Easterhouse Women's Aid and the hollowing out of women's support services

[ArabellaScott]

https://scottishfeministnews.wordpress.com/what-happens-when-workers-put-their-heads-above-the-parapet/

A sobering and instructive look at the women's aid sector in Scotland - possibly reflected in the wider UK?

All workers at this service were suspended when they tried to raise concerns about bullying and cronyism from the managers.

Seems to have a positive outcome eventually, but only after stress and disruption to staff and service users.

What was the positive outcome? From what I read, five workers have been sacked, eight are still on strike and nothing is resolved. Meanwhile the women and children in Easterhouse have been abandoned.

I’d be interested to know what is was that made the staff feel unsafe though. Was that physically because they were in an area where they needed more protection, or did they feel threatened by managerial bullying? Perhaps there was more detail in the letter, but “feeling unsafe” has (unfortunately) become code for “I don’t like the opinions of my colleagues/managers and I’m going to try to get them in trouble.” More detail would be very useful.

Nobody has been sacked? The.staff were suspended and vindicated, the board has been removed, and workers have agreed to return, was my reading? I'll recheck.

Apologies. I read that first thing and somehow got the very wrong end of the stick. New board members have been taken on, not staff reinstated.

'The five sacked staff members are investigating mediation and the other 8 workers remain on strike.'

nothing really has changed nobody has been reinstated and some are still on strike, it also doesn't say why they didn't feel safe in the first place.

I agree about the MC taking over and I don't mean to offend but some people on these boards seem to take over and don't really know how things work and see being on boards as a business opportunity or for status and forget they are supposed to be there to support a service who support vulnerable women who often don't "behave" as a board think they should. anyway I seem to be just babbling on now, I hope there is a solution.

Not babbling, Mrsjayy, that seems to be exactly the problem!

And yes, I hope things are resolved for the people of Easterhouae soon, and more broadly for the sector overall. Something has gone a bit awry in the third sector, it seems.

That was very interesting. I don't get the impression that charities are well run as a rule, in any part of the UK. Very badly paid, so they can't have a great pool of potential employees to pick from. That was an interesting point about the middle class taking over once trustees were needed. I had a very bad experience as a school governor when several men in suits became governors at our inner city community primary school. One in particular had had a very high-flying finance career, ending up as Finance Director of a large household name company. He seemed entirely untroubled by his total ignorance about educational matters. He judged our school by the standards of the private schools he and his children had attended decades before. The detail is different in the case of the Easterhouse Women's Aid board, but the disconnect between the lives and experiences of the trustees and the people the organisation is supposed to working for is very similar.

Thanks for posting, OP. It's good to read the history laid out like that. And to see how deep the corruption of the sector goes, which explains something about Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre, too. By corruption in this context, I mean 'broken' - the system is broken and must be rebuilt. By women. Again

Thanks. I wondered whether I had somehow been redirected to the wrong article.

I have worked and latterly volunteered in the Third sector and boards have increasingly become problematic in my limited experience.

That's interesting. Robin McAlpine writes well on issues within the third sector in Scotland, which has become increasingly politicised, it seems.

I suppose its the tension between state funding and volunteering, isn't it? Which is very political- tension between altruistic principles and self interest. Which is what the writer if this article points to at the end- individualism having overtaken collectivism.

This article really rang some bells. I have worked in the voluntary sector in Scotland for twenty years as both an employed staff member and a board member and it is a mess. Charities spend huge amounts of money chasing funding and often the initial aim of the organisation is lost because they have to start delivering services that the funders want to fund instead of those that are needed at a local level.

Voluntary boards are often made up of people who have retired from white collar professions, so even if their experience is relevant, it is often not up to date. Particularly when it comes to employment rights and employer obligations. I know of three orgs who have recruited a payed managerial position from their board. And each time they were absolutely NOT the right person for the role.

The lack of oversight is appalling. OSCR are only really interested in financially irregularities and show no interest in poor leadership.

As ever, the Deptford Project and Lucy Mcdonagh's experience come to mind.

https://www.feministcurrent.com/2018/03/23/leftist-women-uk-refuse-accept-labours-attempts-silence-critiques-gender-identity/

https://web.archive.org/web/20180315031511/https:/twitter.com/LucyLoveslife1/status/973852316787933184

Parallels between Deptford and ERCC it sounds like.

Very strongly.

And, I meant to respond to @Mrsjayy but I bungled it. (I'm having trouble with my hands and should stop typing. 😊)

I agree about the MC taking over and I don't mean to offend but some people on these boards seem to take over and don't really know how things work and see being on boards as a business opportunity or for status and forget they are supposed to be there to support a service who support vulnerable women who often don't "behave" as a board think they should.

It happened across the board; local women started services to meet a need where they lived. As funding became available a new class of women got involved. They said they had the experience to apply for that new funding. Then they wanted to be paid, so paid positions were created.
At the same time working class women had less time to volunteer, because of changes in benefit regulations and working conditions. And many of them were politely but firmly elbowed out.

''[a collective structure] was never a panacea but it offered a vision of a more equal way of working and financial remuneration and that was why it has to be crushed.''

Women who can work collectively are outlaws, and not tolerated.

So it's become professionalised and monetised.

As noted in the article, this is partly a good thing - better resources and workers are able to be paid etc. But does risk creating a stuation where people are getting more out of the service than they are providing to service users.

‘Poverty Safari’ by Darren McGarvey talked about this very phenomenon. Middle class people creating jobs for themselves providing ‘support services’ for working class communities. Excellent book and well worth reading if you haven’t already.

I enjoyed much of that book, Isthebathready. And the phenomenon of 'patronage' is very familiar. The know-better middle classes dispensing gracious help to the grateful great unwashed, teaching them how to Improve Themselves.

The part that stood out to me was when he talked about the lack of incentive to help communities create real, lasting change. Because what would all the professionals do then? I read the book several years ago now and can’t remember most of it - will have to re-read!

Darren McGarvey's Reith Lecture on Freedom from Want was very fine.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m001g2zf

As was the Triggernometry interview "The System is Rigged Against the Poor":

Thank you for sharing these - will definitely check them out.

I have worked and latterly volunteered in the Third sector and boards have increasingly become problematic in my limited experience.

Unfortunately it started from the moment that local authorities, copying Ken Livingstone as first London mayor, started funding local grassroots groups.

And group that was legally incorporated as say of co-op / collective, was told they had to have a hierarchy so as to become a charity.

And the problem is that in fact the charity sector was (and probably still is) incredibly old fashioned. ie the assumption that because someone has a professional background, they would automatically become a good employer (a primary function) and (obviously unlikely) understand and protect the aims of the organisation. (This is also how Housing Associations got corrupted.)

At least 3 DV projects in SE of England have had to deal with accusations of racism, and CE had to step down. Just google Refuge and Solace.

In another DV project, staff had to unionise to stop the practice of employing counsellors as self employed so that they were not entitled to sick pay, holidays etc., but were successful.

Mission drift, and I am afraid newer employees and volunteers quite often have no idea of concept and origins of women's projects. So often there is no push back when yet another bright spark joins an MC and wants to flex their muscles and stirs the organisation off in an inappropriate direction.