That's The Way It Is . . .

I love honesty I just don’t always know what to do with it. I had a conversation last night that confirm some of my conclusions around the right to choice issues for people with disabilities and their families over the last two weeks.

I was discussing with my support work my choices around my home and its appearance. If I didn’t need her assistance to vacuum, clean the kitchen and mop the floors.  I’m not sure whether the debate we had last night would have occurred.

In an attempt to avoid confusion for this particular worker I write a ‘wish list’, Things I want her to do. The trouble is when she reaches the end of the list, she see that as an open invitation to do what ever she likes to my place.

On of the issues of having up to 8 different support workers in my hose each week is what I’ve come to term the ‘Sulkily Effect’,  Debbie clear of the coach yesterday and the support worker put all the tem back on the coach, last night.  So once again my art covers the coach and visits have to sit at the table.  Which is not the way I planned to use the coach at the time of purchase. However yes lately that is how the coach has been ‘in use’. Thus, at least in this workers view, that’s how is it. (A fact!)

Hang on! Isn’t this my house we’re talking about? Doesn’t that give me – the rent payer the right to chose to change the appearance of my home, without the need to provided reason and justification for that choice. Obviously I was last night required to give one.  

Fairly in return the worker offered her own justification and as I said I love honesty, I just do not always know what to do with it.  Logical the only reply, I could think of was it’s my choice because I am the person paying the rent.

The workers case is she is doing her job (I agree that statement is an undisrupted fact). The ‘fact’ under disrupt is the way she is doing the job isn’t the way I want it done. This worker argues that this is the way she is – this is how she thinks and she can’t not change.  Her definition of her job is to tidy my house to her standard and questioned other staff who under perform. I sense see views the situation as a stale mate because see is unable or unwilling to compromise her work practises.  My house is her workplace, my hunch is that every clients house works in has her stamp on.

My view is a ‘support worker is not a cleaner’, and her deciding the placement of things in home is stealing my freedom of choice away.  Those annoying like dust collectors know as doilies are about to be packed up to go to lifeline so they can not be dragged out of the cupboard ever again. The only way to put an end to the ‘Polly putting the kettle on game’ is to vanish the doilies from the house. Yes my cupboards are raided at will. Note to self: don’t keep unwanted gifts or support workers feel free to use them.

I am annoyed that workers have a sense of right to open things simply because their in my house and the item is meant be used.  I don’t known how to view these actions any other way that an invasion of privacy and rights. These workers while paid to assist with housework are not cleaners and those not expect to have the autonomy of a cleaner.  Even if they were cleaners they should respect my standards of clean.  

This is an example of the one size fits all approach. This is how I would and why should I change for you the client, when you’re not even paying my wage.  Can you see how disempowering this is for clients argue for their right to choice.

The simple choice of whether to pack away my art supplies or not art night and where and how to store them is taken away because a worker is inflexible to work outside her confront zone to allow my house to reflect my artistic lifestyle. I am forced to respect her work style how is that client choice? 

However, for many workers that’s just the way it is and the case is closed!