I was thinking recently about the few times that RNID have commented on the specific things we complain about and the strange thing which occurred to me was that they actually agree with us. One of our main complaints is that they do not employ enough deaf and hoh people at senior management level. At present they only have one (allegedly.)
When John Low was interviewed on Read Hear (BBC2 Ceefax pp640-5) he said that one of his biggest disappointments was that he did not have any deaf or hoh people on his senior management team (he left with that problem unfixed.) Much later, Jackie Ballard told me in an e-mail that she ‘agree[s] that there should be more deaf and hard of hearing people in our senior management.’
So if RNID agree with our complaint, why do we often get hostility in the form of curt and frosty replies or are just ignored? To be fair, I got no such hostility from Jackie Ballard, who replied in a way which I thought was sympathetic, nice and polite. Low, on the other hand, criticised me personally, saying things such as ‘[y]ou have been asking about the number of employees who are deaf or hard of hearing for many years,’ as if that is a heinous crime. But why was Low being curt and frosty to me for pointing out something which he agreed with? I can only guess that he wanted to deflect criticism away from himself and instead shoot the messenger. After all, that’s a lot easier for him to do than actually fix the problem.
I should point out at this stage that even if RNID did not agree with our complaint, they still have no right to ignore us or attack us personally. I have spoken before about the wrongness of personal attacks, which are described on one political website as an ‘intellectual cheap shot.’ Even if it could be argued that complainants were rude, that is likely to be because of valid anger and frustration about the injustice not being fixed.
This shooting of the messenger is the wrong thing to do for various reasons. First, the RNID have acknowledged that the message was valid. Second, it maligns a person for committing no worse crime than delivering that valid message. Third it maligns people who the charity is supposed to care for. Fourth, it causes members of the public, RNID staff and trustees to treat genuine deaf complainants as villains or pariahs.
This is a sorry and shameful case of injustice. If Jackie Ballard wants to know why some of us are reluctant to approach the RNID with our concerns, she may find some of the answers here.
2 comments:
Well spoken! I think you are right when you contrast the RNID under Low with the current state of affairs. I have said all along that the RNID has in recent years been the target of corporate raiders who spotted an easy well paid job and moved in on it. They used corporate advertising methods and negotiated big deals at the highest level. Great!
But they lost sight of the fact that the RNID has members and those members were not happy with this cold, heartless business approach. I've been a member since the 60's when they were a much less formal and more social organisation. Back then they had the support of the members. Now, the members seem to be a passive audience to the goings on of the "experts" at the top.
Hello! Where have we seen this attitude before?
Since Ms Ballard took over, maybe it's just wishful thinking but there seems to be a genuine softening of the formal atmosphere at the RNID and I can't wait for further improvements.
Regarding the RNID training its own executives... of course they should! How many Deaf people exist in this country with the necessary executive experience? You can say the same thing about banking. All bank executives are trained in-house. Why? Because it is such a specialised career. Well the same applies at the RNID. So if banks can fast-track promising bankers then the RNID can fast track promising Deaf executives. They could make a start by doing presentations at the most advanced deaf educational establishments offering fast tracking for potential business candidates. Suitable candidates could then be assisted with, for example University training perhaps on a Sandwich basis so that the person would be experienced in RNID matters right from the start.
They could make it work. Other organisations including the Army use Fast Tracking so why not the RNID?
Furthermore there is Government funding for training courses, if the right funding isn't available then maybe Mr Bruce could speak up on our behalf. I think it's a great idea to have an MP on the Trustees because he could do this job for us. I think it's looking good so far.
So lets hope the RNID continue on this more humane and people-driven approach. Now if we can just get them to start an online forum so that members can discuss things with each other ...
Thanks for the comment, Gazpacho.
Good point about the 'cold, heartless business approach,' I have been saying for some time that RNID seem to want to operate as a charity only when it is financially expedient to do so. This seems to go against the the spirit of what charity is supposed to be about.
On paper, I also agree with what you say about Mr Bruce, but please see my earlier 'feedback from the trustees' post. I had assumed that he would be amongst the first to support us but I'm not really sure at the moment that he is really on our side.
Post a Comment