Privatization kicks in....and these FP owners need to cut costs to increase their profits. How? STAFFING, TO START.
Good questions!
Thread 1/5
RE: Staffing/Fair wages:
I've talked about how this system reflects the trifecta of racism/sexism/ageism: https://t.co/hcjb0fB5xr
*We have a majority older, female resident population cared for my a majority racialized, female workforce.
Privatization kicks in....and these FP owners need to cut costs to increase their profits. How? STAFFING, TO START.
https://t.co/HZiDGTAwPE
4/8.
— Dr. Vivian Stamatopoulos (@DrVivianS) December 12, 2020
Most troubling is this tidbit from the "Perfect Storm" report where you all recommend the use of gendered & racialized immigrant workforces instead of providing domestic workers fair wages and livable working conditions.https://t.co/yRqCvMWwHb pic.twitter.com/ZCDPRkTEoz
Big problems here as well. I have reviewed these in an interview I gave with @PnPCBC by comparing the case of Australia to Canada and how our inspection regime FAILS in comparison and leads, to what I call, institutionalized violence.
https://t.co/9C2djuAXF7
Make no mistake. This is institutionalized violence.
— Dr. Vivian Stamatopoulos (@DrVivianS) October 24, 2020
When will you act to stop it @fordnation @DrFullertonMPP #onpoli #ltc
<excerpt from tonight\u2019s interview> pic.twitter.com/17apvYOdjV
https://t.co/tlUw8gSrBO
To boil it down, we scaled back on facility-wide (RQI) inspections DRAMATICALLY under @fordnation @DrFullertonMPP and that was a big problem matched only by the LACK OF EFFECTIVE PENALTIES to hold bad actors accountable.
More from Society
1. There is an issue with hostility some academics have faced on some issues
2. Another academic who himself uses threats of legal action to bully colleagues into silence is not a good faith champion of the free speech cause
How about Selina Todd, Kathleen Stock, Jo Phoenix, Rachel Ara, Sarah Honeychurch, Michele Moore, Nina Power, Joanna Williams, Jenny Murray, Julia Gasper ...
— Matt Goodwin (@GoodwinMJ) February 17, 2021
Or is it only Eric you pop at?
Are they all making it up too Rob?
Are they "beyond parody"? https://t.co/drQssTD0OL
I have kept quiet about Matthew's recent outpourings on here but as my estwhile co-author has now seen fit to portray me as an enabler of oppression I think I have a right to reply. So I will.
I consider Matthew to be a colleague and a friend, and we had a longstanding agreement not to engage in disputes on twitter. I disagree with much in the article @UOzkirimli wrote on his research in @openDemocracy but I strongly support his right to express such critical views
I therefore find it outrageous that Matthew saw fit to bully @openDemocracy with legal threats, seeking it seems to stifle criticism of his own work. Such behaviour is simply wrong, and completely inconsistent with an academic commitment to free speech.
I am not embroiling myself in the various other cases Matt lists because, unlike him, I think attention to the detail matters and I don't have time to research each of these cases in detail.
You May Also Like
One of the oddest features of the Labour tax row is how raising allowances, which the media allowed the LDs to describe as progressive (in spite of evidence to contrary) through the coalition years, is now seen by everyone as very right wing
— Tom Clark (@prospect_clark) November 2, 2018
Corbyn opposes the exploitation of foreign sweatshop-workers - Labour MPs complain he's like Nigel
He speaks up in defence of migrants - Labour MPs whinge that he's not listening to the public's very real concerns about immigration:
He's wrong to prioritise Labour Party members over the public:
He's wrong to prioritise the public over Labour Party
As a dean of a major academic institution, I could not have said this. But I will now. Requiring such statements in applications for appointments and promotions is an affront to academic freedom, and diminishes the true value of diversity, equity of inclusion by trivializing it. https://t.co/NfcI5VLODi
— Jeffrey Flier (@jflier) November 10, 2018
We know that elite institutions like the one Flier was in (partial) charge of rely on irrelevant status markers like private school education, whiteness, legacy, and ability to charm an old white guy at an interview.
Harvard's discriminatory policies are becoming increasingly well known, across the political spectrum (see, e.g., the recent lawsuit on discrimination against East Asian applications.)
It's refreshing to hear a senior administrator admits to personally opposing policies that attempt to remedy these basic flaws. These are flaws that harm his institution's ability to do cutting-edge research and to serve the public.
Harvard is being eclipsed by institutions that have different ideas about how to run a 21st Century institution. Stanford, for one; the UC system; the "public Ivys".