babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » walking the talk   » labour and consumption   » Social workers

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Social workers
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 30 January 2006 08:26 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
This may be a bit of a crossover topic, part labour-ethics, part body and soul. Can we see what develops?

Social workers work in/for a variety of institutions, some public, some private. (Is that right?) And I can easily understand why and how they may develop certain institutional loyalties, just as any of us does to the worlds we're immersed in.

However, I am assuming that social workers, like, eg, doctors and nurses, are also supposed to be holding themselves somewhat independent of any institution, on principle, so that they can live up to ... well, independent social-work principles. Am I right in thinking that?

I know there are lots of babblers around with experience in social work, and I would really like to know how you sort through those perhaps sometimes separate loyalties/commitments.

[ 30 January 2006: Message edited by: skdadl ]


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Crippled_Newsie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7024

posted 30 January 2006 08:39 AM      Profile for Crippled_Newsie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The Nat'l. Association of Social Workers has an extensive Code of Ethics.

To your question:

quote:
Social workers should be alert to and avoid conflicts of interest that interfere with the exercise of professional discretion and impartial judgment. Social workers should inform clients when a real or potential conflict of interest arises and take reasonable steps to resolve the issue in a manner that makes the clients' interests primary and protects clients' interests to the greatest extent possible.

While the Code defines 'clients' as potentially being 'individuals, families, groups, organizations, and communities,' I would imagine that in the instances where institutional concerns are potentially in confllict with individuals ones, the Code would require disclosure of that conflict, at the very least.


From: It's all about the thumpa thumpa. | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 30 January 2006 08:45 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Another good resource if you're thinking about the profession in Ontario, at least.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 30 January 2006 06:09 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
bump. Just in case.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Loretta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 222

posted 30 January 2006 07:28 PM      Profile for Loretta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
There are numerous women who have lost children to adoption who would argue that social workers didn't live up to the obligation to declare a conflict. They trusted those social workers to help them make a good decision for themselves and their child only to find that the social worker was either heavily biased in favour of adoption or that the social worker lied to them to facilitate the signing of adoption papers.

Reporting a social worker (or any other professional) to their governing body isn't a very useful suggestion to a young woman who is lacking power and voice and doesn't restore a child to its family.

[ 30 January 2006: Message edited by: Loretta ]


From: The West Kootenays of BC | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
sidra
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11490

posted 30 January 2006 08:18 PM      Profile for sidra   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The NASW is the American Association. Much stronger and calls for more independence than its Canadian counterpart. In order to ensure independence of the profession from institutions, it has guidelines that require that social workers be supervised by social workers. If a given institution does not have social workers in its higher hiearchy, the alternative is to have an external social worker as "consultant".

I had once felt that it is imperative upon me to observe the code of ethics of social workers while my supervisor saw that I have to comply with his and the employer institution's demand. I got in touch with the Canadian Association of Social WOrkers and inquired. To my surprise, there is nothing in the Canadian Association nor in the Ontario Association, nor the the Ontario College regarding who should be supervisor of a Social Worker. The door is thus open for employers to direct Social Workers as they wish. Mattter of conscience? Matter of bread and butter, like in any other profession? I think so. Social Work and its ethics are simply ink on paper.

Perhaps we should also be mindful that not all practitioners of social work are social workers. Only those with titles PSW (professional Social Worker) and CSW (Certified Social Worker, member of the COllege) can call themselves Social Workers. If people do not have these titles and call themselves Social Workers, they can be prosecuted.

[ 30 January 2006: Message edited by: sidra ]


From: Ontario | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 31 January 2006 09:33 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Thanks for all these posts - they are very helpful to me on several different counts. sidra, I especially appreciate the distinction you've explained there because that was precisely the fuzziness I've been thinking about.

I should explain why I asked the question. When I first realized that we were going to be admitting something of a stream of social workers into our life, I reacted stupidly: I was anticipating a lot of ineffectual touchy-feeliness that would just make me feel irritated and invaded, and at first, I was completely wrong. I am happy to confess that I was wrong. At first.

Maybe it was just luck, but several social workers I dealt with in early 2003 turned out to be some of the snappiest, smartest, most efficient people I've ever met. Some worked for the Toronto CCAC, some for a hospital. All of them were capable, it seemed to me, of walking into a situation and sizing it up so quickly, click click click, and then turned immediately to practical solutions. I was really impressed.

One of those women really charmed me by her quiet way of simply driving through problems. We were, of course, working within the limits of an absurdly complicated bureaucratic system, which was inevitably frustrating, and she certainly knew and followed the rules. But she seemed very talented at thinking in context, thinking creatively, of responding to the real human situation. She never just recited rules back at me.

But. You knew there was a but coming, didn't you?

I have since dealt with a couple of social workers attached to an institution. They are nice people, nice as the day is long. They will spend lots of time being nice.

But when problems arise, they suddenly do what most of the employees of the institution do: they seize up and start reciting the rules. They do not think about ways of working through problems; they just ... defend.

Perhaps I am just fretting over different personalities. Some people will always try to think creatively in context, no matter how disciplined by rules they are; and some people won't.

But I have watched these workers long enough to wonder whether they ever do much more than explain the institution to the people. I have not seen them dare, much, to take the problems of the people back to the institution, if you see what I mean.

They seem to be there to keep the surfaces smooth. At the very least, I have found that disappointing.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
oldgoat
Moderator
Babbler # 1130

posted 31 January 2006 12:01 PM      Profile for oldgoat     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I recall riding in silence in an elevator in a building where a few of my clients lived. I was dressed casually, and looked nondescript except for the leather folder with my day book that I was carrying. As I got off at my floor and the door was closing behind me, I heard a person say to another "God I hate Social Workers". I wanted to run down to the lobby and catch him, and say I was not qualified for membership in the College of Social Workers, therefore he was in error.

Sidra is correct. The College in Canada, or at least in Ontario is a fairly new thing compared to the States. Before it came into being, anyone could go into the therapy business and call themselves a Social Worker. The developement of the College is I guess a good thing, but lordy can those guys be professionally territorial! They have settled down a bit over the years though.

Skdadl, I think that individual practitioners are highly influenced by the institutional culture of the organisation in which they work; a point I think I alluded to in the psychiatry thread (which I probably at this point won't get back to) Nurses are a good example. My agency hires a handful of nurses, and they are, to a substatially less degree medical-model adhering control freaks that their hospital counterparts can be. Also with our social workers, they are really different from social workers you'll find in boards of Education.

Maybe though it's the basic personality that people bring to their jobs in the first place, and they end up where they're happy. Personally, I've found I don't interview well for hospital jobs, but I do very well in smaller agencies. Likewise in my children's mental health days, I wouldn't have done well working for a school board, although such jobs were seen as plums.

I'm not a social worker because my degree doesn't support my being one, and I feel no reason to go back to upgrade.
I largely function as a social worker. I don't call myself one because I legally can't, and I agree with that law. Usually though my clients see me as one, and are not interested in the distinctions discussed above. Some people call ODSP and Welfore Workers social workers. Even I really bristle at that!

Prior to the last century, the Inuit of course had no term for the word "Social Worker". Being a rather compound language, what evolved, at least locally, directly translated into something like "The person who gets out of airplanes and talks to people". A practical people, the Inuit.


From: The 10th circle | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 31 January 2006 12:22 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Thanks, oldgoat. I know you know my situation, and you might recall that for a time there, I had turned into a social-work enthusiast. But then I watched these sweet candle-lighters fending off anything that might look rude or unhappy or unofficial for a while, and I must say, I wondered.

quote:
Maybe though it's the basic personality that people bring to their jobs in the first place, and they end up where they're happy.

That's a new (to me) way of putting what I was thinking about, and I'm sure that's true of some of us (like, you and me, eh? ). I keep feeling, though, that the majority of people - nice, well-intending people - are not that well-defined in the first place. They may take on an institutional culture just because that's what's there, if you see what I mean. Without someone encouraging them to a little independent thought, they just don't think to do it.

How do social workers get hired, anyway? Can anyone hire a social worker? Aren't they mostly public sector? More and more, I am thinking that the institutions are the problem.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
oldgoat
Moderator
Babbler # 1130

posted 31 January 2006 12:47 PM      Profile for oldgoat     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
How do social workers get hired, anyway? Can anyone hire a social worker? Aren't they mostly public sector? More and more, I am thinking that the institutions are the problem.


Geeze, I don't really know. My guess is that most social workers are either public sector or work for agencies such as mine which are called "transfer agencies", that being a non-profit private agency that recieves most or all of it's funds from the gov't to run specifically negotiated programmes. There are lots of social workers in private practice, or who contract with agencies like Warren Shepelle (sp?).

I doubt if many businesses hire social workers directly. Banks use social workers to debrief staff after a robberies, the TTC uses them to debrief drivers who have dealt with suicides, but I'm sure they just contract with agencies rather than hire.

You can also hire a social worker without insisting that they be affiliated with their professional organisation. I'm not sure if this would legally limit how they can operate. Sidra might know. F'rinstance a social work grad might have a specific interest in research design, they may not need to be part of a college, and could work in the private sector.


From: The 10th circle | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Erstwhile
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4845

posted 31 January 2006 12:51 PM      Profile for Erstwhile     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
You know, skdadl, I wonder if part of your experience with "institutional" social workers is due to the very fact that they work in an institution. By that I mean, the more bureaucratic the situation, the more likely you'll find "rules" and "policy" and "guidelines" running the show - because administrative efficiency and funding/personnel shortages demand cutting back on individual discretion, and for that matter you'd hate to be accused of showing favouritism or acting differently for different clients or co-workers. (Or for that matter incurring legal liability - if everyone's given the same rules/policy to follow, it's less likely they'll make a mistake, or so the reasoning goes.)

(Though I hate to admit it, collective agreements can have an impact of a similar sort - you don't want to set a precedent that could be used to establish a "past practice" that is not in keeping with the contract.)


From: Deepest Darkest Saskabush | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
sidra
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11490

posted 31 January 2006 09:58 PM      Profile for sidra   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
oldgoat wrote:
quote:
I doubt if many businesses hire social workers directly. Banks use social workers to debrief staff after a robberies, the TTC uses them to debrief drivers who have dealt with suicides, but I'm sure they just contract with agencies rather than hire.

You can also hire a social worker without insisting that they be affiliated with their professional organisation. I'm not sure if this would legally limit how they can operate. Sidra might know. F'rinstance a social work grad might have a specific interest in research design, they may not need to be part of a college, and could work in the private sector.


You are right, oldgoat. Businesses usually contract with agencies, but the trend since Nafta has been contracting with private companies (mainly American companies) that "specialize" in "Crisis and Trauma" intervention. In turn, these companies contract with crisis/trauma intervenors on an "on call" basis. There are also what is called "Employee Assistance" services provided by private companies to large employers such as Canada Post, on a contractual basis.

Then we have insurance companies that employ "intervenors" to rush "rehabilitation" of injured workers, return them to the labour force and save bucks to the insurance company.

I used the word "intervenors" because despite the fact that the above private companies seek people with social work training, they neither call them social workers nor require them to be members of the professsional body. While performing tasks of social work, they are given all sorts of titles for their positions, except social workers.

The private sector companies know how to "free" their employees (or contractual employees) from the "shackles" of professional ethics and accountability to a professional body.


From: Ontario | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 01 February 2006 10:56 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Erstwhile:
You know, skdadl, I wonder if part of your experience with "institutional" social workers is due to the very fact that they work in an institution. By that I mean, the more bureaucratic the situation, the more likely you'll find "rules" and "policy" and "guidelines" running the show - because administrative efficiency and funding/personnel shortages demand cutting back on individual discretion, and for that matter you'd hate to be accused of showing favouritism or acting differently for different clients or co-workers. (Or for that matter incurring legal liability - if everyone's given the same rules/policy to follow, it's less likely they'll make a mistake, or so the reasoning goes.)

(Though I hate to admit it, collective agreements can have an impact of a similar sort - you don't want to set a precedent that could be used to establish a "past practice" that is not in keeping with the contract.)


Yes, I see the logic, and God knows, I was not wanting to make anyone's life (more) difficult. I could also see the quandary of appearing to favour some clients over others. One of the social workers I'm thinking of, eg, said to me not long ago - and she meant this positively, I am sure - "You ask questions. Some of the families here won't ever do that." And I do know that's a problem - she was referring to some groups of immigrant families, perhaps people who aren't native speakers, and I realize that I have an unfair advantage in being inclined to be a squeakier wheel than they are (although in fact I find "authority" hard to deal with as well, but maybe not as hard as they do).

When she said that, she just seemed surprised at the thought, though. Interested, but it didn't seem to be occurring to her that that was a problem she could be working on, that she in particular could contribute to changing it.

It's very hard not to be a squeaky wheel when you think important things are being missed, though, or when you feel you're not getting information you need. And I promise you: I wasn't the squeakiest.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca