That is my fear about the OPU as well. It seems like a reactive organization - one that reacts to problems as they arise, and is not really looking for long term solutions to homelessness but just trying to make life already on the streets less restrictive. While there is a need for this sort of group to advocate for the rights of the homeless - such as the right to vend or even squeegee, I think the methods of direct action may scare people away from the bigger causes/
Don’t get me wrong, I think it is great that there are people like StS who are willing to take part in Direct Action, and address the problems in a direct way - as you said earlier Muffin, the squeaky wheel gets the grease. Also, there is a need of Copwatch in many major cities, and it is good that he is willing to take the mantle, and potential abuse from the police for opposing them, but there also needs to be programs where social workers, and other advocates educate the police about homelessness, mental illness, child sexual exploitation, street youth and addiction. There needs to be people who can humanize the homeless to those who see them as just dirty pigeons.
There are other groups which advocate for the homeless, and many of these groups work within the system, and although StS’s group is outside of the system, I think they can play a part. I just wonder about how they fit into the bigger picture of advocacy for the homeless, and if the structure of the OPU can be sustained in the long term considering its radical edge.
But I don’t see any real “helping” in what they have done: (wiki)
*The earliest action the Panhandlers Union participated in was the Homeless Action Strike in the summer of 2004.
On May 1, 2006, the Panhandlers Union organized a May Day protest to shut down Rideau Street, and succeeded for more than one hour.
The response by the union was to egg the offices of the Bank Street BIA.
The union prepared a complaint to the Canadian Human Rights Commission against the City of Ottawa in January 2009 after the latter erected a wrought iron fence to prevent homeless people from sleeping beneath an underpass.[8] The fence was installed on the recommendation of the city’s transportation committee in order to improve safety on the underpass, though Nellis argued that it in fact threatened the safety and security of those homeless Ottawans who relied upon its shelter in the winter. Ottawa lawyer Yavar Hameed was hired by the OPU to attempt to get a court injunction to remove the barrier.[8]
*
Shutting down a street, a protest, egging a bank?
The only thing which MAY be a help is the “attempt to get a court injunction” which will allow the homeless to sleep under that bridge- which doesn;t seem like much of an act of charity if it’s so dangerous.
No street youth “needs” to buy cigarettes and pot. Those are luxury items which are non-essential and I don’t have any sympathy for someone who wastes his money on them when he could be spending it on feeding himself.
Hey, just think of it as occupational therapy for the unemployable.
How about consciousness raising, with the hopes that it will put moral pressure on the powers that be to stop being rough on street people. Whether or not the confrontational approach has done any good, or has simply caused people to be even more leary of street people, I couldn’t say.
First, even if I agreed with you (I don’t), it wouldn’t be up to me. From reading the comments of a lot of folks downthread, I see people have gotten the impression that the OPU is some kind of do-gooding activist group. We’re not. There are no outside organizers. Everyone in the OPU is either on the street, makes their living from the street, or has been on the street in the past. That includes me. We’re street people working with each other for our mutual benefit and protection. I don’t set the agenda (well… actually I do set the agenda, literally, but I don’t choose what will and won’t be on it), and it’s not up to me how we pursue our goals. I have no more say than any other member. If we seem overly militant to you, that’s because our membership has decided, in its collective wisdom, that militancy is what’s called for.
If we can alter legislation, speak truth to power, convince meanies to stop being meanies by the power of persuasion, all well and good – but in the mean time, there are men with badges and guns who want to hurt us and they must be dealt with, now.
I do. As do our members, to the degree that they consider the issue at all, with life on the street being about immediate survival and not being given overly to deep thoughts about political and economic systems. The Wobblies are not a religion, and people are welcome to have their own thoughts and opinions quite apart from the union. I daresay I have my own differences with Wobbly doctrine.
To my knowledge the OPU has never discussed this. We don’t, as a rule, sit around and discuss political theory. Our needs are more immediate.
Do we believe in direct action? Absolutely. Do we believe it’s sometimes necessary to break the law in order to see justice done? I am on record as saying so in nearly every interview I’ve ever given.
You law abiding citizens, come listen to this song,
Laws were made by people, and people can be wrong,
Once unions were against the law, but slavery was fine,
Women were denied the vote and children worked the mine,
The more you study history the less you can deny it,
A rotten law stays on the books 'til folks like us defy it.
[INDENT]-- from Have You Been to Jail for Justice, by Anne Feeney (a Wobbly)[/INDENT]
I’d prefer not to get into that in this thread, since I’d rather this not become a long debate about economics. If you want to start another thread about this, I’d be more than happy to argue with you. One thing I will recommend is that you do some reading on parecon.
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.
First, why should you care if people go through your butt can? You aren’t using your butts any more, and they can get something useful from it. I’m sure if you handed out nice fresh TMs that they’d be happy to take those off your hands instead.
And secondly, I think the best way to stop crime is to remove the necessity for it. By far the largest reason for petty crime is drugs. People start using drugs on the street because they’re self-medicating. Street life is ugly, horrifying, degrading, life-threatening, and traumatic; and yet, for many, particularly street kids, it is still preferable to the rapes and beatings they endured at home. Drugs and alcohol offer a blissful temporary nirvana for many of them, and their pain and post-trauma is so extreme that they are driven to escape it by whatever means are most expedient, without thought to the even greater misery it will bring later. Want to stop people from breaking into your car? Make sure there are drug treatment facilities, outreach programs, psychiatric treatment facilities, and secure, affordable housing.
The OPU doesn’t have any merch – yet. We’re working on getting some begging mugs with our logo, which we thought was rather appropriate. If and when we have some made up, I’ll drop you a line here. If your friends are Wobblies, we’re going to be releasing some OPU assessment stamps they can buy to support us.
This is a complex question, and one I’m not empowered to answer. The OPU does not have a formal policy on whether or not to give a panhandler money. This is because the decision is (or rather, should be) a personal one. We are officially on record as objecting to the so-called “kindness meters” some cities have installed, encouraging people to put money in them rather than give money to panhandlers. These “kindness meters” are cruel, offensive, and sadistic. Many of our members panhandle because they can’t afford to both pay rent and eat. Or because they have children and don’t receive enough on welfare to support them. Or because they have an addiction to alcohol which, you may be aware, carries a 1 in 3 chance of death if a person is forced to endure withdrawal cold turkey.
Not even I give money to every panhandler I meet. Trust your instincts. If you want to give a panhandler money, then do it, but do it in the knowledge that once that money leaves your hand, they are free to use that money however, they please, for good or ill, on food for their children, or another hit off a crack pipe. Let your conscience dictate your actions.
We only claim the right to ask, not to force others to give.
lexi has answered this quite well, and accurately. Many – virtually all, in fact – of our members have difficulty for various reasons dealing with structured environments. For some it’s mental illness like PTSD, for others it’s addictions, for still others it’s a lack of basic lifeskills. However, many of these people are highly skilled, and have lots of energy. If they can dictate their own hours and not be forced to labour under someone else’s authority, they are quite capable of supporting themselves. Just because a person can sit on a streetcorner with a blanket and offer Tarot readings doesn’t mean they’re capable of standing for 9 hours a day behind a cash register at McDonalds every day like clockwork, month in and month out.
I’d assume no one is aware of that as it’s a complete fabrication. There are roughly 700,000 alcoholics in treatment while 70,000 die yearly due to “excessive alcohol abuse” (which includes withdrawl, disease and drunk driving). So it’s 1 in 10 for all alcohol related deaths if you only count people in treatment and 1 in god knows how many if you consider every alcoholic who says “I can stop anytime I want” about their drinking.
So what it comes down to is that the street people whom you have enlisted into an I.W.W. union have no clue as to the primary goals of the I.W.W. being to abolish capitalism and abolish wages.
DrDeth has already pointed out that you appear to be using street people as political tools. Do you personally believe that it is morally acceptable to sign street people up for a union when they do not understand what the union spent the last century trying to accomplish?
Just a warning, I’ve already said that I won’t answer questions which are disrespectful. Since this is disrespectful to me, alone, and not the OPU, I don’t mind answering it, but I don’t want this thread to turn into a flamefest. By all means disagree with me, but try to keep it civil.
And you’ll note that those unions with a lot of lateral range tend to be more successful in strikes than those with a much narrower focus. The post office, for example, has traditionally done very well with strikes because they can shut down the entire industry.
I am a past member of HERE, and the OPU both receives support from and offers support to other unions. For example, the OPU has supported actions in the past by CUPW, and the OPU has received support, both financial and material, from the ODLC (Ottawa and District Labour Council).
From the context of what I wrote, it should be easy to tell what I meant. I stated that landlords preferred to leave their units vacant rather than lock into tenants paying lower rent. I am a past director of Housing Help, an Ottawa-based NGO which provides advocacy, counselling, and support for tenants, so I am well aware of the legislation. What Harris did removed any controls on rent once a tenant has moved out. In other words, they could, and did, set the rent to anything they wanted between tenants. Once the tenant moves in, there were still guidelines regarding how high they could jack up the rent every single year (with lots of tasty exceptions alloweing them above-guideline increases which is was the tenant’s responsibility to fight at the tribunal). Harris remove ALL rent controls on what a landlord could charge as long as no tenants were currently in residence.
I don’t feel comfortable discussing that in a public forum, since there are privacy issues involved. I did mention that we have some 80 or so members, but how many of them are current on their dues is an internal union matter, not something the public needs to know.
The Wikipedia article wasn’t written by me, or any of our members, and contains a number of errors. I would correct them, but that would be a conflict of interest as I am spokesperson for the organization.
So what you’re really saying is, it’s no where close to 80 so I’m not telling right? Because how can someone be a “member of the union” if they don’t pay dues?
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?
