Article by Erik Smith. Published on Friday, March 05, 2010 EST.

Union Wins $6.5 Million to Enact I-1029 – Makes No Sense During Budget Crisis, Opponents Say

SEIU members rally at Capitol in January.

By Erik Smith

Staff writer/ Washington State Wire

OLYMPIA, March 5.—Even as the state grapples with one of its biggest shortfalls ever, lawmakers are planning to launch a $6.5 million home-care training program supported by one of the state’s largest and most powerful labor unions.

            They did it by hitting the delete button.

            Earlier this year, Gov. Christine Gregoire recommended putting Initiative 1029 on hold for the second year in a row because the state is having enough trouble maintaining the programs already on the books. The ballot measure, approved by voters in 2008 with heavy backing from the Service Employees International Union, was to have launched a rigorous state-supervised training and certification program for people who care for the sick and elderly. But there was a problem. It didn’t mention where the money was supposed to come from.

            Last year the state faced a $9 billion shortfall. Lawmakers decided to hold off, and they took the unusual step of suspending an initiative immediately after passage.

            This year’s $2.8 billion shortfall may actually be worse, because lawmakers have already made all the easy cuts.

            But the budget proposals now sailing through the House and Senate eliminate the governor’s language. That means the training program starts July 1.

            Launches New Program During Crisis

            The idea that the state would launch a new program of any sort at a time like this doesn’t sit well with some lawmakers. State Rep. Maureen Walsh, R-Walla Walla, has sponsored a bill that would delay implementation of I-1029 for another year.

            “I can see a lot better things to do with six-and-a-half million dollars than to give it to SEIU to train home-care workers,” Walsh said.

            “We’re cutting respite care. We’re cutting adult day health. We might restore some of those programs, but I think there are better ways to spend the money.

            “I know the unions are going to be mad at me for it, but we’re looking for money everywhere. An appropriation this size, people used to call it ‘budget dust.’ But nothing is budget dust anymore.”

            Walsh’s proposal, House Bill 3210, may not get very far. She is a Republican in a Legislature that is controlled by Democrats. But it does call attention to a curious ballot measure that will cost the state millions of dollars in a time of tight budgets, and will cost private business even more.

            Encourages Union Membership

            The Service Employees International Union was the prime mover behind the initiative – it put up all but $500 of the $995,500 that was raised for the campaign. Over the last decade it has made a big push to organize home-care workers, starting with Initiative 775 in 2001, which allowed collective bargaining for those under state contract. Recently the state recognized the union as the official representative for all the independent care providers working for the Department of Social and Health Services. That caused some consternation. It meant people who draw state paychecks to care for relatives in their own homes had to start paying union dues.

            Many see the initiative as an extension of the union’s organizing efforts. That’s because Washington will provide money to help train the union workers under contract to the state, but it won’t pay for private home care workers. The rules cover everyone who provides care in a home setting, from non-union employees of regulated private agencies to those who tack up their cards at the local Safeway bulletin boards and offer their services. It is a number that cannot be calculated precisely, but may be more than 60,000. The state estimates 26,000 people enter the field every two years.

            “Really, it’s a back-door way of promoting union membership, without saying it’s about union membership,” said Scott Dilley, a former analyst with the Evergreen Freedom Foundation who now works as a lobbyist at the Washington State Farm Bureau. “Those who are members of the union will get a break on their training costs. But those who work for non-union agencies will not. So it’s a way of encouraging people to leave private agencies and become independent providers under the state.”

            Slipshod Care is the Issue, Union Says

The union says there is a strong case to be made for higher professional standards. Adam Glickman, spokesman for Service Employees International Union Local 775, points to a recent series of articles that appeared in the Seattle Times that highlighted slipshod care in many of the state’s adult family homes. The initiative offers exactly the solutions that are required, he said.

            “It’s pretty irresponsible of the Legislature to delay implementation when articles like those are being published,” Glickman said.

            The program actually costs the state only $3.5 million, he said. Federal funds provide the rest. “Given the amount of money involved, it would be shortsighted to delay this,” he said. “We are pleased that the House and Senate both recognized the importance of quality training by fully funding the initiative provided by voters, and we are confident that that will be the outcome.”

            Big Price for a $10-an-Hour Job

            The appropriation might have slipped through the budget process unnoticed if it wasn’t for the impact on private agencies. As far as they’re concerned, the Legislature ought to delay implementation forever.

            The problem is that no one who earns $10 an hour is going to be able to pay the tab, said Julianne Ferguson of the Washington Private Duty Association. It will cost $110 for a worker to register with the state and obtain a criminal background check, and it will cost another $110 to take a state test. Even more costly is the mandatory 75-hour training program that most will have to take. Private home-care agencies have been scrambling to develop a training program that will pass muster with the state Department of Health, and Ferguson’s group estimates the cost at $1,400 a head.

            The cost is so large that agencies will have to pay, she said. “It will put some agencies out of business,” she said. “We’re especially worried about home-care agencies in rural areas.”

            And even if their fate isn’t a concern to the state, Ferguson said it’s a bit strange to see the Legislature spending a dime on a new program in a year when social programs are facing deep cuts. “We’ve been on the Hill testifying, and we’ve been hearing about people folks losing programs that serve their basic needs, because of the budget crisis. And here they’re talking about launching a training program. It seems to me like a luxury the state can’t afford.”

            Where Does the State Money Go?

            It should be noted that the state training money doesn’t go to the union. The money will go a training partnership established by state law, under an arrangement called a “Taft-Hartley Trust,” overseen by representatives of labor, state government and home-care agency managers.        

            The training program will be staffed by SEIU, but the arrangement establishes a distance between the two. The state Department of Social and Health Services, which will pay for the program, has been participating in the program’s design. “It’s not as though we’re going to be writing checks to the union,” said spokeswoman Kathy Spears.

            Anyone who says the money goes to the union is just plain wrong, Glickman said. “It’s a complete lie,” he said.

He noted that the initiative passed with 73 percent of the vote, and it set a record. No other ballot measure or statewide candidate has ever gotten more than 2 million votes, he said.

And he pointed out that Republicans these days are doing a lot of talking about the will of the people. It was the main topic of debate as Republicans forced 16 hours of floor fights in the House and Senate last month over suspension of Initiative 960. That measure would have made it all but impossible for Democrats to raise taxes. “If you listened to all the Republican speeches about Initiative 960, there was a lot of talk about the will of the people,” Glickman said. “The will of the people here was pretty clear.”

Your support matters.

Public service journalism is important today as ever. If you get something from our coverage, please consider making a donation to support our work. Thanks for reading our stuff.