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.

20 years ago (pre-Harris privatization), nursing homes were staffed primarily by NURSES (hence the name, NURSING HOMES).

Privatization kicks in....and these FP owners need to cut costs to increase their profits. How? STAFFING, TO START.
What unfolded over the last 20 years as Privatization increased was the reversal of the staffing mix from majority nurses to majority PSWs (who are an unregulated workforce comprised primarily of racialized women who are often new to Canada).
This strategy is NOT NEW (its how the 2nd phase of predatory capitalism took hold) by expanding quite literally on the backs of women, often from the Global South whose labour is assumed to be both cheap and disposable (I studied this in my PhD).
And indeed, @Revera_Inc in their recent report defending their COVID performance expressed these same calls for an increased use of a gendered & racialized workforce....seeking to have @fordnation adjust immigration policies as a result ⤵️
https://t.co/HZiDGTAwPE
RE: INSPECTIONS.

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
Full interview here:
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.
Hope that helps! @MaryFernando_ :)
SORRY THREAD 1/8 lol

More from Society

Two things can be true at once:
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


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

I think a plausible explanation is that whatever Corbyn says or does, his critics will denounce - no matter how much hypocrisy it necessitates.


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
"I lied about my basic beliefs in order to keep a prestigious job. Now that it will be zero-cost to me, I have a few things to say."


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".