Home » Editorials

Editorials:


Editorial; Marin Independent Journal, July 11, 2010

THE RECENT annual report on in-home care in Marin is just one more reminder that Marin residents’ need for such support and services is growing. In 2007, the Marin County Civil Grand Jury warned that a “silver tsunami” was headed toward Marin and that by 2030, one of every three local residents would be 65 or older. Currently, the percentage of residents 65 and older is roughly 15 percent. Read the rest of this entry »


California Progress Report
Looks like desperation is beginning to set in over at Team Whitman headquarters. Monday in Roseville, Meg Whitman told a small audience that she would appoint a grand jury to root out the more than $7.5 billion in fraud she claims occurs annually in programs for the poor, seniors and people with disabilities. Tough talk. Just one problem, those numbers have absolutely no basis in reality. Read the rest of this entry »


By Nancy Berlin, CAP
With less than a week until Governor Schwarzenegger unveils his revised May budget, there’s little hope that California’s struggling economy will see any reprieve from the threat of draconian cuts to vital services and unnecessary and wasteful corporate giveaways. Read the rest of this entry »


Editorial by California State Assembly Member, Pedro Nava
Published in Huffington Post
Governor Arnold Schwarnenneger’s proposed budget can be fairly described as a “cuts only” budget and a job killer. California cannot afford this. According to a UC Berkeley study published in March of this year, a $1 billion cut to the state’s In Home Supportive Services (IHSS) program will cost 215,000 hard-working Californians their jobs. Read the rest of this entry »


March 30, 2010.  Huffington Post
Steve Mehlman

Ever since he took office, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has declared war on one of the most humane, cost-effective programs in state government–the nationally recognized In Home Supportive Services (IHSS) homecare program. Read the rest of this entry »


On the March to Save California. 
Editorial. By Jim Miller, March 25.

Although the vast majority of responses to the March for California’s Future have been positive, there have been a few folks who were less than sanguine about our 48-day march to Sacramento. One day last week as we marched by a farm in the middle of the vast Central Valley, a stocky man in a tractor stopped as we passed by and asked us why were marching.

Read the rest of this entry »


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.


By Kristine Loomis,
IHSS Client, Riverside County

As a client of IHSS I am really concerned about my home care worker getting exhausted or sick. When your very life depends on someone else’s care, you want them to be healthy and to have good enough circumstances so that they will be able to continue doing the work they do.

That is why I am writing to all of you – other providers – personally. I know there are many of you who are so busy surviving, that you don’t have time to get involved in anything else. But I was actually looking for some way I could help my home care worker to endure the stresses of the job, so we both
joined the UDW bargaining committee. I was there while we bargained with the county for almost a year to get our very first contract in this county. That contract included raises and healthcare benefits for workers in Riverside. I know for a fact we would never have gotten the raises and healthcare coverage without the union – because the county fought us every step of the way. But in the end they agreed to raise wages, and introduce first time medical coverage. Prior to union representation homecare providers made $7.11 per hour. Due to continued union representation we are now at $10.25 and if the governor had not cut state funding our wages would have been higher under the present contract.

Before we got raises and benefits, I was literally scared my care provider was going to collapse under the load. Now I know he can visit a doctor if he needs to. And the raise has made it possible to occasionally get him time off for a couple of hours by hiring a second provider come in and provide respite – which all providers know is absolutely crucial when you’re on call 24/7. These union improvements have made a life and death difference for my provider and me.

Some of you may wonder if the union is just another organization that wants a piece of your life. Some of you may have lower wages than we do. My county (Riverside) was among one of the first to get representation, so I want to let you know that it worked, and that it is worth much more to us than what we pay in dues. Now, each time we neotiate a contract it builds on the last one and our situation improves. As a solitary voice I can write all the letters I want to the politicians, try to protest my hours getting cut, or ask for a raise for my provider. But it isn’t the same – a solitary voice can (and does!) get ignored. When we are represented by UDW, the policy-makers listen to us because they know that the union represents thousandsof people who vote – and that is who pays their salary – the voters, and taxpayers.

I wanted you to hear this from someone who lives with the same struggles you do – day by day survival – and has been fortunate enough to witness first hand, what happens when we get representation. Our lives get better. This union is worth supporting.

I sincerely thank you for your time and your consideration in reading this. I know how valuable and scarce time is for care providers – how little of it you get for yourselves – and how hard you work. Thank you on behalf of all clients.


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

 

 

 

 

 

 



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


UDW ENDORSES JERRY BROWN FOR GOVERNOR