:

Detail of current changes to IHSS

1.

FUNCTIONAL INDEX CUTS. These are cuts to consumer’s eligibility or authorized hours based on their Functional Index Score.

This issue is presently under litigation.

V.L. et al v. Wagner

U.S. District Court Judge Claudia Wilken declared that the state cannot go forward with cuts planned last year, because they would result in "substantial harm, damage and injury and likely violate federal law."

This particular injunction relates only to the functional index cuts, and must be considered temporary. Check back for updates.

The state has set up a Toll Free number to help providers that have been cut from the program in error. The number is: (866) 513-5103

2.

SHARE OF COST BUYOUT PROGRAM. This program was eliminated as of October 1, 2009, through enactment of the 2009-10 state budget mandate. See litigation notes below.

  • The state had a program which helped certain clients pay for a “share of cost” of the IHSS services they receive, based on income. This share of cost program was eliminated due to last year’s budget cuts. Client’s that have a share of cost are now responsible for paying the entire share of cost. This can affect the provider’s paycheck, as "share of cost" can be deducted from the homecare worker’s paycheck. If the client has a share of cost, you need to make arrangements to get paid for any deductions from your paycheck.

Under Litigation

The elimination of SHARE OF COST can not be appealed on an individual basis through a hearing; this change in state law has been enacted and the share of cost

buyout has been eliminated at this time.

Nevertheless, litigation challenging the reductions
have been initiated. Rulings so far have not succeeded in bringing about an injunction to stop the cuts.

Northern California ADAPT (Bay Area) ET AL v. Wagner

 
3.

PROVIDER FINGERPRINTING AND CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECKS. Impacted by litigation. See note below.

  • All new and current providers will be required to undergo fingerprinting and a criminal background check (this is already a requirement for registry providers) at their own expense. Current costs vary for each county from $35.00 to $50.00.
  • Currently employed providers will have until July 1, 2010 to complete this requirement as a condition of continued employment. However it should be noted that completing the requirement includes processing by the county, which can take 6 weeks or more due to background checks etc. The computer is set to terminate providers automatically if their requirement is not complete

    and processed by July 1 2010. Current providers therefore should act right away.

  • Any provider who has been convicted within the past 10 years of child or elder abuse or fraud against a government health care or supportive services program will be ineligible to work or receive payment as a provider.

    (this is under litigation, see below)

  • All providers will be required to read and sign the new provider enrollment form, along with completing the orientation process (see below).
  • Provider rights will be established, including an appeals process and a provision allowing providers to access copies of their criminal background checks.

    – Litigation and Important Note —

    It has come to our attention that some counties are asking providers to sign a new form SOC 426 (Provider Enrollment Form) that includes a question about whether the provider “has ever been convicted of a serious crime or misdemeanor.”

    COUNTIES SHOULD NOT BE USING THIS FORM.

    If you are asked to sign a Form 426, which includes the question about whether you have ever been convicted “of a serious crime or misdemeanor" respectfully refuse to sign the document and refer the county official to All County Letter No. 09-78

    More Information and copy of All County Letter (ACL) that pertains to the above issue

    FEBRUARY 17th LETTER (ACL) WITH QUESTIONS & ANSWERS ON CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECKS

    FOR IHSS PROVIDERS

    This issue is under litigation.

    See Ellis v. Wagner


4.

REVISED PROVIDER ENROLLMENT FORM.

Impacted by litigation on felonies and misdemeanors.

See note above

  • A revised Provider Enrollment Form must be submitted in-person by all currently employed and new IHSS providers and must include a photocopy made by the county of the original documentation of the provider’s identity.
  • The new form will require the signature of the provider, after having viewed the mandatory provider orientation materials below.
  • The type of form used has been changed due to litigation on the issue of what type of felony or misdemeanor would disqualify a provider. See note above.
5.

MANDATORY PROVIDER ORIENTATION.

  • All currently employed providers must complete a mandatory provider orientation that will include information on IHSS requirements, rules and regulations as well as the consequences of committing fraud in the program and reporting fraud and abuse. Although the law states currently employed providers have until June 30, 2010 to complete this orientation, it is part of the mandated process including background checks (above) that must be completed for each provider by July 1, 2010. Since processing times can take 6 weeks or longer in some counties, currently employed providers need to act immediately.

    -- NOTE –

    Current providers (those already employed under the IHSS program) are NOT required to attend orientation meetings in person.  As a current provider you have the right to receive the orientation materials by mail.

    All providers must still go to their county office to sign and return the acknowledgment form in person, however not all counties are making this option clear.

 
6.

UNNANOUNCED HOME VISITS

  • Social services will be required to make unannounced home visits “as appropriate, in targeted cases” to verify that IHSS services are being provided.
  • No dates for implementation have been announced, and no regulations or policies governing the visits have been

    formalized at this time.

    It has come to our attention that some counties are conducting inappropriate and unregulated home visits, apparently stemming from this new requirement.

    IHSS RECIPIENTS AND PROVIDERS MUST PROTECT THEMSELVES AND THEIR RIGHTS

    A toll free number is available to report any questionable visits:

    1-800-822-6222

    Also you can contact UDW Homecare Providers Union at: 1-800-621-5016


7.

CHANGES TO CLIENT REQUIREMENT,

TIMESHEETS AND PROVIDER NOTFICATIONS

  • Clients will also undergo fingerprinting. effective sometime in 2010.
  • Effective July 2011, timesheets will require both the client and provider fingerprint. Timesheets will include a certification that the information is true and correct. There can be criminal and or civil penalties for intentional deception or misrepresentation.
  • Effective December 2011, providers will receive information on approved duties to be performed for each client.
8.

UPDATE TO THE PROPOSED WAGE CUT TO $9.50 PER HOUR

Currently under litigation.

  • All IHSS providers earning over $9.50 per hour were to have had their wages rolled back to $9.50 on July 1, 2009.

    Currently under litigation

    Martinez et al v. Schwarzenegger et al,

    Dominguez et al v. chwarzenegger et al

    A lawsuit filed on behalf of California IHSS providers has temporarily stopped the implementation of these cuts. Although the injunction is temporary, on March 3 it was upheld by a second judge. The lawsuit is still in the court system and the final outcome is unknown.

  • The newly proposed 2010-2011 state budget additionally includes the provision that all provider’s wages shall be reduced to minimum wage, if the program is not eliminated. At this time it is unknown how litigation and budget mandates will impact provider wages. Check back for updates.
9.

REDUCED FUNDING TO PUBLIC AUTHORITIES

Has been enacted. Litigation in process.

  • Governor Schwarzenegger struck $13 million – 57 percent – in General Fund support for operation of the IHSS Public Authorities. This cut also affects consumers and providers as it may result in delays in screening potential providers for consumers seeking referrals, poorer provider referral for consumers elimination of critical although non-mandated services and training’s, and a loss of oversight as Public Authorities slash hours and staffing.

    Although these cuts have already been enacted, they are presently under litigation.

    See Putz et al v. Schwarzenegger et al

Action Steps for Providers to Comply with mandated changes

You may have received new enrollment forms (SOC 426) along with updates on the fingerprinting requirement, mandatory provider orientation, and other information in the mail.

Some of this information, which has been sent by the state to the counties, has been confusing, contradictory, incomplete or, in some cases, possibly illegal.

UDW is working with the counties and other organizations representing providers and clients to try to solve these problems.

In the meantime, the new provider enrollment requirements including background checks and fingerprinting are still in place, and have not been stopped by litigation.

YOU SHOULD THEREFORE FILL OUT THE NEW ENROLLMENT FORMS AND RETURN THEM TO THE ADDRESS PROVIDED IN THE INSTRUCTIONS FROM YOUR COUNTY.

Although the law states current providers have until July 1, 2010 to comply it can take SIX WEEKS or longer after you have submitted all the documentation, for the county to process background checks etc. The payroll computer is set to terminate any provider that has not been completely processed by July 1, 2010.

IT IS THEREFORE NOW IMPORTANT TO ACT
WITHOUT DELAY.

There is one exception: If you are asked to sign a “Form 426″ which includes the question about whether you have ever been convicted “of a serious crime or misdemeanor” respectfully refuse to sign the document and refer the
county official to All County Letter (ACL) No. 09-78
More information and copy of ACL

LATEST LETTER (ACL) REGARDING QUESTIONS & ANSWERS ON CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECKS FOR IHSS PROVIDERS

*Note: Current providers (those who are recognized in the state’s payrolling system from January 1, 2001 to October 31, 2009) are NOT required to attend orientation meetings in person. As a current provider you have the right to receive the orientation materials by mail.  All providers must still go to their county office to sign and return the acknowledgment form in person, however not all counties are making this option clear.

Detail on each specific change to IHSS caused by state budget reductions are listed below.

If you have further questions, contact your local UDW officeor call our toll-free number: 1-800-621-5016.

Updated Summary of Changes to the IHSS Program Affecting Clients and Providers

Last year’s state budget mandated many changes in IHSS including cuts and new eligibility requirements. Not all of these changes have been implemented due to lawsuits brought forth by advocacy groups (including UDW). Detail below.

These lawsuits are still winding their way through the courts and each have separate schedules and hearing dates, but most will takes months or longer to be finalized. Although we are cautiously optimistic, the injunctions stopping cuts to IHSS must be considered temporary and may still be implemented.

This year, the governor’s proposed 2010-11 budget (unveiled January 8) is proposing many of the same cuts. Additionally he is proposing to completely eliminate the IHSS program if the federal government does not produce $6.9 billion in additional funding for California’s budget by July 15, 2010.  If the federal government does provide the requested $6.9 billion in new funds, the Governor is still proposing to cut $77.9 million by reducing state funding for wages at a cap of $8.60 per hour and another $872.6 million through cuts in services to consumers with a functional index score below 4. The reduction of state contribution to wages and functional index based cuts are both issues being presently litigated by the courts.

THIS PROPOSED BUDGET MUST BE STOPPED AND WE NEED YOUR
HELP TO DO SO. GO HERE TO TAKE ACTION ON THE BUDGET .

IMPORTANT IHSS HEARING

March 18, 2010. Sacramento

The hearing will be focusing on the “trigger” cuts (the complete elimination of the program if $6.9 billion is not received from the federal government by July 15th).

Public Testimony Will Be Heard

We are asking those members that live near Sacramento to turn out for the hearing if you are able, and if you are not please send a letter to:

Senate Budget Sub-Committee #3
State Capitol, Room 5019
Sacramento, CA 95814
or by fax to (916) 323-8386
email to:  Glenda.Higgins@sen.ca.go

One personal, hand written letter has more impact than hundreds of emails or faxes that are written by political organizations and signed by you.

IHSS Teleconference March 17th by Department of Social Services

IHSS Teleconference
March 17th by Department of Social Services

This is a chance for stakeholders to have their voices heard and questions answered.

Department of Social Services has scheduled for Wednesday, March 17th, from 10:00 AM to 12:00 PM, a statewide teleconference on the In-Home Supportive Services Program, Integrity and Fraud Prevention Stakeholder Process. The Toll free line is 1-800-700-7414.

Note: the Department of Social Services, due to the likely large number of participants, encourages people to call in prior to the scheduled start time. Persons having any questions about this teleconference should contact Michele Loftin , Manager, Program Integrity and Training Unit at the Department of Social Services at 916-229-3494 or email her atMichele.Loftin@dss.ca.gov

Topic of Phone Meeting: In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) Program Integrity and Fraud Prevention Stakeholder Process

Why cut a humane, cost-effective state program?

In response to Modesto Bee article on In-home Supportive Services

By: Doug Moore

In your Feb. 14 editorial (“Limit in-home care; don’t eliminate it“), you correctly pointed out that the In Home Supportive Services (IHSS) home re program is our state’s fastest growing social service program.

But you failed to explain why:

• It is humane. IHSS allows nearly a half-million low-income elderly, blind and disabled Californians to be cared for in the comfort and safety of their own homes by people they know and trust. It is obvious that most of them would choose that over nursing home care

• It makes economic sense. Allowing people to remain in their own homes means that they and their caregivers contribute to the local economy.

• It reflects the growth of the elderly population in California. As our citizens grow older, we need to adapt our public services to meet their needs.

• It is cost-effective. As you noted, it costs an average of $13,000 a year to care for someone through IHSS. Put that person in a nursing home, and it will cost taxpayers $55,000 a year or more. The non-partisan Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) said in its recent report: “The elimination of IHSS or a dramatic reduction in eligibility would likely lead to offsetting costs that more than outweigh the savings from its elimination.”

• The federal government pays the state hundreds of millions of dollars a year in matching funds for IHSS. If IHSS is eliminated or cut back, we lose some or all of that money. And remember, Stanislaus County is reimbursed by the state and federal governments for all the money it spends on IHSS.

Surely we should be supporting such a humane, economically beneficial, cost-effective program rather than trying to reduce its effectiveness and value.

If you limit IHSS to only the severely impaired, how do you care for the Alzheimer’s patient who can cook and clean but needs supervision? Without home care, he or she is likely to forget to turn off the stove or wander away from home. There are thousands of such patients who now receive IHSS services. How do you keep them safe?

It is easy to claim that home care is a “family responsibility.” But that does not erase the reality that thousands of families rely on the limited income from IHSS wages and that some people are not able to work outside the home because their caregiving role is so demanding. Many have had to give up other jobs and even careers. Especially in this economy, how can you abandon them?

Finally, a word about fraud. We believe that fraud in any public program is wrong and should be punished.

However, despite the outlandish claims by Gov. Schwarzenegger, political ideologues and some ambitious district attorneys, there is no definitive proof that fraud in IHSS is widespread.

In Sacramento County, for example, a recent report cited a total of 19 potential cases of fraud out of some 42,000 IHSS recipients. Widespread? Hardly, and certainly not justification for eliminating the entire program.

Our state budget process is broken. We need to fix it. Depriving some of California’s most vulnerable citizens of care or throwing hundreds of thousands of low-wage home care providers out of work (while preaching “jobs, jobs, jobs”) is not the solution.

Moore is executive director of the UDW Homecare Providers Union/AFSCME Local 3930, which represents 65,000 home-care workers statewide and nearly 5,000 in Stanislaus County.

UDW members rally at hearing that results in injunction against cuts to IHSS

 

UDW members rally at hearing

that results in injunction


against cuts to IHSS

On October 19th, the first of several battles was won. In her ruling, U.S. District Court Judge Claudia Wilken issued a temporary injunction stopping the state from going forward on November 1st with its planned cuts “because they would result in substantial harm, damage and injury and likely violate federal law.” The Judge said that the state’s Functional Index rankings–which it would use to determine who to cut from the program– were clearly not based on need, that essential services could be withdrawn arbitrarily, and “people could lose something irreplaceable – the ability to remain safely in their homes.” 

Outside the Oakland courthouse.

Scores of disabled, elderly, and their homecare providers rallied outside the Oakland court room chanting and waving placards to show their outrage at the legislature’s decision to cut essential services. The courtroom was filled to the limit, and people were being turned away at the door.

Protesters against cuts to IHSS.

Advocates – including UDW – have been fighting hard to bring recognition to the fact that services being cut are essential services , and that their loss will literally be life threatening to many. Cuts based on Functional Index Scores and Rankings discriminate against the blind, developmentally disabled, and those with psychiatric disorders like Alzheimer’s who are often physically sound. Also facing cuts to essential domestic services, are seniors that are otherwise incapable of managing their own needs in order to live safely on their own. Many of these types of recipients would certainly have to go to nursing homes – at far greater cost to the taxpayers of California.

When the rights of the disabled and elderly were ignored by the legislature who voted to cut IHSS, UDW and other activists decided to take legal action. This lawsuit is asking that the state be told to “go back to the drawing board” and come up with a comprehensive and fair plan.

Story & detail on lawsuit filing  

Judge Wilken’s Written Order (legal text of preliminary injunction)

NEXT STEPS & HOW YOU CAN HELP US WIN 

With huge budget deficits predicted again for California in the coming year (some are saying up to 10 billion),

the fight to stop cuts will continue, and it will be tough.

The next step in the legal action against cuts based on Function Index will be a trial or motion for judgment in the federal court in Oakland. The first hearing won’t come until early 2010, meaning the cuts might not occur during the current fiscal year, which ends June 30, 2010. 

This is not the time to sit quietly and wait! 

Homecare providers, their clients and family members should send letters indicating their concerns about changes to the IHSS program to their state Assembly members and State Senators in their district office.  Phone calls or visits to local legislators offices are also vitally important.
Find Your Legislators 

Another important step you can take is to speak to your community through the media. Remember that IHSS is funded by California taxpayers who often do not know about the program or how important it may be to their own families. Your friends and neighbors may not know that IHSS saves taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars a year compared to the cost of nursing home care. They also may believe the unfair and misleading campaign by the governor and his allies that characterized the IHSS program as being “rife with fraud.” Writing the editor of your local paper or commenting on websites of newspapers that carry stories about the program are both effective actions you can take.

How to write the editor of your local paper

Media stories in the news where you can comment

OTHER ISSUES RELATED TO IHSS BUDGET CUTS 

New requirements for providers and anti-fraud measures including fingerprinting and background checks are still in place.

Although a Federal judge has also temporarily blocked the governor’s earlier attempt to roll back IHSS wages to $9.50 an hour, the lawsuit which brought about the injunction is not settled.

See overview of lawsuits

Updated Summary of cuts affecting

IHSS providers & consumers


 

Top of Page

Copyright © United Domestic Workers of America. All rights reserved.

Technical comments or questions may be addressed to Webmaster

Important information about signing the new provider enrollment form (SOC 426)

It has come to our attention that some counties are asking providers to sign a new form SOC 426 (Provider Enrollment Form) that includes a question about whether the provider “has ever been convicted of a serious crime or misdemeanor.”

COUNTIES SHOULD NOT BE USING THIS NEW FORM. In a letter to all counties (ALL-COUNTY LETTER NO. 09-78) last November, the Department of Social Services instructed the counties to:

• STOP using IHSS provider enrollment forms or other documents requiring individuals to declare that they never have been convicted of a felony crime or serious misdemeanor and/or state that persons convicted of such crimes are not eligible to be IHSS providers; and

• STOP disqualifying or finding individuals ineligible to be IHSS providers on the basis that they have been convicted of a felony or a serious misdemeanor at some point in their life and who are otherwise not disqualified.

If you are asked to sign a Form 426 which includes the question about whether you have ever been convicted “of a serious crime or misdemeanor”, respectfully refuse to sign the document and refer the county official to All County Letter No. 09-78.

Copy of All-County Letter No. 09-78

Who Pays for the In Home Supportive Services Program?

Why we need our union

Chris Long, IHSS Public Authority Worker, UDW Bargaining Committee, Riverside County

Independent Providers mail their time cards to county offices because the program is administered by the county. So UDW has to negotiate with the county for increased wages and benefits. Those of us who were involved in months of tough negotiations know there would not have been any increased wages or benefits provided by the county without collective bargaining by UDW. We simply cannot achieve this progress as individuals.

But every union member and their clients should know that the “In Home Supportive Services (IHSS) program” is run by the county because State law says they have to do it. Every union member and client should know that about 50% of the wages for home care workers comes from the State treasury and 50% of the money for our wages comes from the federal government. The county pays a small portion (approx. 17%) of the cost at first, but the county is paid back their share later on, out of state sales tax revenue. The money that comes from the state comes only as long as the politicians in Sacramento agree that “home care” is something they should spend tax money on.

UDW doesn’t just bargain for wages and benefits they also talk to the politicians in Sacramento – Democrat, Republican and Independent – to convince them this is a good program and they should continue to pay for it with state tax dollars, in good times and in bad times.

As individuals we would not be able to represent ourselves the way that UDW can when they speak for thousands and thousands of home care workers and thousands and thousands of their clients. As a group we can have a lot of influence because many of us are going to vote at election time. Your union dues support a lot of hard work when it comes to getting wage increases and making sure the money keeps coming from Sacramento.

But it doesn’t stop there. What about the federal government’s share of
our wages and benefits? Well, UDW pays about $8.00 a month for every union member, (even those members who only pay UDW dues of $10.30 a month) to be part of a bigger national union that represents millions and millions of workers. Our national union, AFSCME, has offices in Washington D.C., right where the federal government goes to work every day. AFSCME represents a lot of voters so they have a lot of influence with the federal government. They work hard to make sure the federal politicians keep sending money to California to pay for the wages we get for providing in home supportive services.

If you work for a company like a grocery store and are lucky enough
to be represented, your union only has to negotiate with one employer.
UDW has to negotiate with the county that runs the program, the state
government that set up the program and pays 50% of our wages and the
federal government that contributes the other 50%. That is a lot of work
to do with the dues that we pay, and our union, UDW, does an incredibly
good job. In recent years they have had to fight endlessly to save us from a governor that wants to
reduce the state’s contribution to the program and cut all providers back to minimum wage. Given the current economic crisis, this fight will be particularly difficult in the coming year.

Without our union representing us in Sacramento and Washington, D.C.,
politicians could cancel or reduce this program overnight and that would be a disaster
for the disabled, the elderly and those who provide them with care. We
need to help the union help us by being involved in any way we can, and
keep our union strong so they are able to continue what they do so well.

 

Read detail of the currently proposed cuts

What has happened in historic and recent fights to save IHSS

 

 

 

 

 

 


One On One With Barbara Ehrenreich

Reprinted
with permission, from UDW’s parent union, AFSCME’s,

 Nov-Dec ’05 issue of their national publication "Public
Employee"



Photo by Sigrid Estrada

"It’s been the historical role of unions to fight not only
for their own members, but also for the entire working class."

One
On One With Barbara Ehrenreich

By
Jon Melegrito

Poverty and the
working poor are familiar subjects in Barbara Ehrenreich’s writings.
In 1998, she undertook an “experiment” to find out how the roughly
four million women about to be thrown into the labor market by welfare
reform were going to survive on $6 or $7 an hour. The only way to
know, she said, is to “get out there and get my hands dirty.” So
for three months, she waited on tables, changed bed sheets and scrubbed
floors. The resulting book, Nickel and Dimed, which hit The
New York Times best seller list, related her experiences working
as a waitress, hotel maid, cleaning woman, nursing home aide and
a Wal-Mart sales clerk.

Ehrenreich is an essayist, cultural critic
and activist as well as the author of several books and magazine
articles. Her former husband at one time was a staff organizer
for Local 107 of New York City’s DC 1707. Her latest book, Bait and
Switch — which came out in September and also made the Times’ best
seller list — explores “the shadowy world of the white-collar
unemployed.” For that investigation, she went after middle-class
jobs.

The rhetoric of welfare reform promised that a job — any
job — could be the ticket to a better life. But that’s
not what you discovered, correct?

I came to understand what
a serious mistake the nation made with welfare reform. Poverty
is not a psychological condition but a consequence of shamefully
low wages and lack of opportunity. All the rhetoric about welfare
reform — such as the racist
attacks on women who use welfare — have nothing to do with
reality. But what maddened me particularly was the assumption
that a job paying $6 or $7 an hour would lift anybody out of
poverty.

What
then should be done in terms of public policy to ensure that the
working poor not only survive but also prosper?

It’s no mystery.
Wages have to go up. They have been declining in recent months.
There’s a huge mismatch between wages and rent. Affordability
of housing, health care and child care are enormous issues. Other
countries have solved them by taking it as a government responsibility
to their citizens. We don’t.

But you have said that government is unwilling
to guarantee at least some social justice for the poor. How and from
where will social change ever come?

Aspirations for social
change lie in grass-roots efforts like cooperative enterprises
and aggressive trade unions. It’s been the historical role of
unions to fight not only for their own members but also for the
entire working class. Another source of activism has been community
coalitions — of
churches, unions, students and citizens — working for living-wage
legislation in their local areas. It doesn’t cure everything,
but it changes the whole outlook for the entire labor market.

During
your odyssey through the underside of working America, you took
on so-called “unskilled” jobs. What kind of folks were these
workers?

They are honest and hard working — sometimes too hard
working considering how little they are paid. I thought they
would exhibit more cynicism. They take pride in their job even
though they don’t get positive reinforcement from their bosses.
Interestingly, in my latest book, I saw the most passive, beaten-down
bunch of people: unemployed white-collar workers. They seem to
get more psychological manipulation all the time, and they have
to have a kind of loyalty to the bosses. With blue-collar people,
at least you get some wisecracking, many instances of defiance
and little acts of resistance.

You
asked why there aren’t more workers taking a stand where they
are, demanding better wages and safer conditions, either individually
or as a group. What’s the answer — and could it help union
organizers?

The overall answer is fear. People know they
can be fired for anything, for having a funny expression on your
face and — if you’re a union activist — for having a bad attitude.
We need ways of talking about it directly. To be a union member is
to become part of a movement, a crusade for social justice. It has
to appeal to people at that level. Union organizers have to be prepared
to get people talking about what they experience day to day, about
the sources of that fear, not just in a gossipy way but how it makes
you feel, how people might build solidarity and deal with the daily
humiliations. During my job experiment, when I heard my co-workers
complaining, my natural impulse was always to bring up the subject
of unions. The worst response I got was from one woman who asked, “What
exactly is a union?” and that disturbed me. We have a generation
of grownups whose parents were not in unions.

What is it about
our economy and culture that holds wages down, that cuts public services
for the poor while investing even more heavily in prisons and police?

In
the 1980s and ’90s, there was a lot of opportunism on the part
of politicians. It’s easier for them to mobilize around fear — that
some drug maniac is going to break into your house — rather
than focus on what would make our lives better and where resources
should come from. It’s more exciting to highlight crime, war
and violence than to talk about problems that really eat away
at us day by day.

You wrote eloquently about the widening gap between
the rich and the poor, the “served and the servers,” the “housed and
the homeless.” You concluded that someday these working poor
will rise in anger and demand to be paid what they’re worth.
What gives you that hope?

Part of it is just a certain faith
in human nature, but it’s also something that we work for, something
that we’re going to make happen. By “we,” I mean myself as an
activist and you and your readers as part of the union movement.

Unions should
start making it possible, on a broad scale, for people to join as
individuals. Anybody sympathetic should have a way of joining, and
all those people become the seeds of eventual organizing drives.


You may view this and other issues of Public Employee,
at AFSCME’s website:

Public Employee Archives

 

Top of Page

Copyright © United Domestic Workers of America. All rights reserved.

Technical comments or questions may be addressed to Webmaster

March Heads for Sacramento to Save California’s Future

David Bacon. UDW Website Press Release
First of 5 part series – As the March for California’s Future left Bakersfield and headed up the San Joaquin Valley toward Sacramento, community college instructor Jim Miller was still energized by the March 4 Day of Action to save public education. That day students, teachers and community activists had demonstrated and protested around the state, with the largest rally in Los Angeles. The marchers stepped out on the road the following day, after a similar rally in Bakersfield. “I was hoping the LA rally would be good, and it was spectacular,” Miller recalled. “The church holds a thousand, and there were hundreds more trying to get in. The energy was incredible.” Miller counted three buses of students from San Diego Community College, where he teaches labor studies, who came from to the Los Angeles rally. “In Bakersfield, people were waving from their houses and came out and joined – I don’t think that’s something that happens much in Bakersfield.”
Read full Article

Why I March: To Preserve Allensworth

Doug Moore. Huffington Post

It is a name little celebrated or even remembered today. But in his time, Lieutenant Colonel Allen Allensworth, born into slavery, rose to become the first Black Army chaplain during the Civil War and a nationally-known public speaker who met with President Cleveland. He was also a dreamer and visionary, who would carve his utopian aspiration of freedom, opportunity and prosperity into California’s San Joaquin Valley. In June of 1908, Allensworth and four other men and women forged a new kind of society in the American frontier – the only town in California built, inhabited, governed and financed entirely by Black Americans. The town quickly rose to prominence in the region and would house more than 35 families in its first year, fueled by its close proximity to the railroad. I joined a demonstration on Wednesday by the March for California’s Future at what is now Allensworth State Park, which commemorates those brave pioneers. I stood among many dozens of marchers and supporters who congregated there, some holding signs and shouting slogans, others singing or praying, to highlight how budget cuts are eroding our state parks and quality of life. Standing on a site rich with a legacy of hope for a better future and a fairer society, we called for the governor and legislature to restore public service and public education funding and services for all Californians.
Read Story & Comment

In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) Update on Bills, Hearings, Department Notices and Meetings – New Draft All County Letter on IHSS Provider Enrollment Q and A

California Disability Action Network

In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) Update; IHSS Teleconference by Dept of Social Services on Integrity and Fraud Program March 17; New Draft “All County Letter” On IHSS Provider Enrollment Questions ; Update On Several IHSS Related Bills Including Hearing Dates
SACRAMENTO, CALIF –   Several budget and legislative hearings, agency or department meetings are scheduled next week and in the weeks that follow that directly impact In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS), the program that serves over 460,000 children and adults with disabilities, the blind, mental health needs and seniors.
Read Report

Court Decision Is Victory for CA Home Care Workers

PHI – Quality Care for Quality Jobs

A federal appeals court in California ruled against Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on March 3, invalidating past budget cuts that would substantially reduce wages for In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) direct-care workers. Schwarzenegger’s 2009 and 2010 budgets contained cuts that would reduce the state’s contribution to the IHSS home care workers’ hourly wage by $2 per hour — from $12.10 to $10.10, or a 17 percent decrease. IHSS workers are independent providers (IP); they are employed directly by consumers, not by agencies that control the hourly wage. Consequently, these IP’s rely on government decisions to set their wage and benefit packages.
Read Story & Comment

Capitol Weekly

California may be ground zero for the clash of governing philosophies fighting it out all around the country right now. That is, should we have a government that does more than provide for police, prisons and (federally speaking) the military? With state revenues in free fall, and with a two-thirds requirement needed to pass new taxes, those who want to slash government currently have the upper hand. This has led to a growing wave of protests, mainly by students and unions—two groups that tend to be younger and browner than the voting (and legislating) population. College student groups held huge protests around the state last Thursday, including a huge rally at the Capitol, opposing budget cuts.
Read Story & Comment

UDW Santa Barbara Member Honored: Goleta’s Bonnie Sanabia named Woman of the Year

Danta Barbara News Network

Ms. Sanabia is a Goleta resident who has also worked in electronics assembly and in the Santa Barbara County schools. She has been caring for her deaf, blind and handicapped 45 year-old son since his birth.  While doing so, she raised three other children with her late husband.  She is a member of United Domestic Workers Union/AFSCME Local 3930, which represents 2,400 In Home Supportive Services (IHSS) workers in Santa Barbara County. “The cost savings to the state from keeping folks out of institutions or long term care facilities should not be overlooked,” said Assemblymember Nava. “Strong women like Bonnie Sanabia are a California treasure, and we should honor and respect their service.”
Read Story & Comment

Education Activists Need Strategy Beyond Marches

Beyond Chron – 5 hours ago  … Pelote’s union, the California Federation of Teachers, and a coalition of labor and community groups are sponsoring a 260-mile “March for California’s … 
Read Story & Comment

Lawmakers dragging feet on Olmstead decision

Denika Boardman. The Californian

Sometimes it seems like the longer the budget fight goes on, the less the needs of people with disabilities are understood. I think sometimes we even get in our own way. We decided to focus our budget campaign this year on the lack of implementation of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Olmstead Decision of 1999. The public knows little to nothing about the Olmstead Decision and what it means to people with disabilities. Some of our legislators will be counting on that when it comes time to vote for a final budget. After all, if the public doesn’t know about the Olmstead Decision how are they going to hold the Legislature accountable for not implementing it?…How can California say they are complying with Olmstead if they are cutting services to the bone? Surely, the governor can’t say community services are being implemented while at the same time he is proposing to cut SSI/SSP, eliminate the In Home Supportive Services (IHSS) program and close Adult Day Health Care Centers.
Read Story & Comment

FEDS FILE SUIT TO BLOCK CA CUTS IN IN-HOME CARE FOR SENIORS & DISABLED

East County Magazine 

(Washington D.C.) – The U.S. Justice Department filed an amicus brief Tuesday in the U.S. Court of Appeal supporting a lawsuit to block Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s plan to slash in-home care to 130,000 seniors and disabled people in California. The Obama administration, in the brief, argued that the cuts would violate the Americans with Disabilities Act which “prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities in the provision of public services.” The cuts to the In-Home Supportive Services Program were intended to save the cash-strapped state $82.1 million this fiscal-year. The federal brief supports a lawsuit filed by Disabled Rights California, the National Senior Citizens Law Center, and other organizations. An injunction in a lower federal court has temporarily halted the state from making the cuts pending outcome of the litigation.
Read Story & Comment

Will California Abandon In Home Caregivers and Seniors?

Bob DeMarco. Alzheimer’s Reading Room

More than 426,000 low-income seniors and disabled citizens would lose the vital services…328,000 in-home caregivers would lose their jobs…. While I am reading this I am thinking, how can a wealthy state be so poorly managed that they find themselves in this position? … The inability of our country leaders to sit down and come up with solutions to simple, easily identified health care problems is a good example that government is not the answer. 
Read Story & Comment

48 day march to Sacramento starts in Bakersfield

Bakersfield Now – James Koh

The march was organized by the California Federation of Teachers with the help of various other unions. Of their many goals, the group hopes to increase … 
Read Story & Comment

Homecare cuts symptom of bigger problem

The Bakersfield Californian

As a long-time homecare provider here in Kern County, I have a personal and compelling interest in our state’s serious budget problems. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has proposed severely cutting or completely eliminating the In Home Supportive Services homecare program. This would deny care to nearly 400,000 low-income elderly, blind and disabled Californians, or force them into nursing homes, which would cost taxpayers far more. It would also throw nearly 400,000 low-wage homecare providers out of work, increasing the state’s unemployment rate by almost 2 percent. Yet, as horrific and shortsighted as these cuts may be, they are merely symptoms of the greater crisis that all Californians are facing. For many of us, the California dream has become a nightmare.
Read Story & Comment

Protesters March to Sacramento

KPSP Local 2
Protesters from around California are marching 400 miles to Sacramento, in an effort to chang what they call the “grid-locked political system. … 
Read Story & Comment

San Diego Professor Marches 400 Miles For Education

Ana Tinocalis. KPBS News 

“Even the most self-interested person has to see the larger economic consequences of this. Cutting infrastructure and education is absolutely the worst thing to do for the future of the state’s economy,” Miller said…Miller says he wants to focus on solutions, which he believes come in the form of progressive taxation, meaning as income goes up, taxes go up. “People say the worst thing is to raise revenue. But in fact, smart people who know something about the economy, they say that’s precisely not the truth. That in fact is, it’s better to raise revenue from corporations and or top brackets than to just cut, cut, cut,” Miller said. He hopes legislators hear that loud and clear as the group marches on Sacramento. Miller says the beauty of a march is that it can influence minds one step at a time. 
Read Story & Comment

Obama administration joins suit against in-home care cuts

Susan Ferriss. Capitol Alert, Sacramento Bee  

The Obama administration has filed an amicus brief supporting a lawsuit against a state plan to cut or reduce subsidized in-home care to 130,000 seniors and disabled people in California. Attorneys with the U.S. Justice Department ‘s civil rights division filed the brief Tuesday in the U.S. Court of Appeal for the Ninth District . An injunction in a lower federal court stopped the state with going forward with its plan pending the outcome of a suit filed by Disabled Rights California , the National Senior Citizens Law Center and others. The Schwarzenegger administration appealed, saying officials had a right to reform the In-Home Supportive Services program. The changes were intended to save the state budget $82.1 million this fiscal year by cutting services to certain people based on an index measuring their mental and physical abilities.
Read Story & Comment