWW as a result). Secondly, the IWW does not have a political stance. In fact we are forbidden by our constitution, as members of the IWW, from promoting any political or anti-political position. We are of course free as individuals to support or promote any political stance we desire, but when we speak as members of the IWW, we _must_ be apolitical. The IWW is intended as a union for all people, not just those of a particular political persuasion. ---
**Author:** ![SmashTheState](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e36b37/32.png) [@SmashTheState](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SmashTheState)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2009, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-organizer-of-the-ottawa-panhandlers-union/504982/123 "2009-08-02T19:36:30Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Thus,in reality, there’s no union at all, just the IWW using the homeless as a political tool? Gosh, how noble. This is the sort of comment I’m not going to tolerate. If you want to toss around flames and insults, do so in the flame pit. I’m not going to dignify this with a response. It’s insulting to me, our members, and the IWW as a whole. It’s also untrue. ---
**Author:** ![SmashTheState](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e36b37/32.png) [@SmashTheState](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SmashTheState)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2009, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-organizer-of-the-ottawa-panhandlers-union/504982/124 "2009-08-02T19:40:43Z")
> [@Muffin](#): > > SmashTheState, do you work with a police liason officer, and if not, why not? We do for specific issues. Regardless of what some people in this thread may believe, the police department regards us as a real union. The police have a labour issues negotiator, and we have liaised with him on occasion, particularly around public events such as rallies and pickets. We don’t ask permission, and often our intended goal (such as shutting down the police station or a shopping mall for an hour) is in direct conflict with the goal of the police, but we are courteous where it’s possible to be. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2009, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-organizer-of-the-ottawa-panhandlers-union/504982/125 "2009-08-02T19:46:28Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > You will persuade them, alright. Politicians will use the anger and venom you show as a platform for tougher laws against panhandlers, and newspapers will tie every single bit of street aggression, real or imagined, to the aggressive public statements of your group. That’s a pretty fair description of how Ontario’s law against squeegee kids came to be. The squeegee kids in Toronto became more aggressive and more publicly vocal in the late 90s, so in 1999 the neo-con Harris government enacted a law that prohibited, et alia, repeatedly asking people for money in an aggressive manner, washing motorists’ windshields for money, or panhandling near ATMs, pay phones and public transit stops. For a list of what methods of panhandling are prohibited, check out the Safe Streets Act. [http://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/so-1999-c-8/latest/so-1999-c-8.html](http://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/so-1999-c-8/latest/so-1999-c-8.html) The squeegee kids part of the law has been tested in the courts, including several arguments based on our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Ontario Court of Appeal shot down the squeegee kids’ arguments, and the Supreme Court of Canada denied leave to appeal. [http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2007/2007onca19/2007onca19.html](http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2007/2007onca19/2007onca19.html) The bottom line is that the squeegee kids chose the wrong time and the wrong approach to try to improve their lot, and as a result set their cause back significantly, and earned public enmity in the process. ---
**Author:** ![SmashTheState](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e36b37/32.png) [@SmashTheState](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SmashTheState)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2009, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-organizer-of-the-ottawa-panhandlers-union/504982/126 "2009-08-02T19:48:04Z")
> [@Muffin](#): > > I think that focusing on paid or sponsored union membership numbers is meaningless, for the OPU is not and cannot be a trade union under Ontario law: ["“trade union” means an organization of employees formed for purposes that include the regulation of relations between employees and employers . . .](http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_95l01_e.htm)" The original unions were illegal. The IWW’s position is that we may or may not register our unions with the State, depending on our immediate strategic needs, but we do not require an official State imprimatur to call ourselves a union. As I’ve described in detail earlier in this thread, a union is a group of workers gathering together for mutual aid and protection. Whether or not the State (or a bunch of strangers on an Internet message board) regard us as a union is immaterial to us. _We_ regard us as a union, and that’s the only thing of importance to us. > [@Muffin](#): > > Really its just another social organization trying to do good works, not a trade union at all, despite it being supported by an international trade union and despite it calling itself a union. The IWW is not a trade union, it’s an industrial union. And the OPU is made up entirely of panhandlers and the street-involved. There are NO outside organizers involved. I, myself, have been homeless. We are not a bunch of bleeding heart do-gooders trying to fix someone else’s problem; we are street people self-organizing to take back our streets from the arrayed forces of State and capital. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2009, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-organizer-of-the-ottawa-panhandlers-union/504982/127 "2009-08-02T20:09:54Z")
> [@SmashTheState](#): > > We are not a bunch of bleeding heart do-gooders trying to fix someone else’s problem; we are street people self-organizing to take back our streets from the arrayed forces of State and capital. That sort of hostility will set you back in the long run. As far as “take back our streets” goes, whatever makes you think that you own the streets in the first place? You don’t, and you never did. The streets are owned by the Crown in right of Ontario, or such municipalities or persons as may be transferees. So for the third time, should we have the right to keep street people off our property? ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2009, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-organizer-of-the-ottawa-panhandlers-union/504982/128 "2009-08-02T20:14:07Z")
> [@SmashTheState](#): > > The IWW is not a trade union, it’s an industrial union. There is no such distinguisment under Ontario law. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2009, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-organizer-of-the-ottawa-panhandlers-union/504982/129 "2009-08-02T20:15:07Z")
> [@SmashTheState](#): > > First, the Wikipedia article is in error. The IWW does not “pay the dues” for our members. The OPU itself raises funds to pay the initiation fees for new members. Monthly dues beyond that are the responsibility of the member, though, as I noted earlier, the payment of dues has no effect on whether or not a person remains a member in good standing of the OPU (thought they may fall into bad standing with the larger IWW as a result). > > Secondly, the IWW does not have a political stance. In fact we are forbidden by our constitution, as members of the IWW, from promoting any political or anti-political position. We are of course free as individuals to support or promote any political stance we desire, but when we speak as members of the IWW, we _must_ be apolitical. The IWW is intended as a union for all people, not just those of a particular political persuasion. As has been pointed out, it can’t be a union because the people involved don’t have jobs. You can’t arbitrate wages or working conditions because there is no employer or place of business. At best you have an anarchist’s social club that is paying you a wage or otherwise serving your needs. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2009, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-organizer-of-the-ottawa-panhandlers-union/504982/130 "2009-08-02T20:23:00Z")
> [@SmashTheState](#): > > From the context of what I wrote, it should be easy to tell what I meant. With all due respect, it was not. You flatly stated the Harris government “ **completely removed rent controls in Ontario,** ” and added no qualifiers. That is a rather exact and clear claim that means that rent control was completely removed, full stop. It is _remarkably_ different from what you’re now saying, and does not at all suggest that “rent controls were in fact kept in place for existing tenants and higher rents only permitted if a new tenant moved in” and so forth. It’s your responsibility to ensure what you’re saying is clear and true. It’s a hijack so I’ll drop it, but the truth is worth pointing out. > [@](#): > > Harris remove ALL rent controls on what a landlord could charge as long as no tenants were currently in residence. I admit to being less than terribly concerned about what a landlord charges nonexistent tenants occupying an empty apartment, but that’s another thread. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2009, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-organizer-of-the-ottawa-panhandlers-union/504982/131 "2009-08-02T20:55:17Z")
How do you consider yourselves Industrial Workers of the World when you don’t work? > [@SmashTheState](#): > > We are not a bunch of bleeding heart do-gooders trying to fix someone else’s problem; we are street people self-organizing to take back our streets from the arrayed forces of State and capital. As a small fringe group with no resources, what do you realistically hope to accomplish other than getting your heads knocked in? What do you feel your specific “rights” are? You don’t work, you presumably don’t pay taxes. You don’t contribute to the system in terms of labor or capital. But yet you are dependent on that system for survival - sleeping under it’s infrastructure, beging for change, you require access to people’s property, etc. So IOW, what do you think your relationship with that system should look like? ---
**Author:** ![lexi](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lexi/32/6806_2.png) [@lexi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lexi)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2009, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-organizer-of-the-ottawa-panhandlers-union/504982/132 "2009-08-02T21:04:04Z")
> [@Muffin](#): > > That sort of hostility will set you back in the long run. > > As far as “take back our streets” goes, whatever makes you think that you own the streets in the first place? You don’t, and you never did. The streets are owned by the Crown in right of Ontario, or such municipalities or persons as may be transferees. > > So for the third time, should we have the right to keep street people off our property? What about public property? If it is completely legal for any other group congregate, why not the homeless? ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2009, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-organizer-of-the-ottawa-panhandlers-union/504982/133 "2009-08-02T21:29:52Z")
> [@lexi](#): > > What about public property? If it is completely legal for any other group congregate, why not the homeless? Congregating in public would be legal in the broad sense of the word but the example given was a sit down “strike” at city hall. Beyond that, public property has restrictions on use. You cannot make it your personal home, that would be squatting. ---
**Author:** ![lexi](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lexi/32/6806_2.png) [@lexi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lexi)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2009, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-organizer-of-the-ottawa-panhandlers-union/504982/134 "2009-08-02T21:46:12Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Congregating in public would be legal in the broad sense of the word but the example given was a sit down “strike” at city hall. Beyond that, public property has restrictions on use. You cannot make it your personal home, that would be squatting. I was trying to address the larger issue, what StS is protesting, not the protests themselves. Places such as sidewalks, parks, and other places which are public, yet if more than one homeless person gathers they are told to move along. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2009, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-organizer-of-the-ottawa-panhandlers-union/504982/135 "2009-08-02T21:47:22Z")
> [@lexi](#): > > What about public property? If it is completely legal for any other group congregate, why not the homeless? There is no differentiation between homeless and non-homeless under the law. When it comes to public property, there shouldn’t be a problem if the people are not violent, are not endangering the safety of themselves or others, not damaging public property, and not obstructing the public’s use and benefit of the place. Of course there are always exceptions, for example, don’t mess with Parliamentary privilege despite parliaments being on public land, don’t expect to sleep in a public place after hours despite the place being public land, and in general don’t expect to use public property that serves a specific government purpose and is not a public forum by tradition or designation despite being public land. Note that we don’t have a public forum doctrine the way the Americans do. Instead, look at the venue, and try to find a balance between the above rights and constraints (and when protesting, add in the extremely important need to promote constitutionally protected participation in social and political decision-making). If those constraints are met, but there is still a problem, then I would recommend educating the police involved, either informally (e.g. chat with the staff sergeant and have a follow-up meeting), or through a formal complaint with the local police service or the Ontario Police Complaints Commission. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2009, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-organizer-of-the-ottawa-panhandlers-union/504982/136 "2009-08-02T22:02:35Z")
> [@lexi](#): > > I was trying to address the larger issue, what StS is protesting, not the protests themselves. Places such as sidewalks, parks, and other places which are public, yet if more than one homeless person gathers they are told to move along. When it comes to being asked to move along when sidewalk sitting, the grounds are that you are obstructing the public’s use and benefit of the sidewalk. I expect that there will never be a mutually acceptable resolution to this one, for it is very hard to nail down just what consittutes obstructon of public use and benefit. Is it sleeping on a bench in a train station while waiting for a train? Is it being tucked up out of the way against a building? Is it monopolizing the use of a particular spot for a a few hours? Is it looking intimidating? These are all very situation dependant. As a rule of thumb, since sidewalks are for walking, and parks are for parking, homeless people would have a better chance at congregating in parks than on sidewalks. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2009, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-organizer-of-the-ottawa-panhandlers-union/504982/137 "2009-08-02T22:09:44Z")
Historically, our culture is based on many centuries of assuming that there is a place for everyone, and that everyone should be in his or her place. That’s not going to change any time soon, so I submit that it is a matter of educating the public, the politicians, the bureaucrats, and the police, that street people also need a place, which given their very special needs, might very well include the streets. If that concept can be disseminated and eventually accepted by the general public, it will then become a matter of zoning, rather than class warfare. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2009, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-organizer-of-the-ottawa-panhandlers-union/504982/138 "2009-08-02T22:34:18Z")
> [@SmashTheState](#): > > One thing I will recommend is that you do some reading on [parecon](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parecon). Thanks for the link. It gave me my third belly laugh of this thread: > [@](#): > > Credits would then be used to buy goods and services. Once used to purchase something, a credit would be deducted from the consumer’s total. Workers would have to work more to get more credits. Albert and Hahnel have proposed that neither banks nor retail stores should receive their compensation by taking a portion of a sale or charging a fee. In that way, there would be no flow of money. > > Credits could not be given to someone else in exchange for anything. They would only be redeemable at a parecon store or other sort of vendor. This makes it impossible to bribe or even beg for money. ---
**Author:** ![lexi](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lexi/32/6806_2.png) [@lexi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lexi)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2009, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-organizer-of-the-ottawa-panhandlers-union/504982/139 "2009-08-02T22:55:29Z")
> [@Muffin](#): > > When it comes to being asked to move along when sidewalk sitting, the grounds are that you are obstructing the public’s use and benefit of the sidewalk. > > I expect that there will never be a mutually acceptable resolution to this one, for it is very hard to nail down just what consittutes obstructon of public use and benefit. Is it sleeping on a bench in a train station while waiting for a train? Is it being tucked up out of the way against a building? Is it monopolizing the use of a particular spot for a a few hours? Is it looking intimidating? These are all very situation dependant. As a rule of thumb, since sidewalks are for walking, and parks are for parking, homeless people would have a better chance at congregating in parks than on sidewalks. I agree completely, that is the theory, but often the practice is, even when no one is causing a disturbance, or obstructing a sidewalk, a group of homeless will be told to move on, just because the way they look is bothersome to someone. We have a public pedestrian mall in Calgary similar to yours in Ottawa, and although seniors can sit all day, a homeless person is told to move along. The homeless should have equal rights of use if they are obeying the law, but they don’t. As for private property, I don’t believe property is theft, like some others, even if your private property is open to the public, you have the right to restrict access, as long as it is not prejudicial, and I think restricting access to all homeless looking people is classicism. Barring access to a place should be done on an individual basis, those who cause trouble should be barred, but to paint all homeless as trouble makers is prejudice. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2009, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-organizer-of-the-ottawa-panhandlers-union/504982/140 "2009-08-02T23:07:21Z")
> [@lexi](#): > > We have a public pedestrian mall in Calgary similar to yours in Ottawa, and although seniors can sit all day, a homeless person is told to move along. That is where educating the police is required – dig out the judicial decisions relevant to the matter and go over them with the police. If that does not work, then gather evidence for a test case and take it to court. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-organizer-of-the-ottawa-panhandlers-union/504982.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-organizer-of-the-ottawa-panhandlers-union/504982.md?page=8)