Home health care workers were unionized with the passage of Initiative
775 in 2001 and are currently pushing for approval of their first collectively
bargained contract. While a pay raise may be in order for many of them,
there are drawbacks to the proposed agreement. Unfortunately, under the
current initiative, legislators are only permitted to approve or disapprove
the packagethey cannot modify and improve it.
Due to the problems identified below with the current draft of the agreement,
we recommend legislators refuse to ratify the contract and override I-775
(with a two-thirds vote) so they can appropriate a fair salary increase
for home health care workers. This should be done without adding home health
care workers to the current 100,000-plus state employees.
Problems identified with the current contract include:
Home health care workers may be considered state employees, even if
they're family members of the patient. If this happens:
The state may have to pay pension benefits, health benefits, overtime,
travel expenses, and other state employee benefits to a family member
acting as a home caregiver.
The state may become the primary employer, not the client.
Clients may lose their right to choose who provides care.
Up to 25,000 home health care workers may be added to the state's Basic
Health Plan.
The state's Health Services Account is already facing a $570 million
deficit.
Home care workers would not be subject to income verification or
other eligibility requirements (a recipient could be married to a millionaire,
still collect state benefits, and pay only $10 a month to participate).
More than half of all home health care workers care for family
members. When California approved a comparable agreement, many non-family
workers were fired and replaced by family members who then signed up for
state health benefits.
It would cost taxpayers an additional $97 million during this budget
crisis.
The agreement would increase pay for workers by 25 percent over
the next two years.
The agreement has a bow wave effect that will double costs to nearly
$200 million in the 2005-07 budget cycle.
Labor and Industries costs alone would be $40 million in the next
budget cycle, and there is no system set up to ensure employees meet requirements
for requesting and receiving benefits.
Prepared by Bob Williams, President
and Senior Research Analyst (360) 956-3482
At a March 23, 2005, House Appropriations hearing on a bill to gut the voter-approved I-601 spending limit, Rep. Jim McIntire (D) asked a supporter of I-601’s two-third supermajority requirement for the legislature to raise taxes the following question:
"Can you name a time when we [legislators] have actually not just set it [supermajority requirement] aside by majority vote? I mean, this is in many respects a procedural motion that has no bearing. It’s a statutory constraint that cannot constrain any legislature that chooses as a majority to set it aside . . . have we ever used a supermajority [to raise taxes]?"