Posted on 05/08/2008 4:37:49 PM PDT by fanfan
In yesterday's paper, a story by Megan Gillis who covers the local courts beat gave me pause. In fact, I had to do a double-take on the front page date to ensure it wasn't April Fool's Day.
Get this: The city's panhandlers union has launched a million-dollar lawsuit against the City of Ottawa because the city dared to install a $25,000 fence at the underpass between the Rideau Centre and the Government Conference Centre. The panhandlers union (PU in short form) alleges that this fence violates their freedom of association as guaranteed to them under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The PU's lawyer says the underpass is seen a safe meeting place.
How ironic then that a street kid was tragically murdered there a few years back and most folks who walk through there after dark surely don't perceive the underpass as safe.
What is even more perplexing is the whole concept of a panhandlers union to begin with. While I in no way wish to diminish the struggles of those who panhandle or gloss over real societal issues which push folks to the streets, the almost surreal concept of a panhandlers union can't go unchallenged.
If one looks at industrial relations and the growth of the union movement, it seems that all the necessary preconditions which give rise to unionism are absent in the case of the panhandlers.
To start, it's not evident to this scribe as to what management may be doing to offend the union. And who is management in this instance anyway?
Turning to the traditional and valid concerns expressed by unions, again, I'm at a loss to comprehend the list of issues that have upset the PU.
Wages in this instance don't seem to be a factor since they are determined, I would assume, by the strength and location of the panhandler's ask, on one hand, and the generosity and/or guilt of the giver, on the other hand. Ditto for any sort of annual cost-of-living increase. As for working conditions, I can see how this could be an issue, as are the hours of work or long days that must be put in.
But this is not the grievance of the PU; instead it is a space to meet. Last time this scribe checked the Municipal Act, I found no requirement in statute for the city to provide a physical gathering point for panhandlers. Although I am not a lawyer, the fact that the PU exists in the first place leads me to conclude that their freedom of association isn't really in question or jeopardy.
On to 21st-century issues: Any concerns over outsourcing of panhandling jobs do not pan out, pardon the pun. Although I suppose the case for a grievance could be made given the city's substitution of capital for labour with the installation of 10 kindness meters in the downtown core earlier this year. As an aside, if you want to help panhandlers and the homeless, put your money in one of these meters instead of an outstretched hand or baseball cap; you, panhandlers and our city will get a better return.
As well, treatment of panhandlers by local law enforcement officials is an enduring subject of concern for panhandling advocates. However, on this one, the fact that aggressive panhandling is an offence and subject to a ticket from police seems to get lost in the argument.
In past columns I have opined about the excesses of organized labour on several fronts. That being said, organized labour still has a constructive role to play in a post-industrial society. But the concept of a panhandlers union is absurd.
If they don't win their lawsuit I wonder, will they go on strike?
You know that Jay Leno is going to use this one in his monologue.
They tried those “kindness meters” here — didn’t seem to pan out.
Humiliation is the only weapon we have left.
The proper way to deal with these panhandlers is for the police to take them into custody, drive them to the city limits and give them a swift kick in the arse, and tell them not to come back.
If cities were less welcoming to them, cut off the services, and generally run them out of town when they appear, this porblem will cure itself.
The liberal Dem-controlled town my parents live in have done precisely that for years, believe it or not.
I didn’t even know we had “kindness meters”.
Barf.
How is it kind to ‘feed a man for a day’?
IIRC, they didn’t call them “kindness meters” here — but we had a bunch of meters where you could donate to foodbanks — rather than giving it to the panhandlers for buying booze or drugs. They were handy for people who had a hard time saying no to aggressive panhandlers — they could just point to one of the meters and say they already gave all their spare change.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.