care work - difficult people

stripedwellies

jackieb wrote: »

But a service user isn't a carer. They're being cared for.

Very true. Good point. Thinking caps back on peeps.

seven-day-weekend

What is wrong with 'customer' or 'client'?

adouglasmhor

stripedwellies wrote: »

Feeling a little on the touchy side this morning? I have read the posts. In fact, I started this side topic, remember?
I just resent these terms being forced upon people for no good reason. I don't know when this latest came about. At least 'client' reminds people that the 'service user' who is being cared for is paying for the service. I still prefer what I'm used to and that is 'a carer'.

Actually in most cases - we are paying for the service. Also a carer is the person doing the caring not the person being cared for, who is a charge but I doubt anyone has used that word since Edwardian times.

stripedwellies

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

What is wrong with 'customer' or 'client'?

Way too simple
I've always been used to 'client'.
And depending on what pub 'client' is heard in, can cause problems apparently.

adouglasmhor

What is actually wrong with "service user" other than it is a little impersonal? Talking to the person themselves or a relative or advocate names or titles e.g. Mary or Mrs Jones is fine. But sometimes you have to discuss the case with people outside the circle who need that information.

Errata

adouglasmhor wrote: »

What is actually wrong with "service user" other than it is a little impersonal? Talking to the person themselves or a relative or advocate names or titles e.g. Mary or Mrs Jones is fine. But sometimes you have to discuss the case with people outside the circle who need that information.

In that case, their name can be used as in that context it's a given that people are using a service.

stripedwellies

adouglasmhor wrote: »

What is actually wrong with "service user" other than it is a little impersonal? Talking to the person themselves or a relative or advocate names or titles e.g. Mary or Mrs Jones is fine. But sometimes you have to discuss the case with people outside the circle who need that information.

It's a personal thing I suppose, but for me it conjures up the idea that the person is using a service and should be grateful to receive it...hard to express properly. I don't feel as though the paying side is as clear as say with 'customer' or 'client'.

I keep going back to the OP's first post where she put " she's not my employer".
Customer or client makes it clearer imo.

Also as I mentioned further up, it's the impersonality aspect when it is far from it. It's not like a broadband service, is it? It's one of the most personal services you can get.

So shall we all settle for 'customer' hereonin if the OP wants to keep her thread going?:D

adouglasmhor

stripedwellies wrote: »

It's a personal thing I suppose, but for me it conjures up the idea that the person is using a service and should be grateful to receive it...hard to express properly. I don't feel as though the paying side is as clear as say with 'customer' or 'client'.

I keep going back to the OP's first post where she put " she's not my employer".
Customer or client makes it clearer imo.

My GF works for an organisation, sub contracted by the local authority for some of her people and by the secretary of state for her main person (ex offender with behavioural problems).
In the first case they are the customer though the public budget pays for their care, in the second we are definitely the customer and the secretary of state is acting on our behalf with the "service user's" needs subsumed to the needs of the public. (It's cheaper than keeping the person locked up and there is a chance of rehabilitation to some extent), my own brother has a similar and slightly worse learning difficulty than this person but is more socialised and holds down a job and attends adult education of his own free will, due I believe to the way we as a family under my mum's guidance brought him up.
Client can also in some cases suggests dependency and while some people may well depend on their carers, it's believed to be counter productive to promoting independence for them.

Clinets originaly were customers of a patron and no one should be patronised really.

stripedwellies

adouglasmhor wrote: »

Client can also in some cases suggests dependency and while some people may well depend on their carers, it's believed to be counter productive to promoting independence for them.

Clinets originaly were customers of a patron and no one should be patronised really.

I thought 'client' fitted the bill quite nicely.

http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861597794/client.html

but as you appear to feel as strongly about 'client' as I do about 'service user' let's use 'customer' instead from now on.:beer:

adouglasmhor

stripedwellies wrote: »

I thought 'client' fitted the bill quite nicely.

http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861597794/client.html

but as you appear to feel as strongly about 'client' as I do about 'service user' let's use 'customer' instead from now on.:beer:

I don't dislike client that much, I just think somehwere there must be a word better than all the alternatives we have seen so far, we all found the pub incident funny at the time. (The fact the other carer said "as soon as I got in the door the client wanted to go straight to bed and it was only 8 o'clock" may have started the ball rolling TBH, customer would not have worked any better in that case. My GF replying with "mine was up and down all night I got no peace" just compunded it). heads were swivelling all over the place.