Labor Pool: A Union That's Good For Employers, Too?
The biggest union vote that no one cares about
To look at the front pages of local newspapers, you wouldn't know it, but right now, workers are voting in what is probably the largest union election in the history of Massachusetts.
About 22,000 "personal care attendants" - people who go to the homes of low-income people with disabilities or health problems and assist them in their daily routines - are deciding whether to join the Service Employees International Union.
The election raises questions about what unions for human service workers are all about, with SEIU representatives arguing that they are fighting not just for the PCAs but also for the elderly and ill people they serve.
Done Deal
Part of the reason the election hasn't made many headlines is probably that there is little question what its outcome will be.
When the mail-in ballots are counted on Nov. 7, everyone involved seems confident, the workers will be union members. The real battle took place last year, when the Legislature unanimously passed a law (and then revived it in the face of a veto by then-Gov. Mitt Romney) giving the workers a right to join a union and bargain for better pay and benefits.
PCAs are hired by the people they take care of, and their pay comes from state and federal Medicaid funds. But the new law created a faux employer - the Quality Work-force Council - for them to bargain with.
It's no surprise PCAs would want a union. They make only $10.84 an hour in take-home pay with no benefits, vacations or
sick days. In other states that have gone through the same process now occurring in Massachusetts, their counterparts do a lot better.
Mike Fadel, the executive VP of SEIU Local 1199, argues that, by making PCA jobs more attractive, the state can increase retention and recruitment, making it less likely that elderly disabled people will be left stranded when an aide quits.
"What PCAs most want is also what consumers most want to see happen," he said. "I think it makes for a powerful partnership in advancing the system of care."
That's a self-serving argument, of course. It just makes PR sense for health care workers, teachers or anyone else whose job it is to care for others to talk about how much better they could do their jobs with better pay, benefits and working conditions.
But is the argument also fair? Organizations that advocate for the elderly and disabled seem to think so. Dozens of them, including the Statewide Independent Living Council and the Massachusetts Association of Councils on Aging, are supporting the unionization campaign.
Then, there's another party involved in the equation: the taxpayer. When Romney vetoed the bill making PCA organizing possible, he argued that a contract with higher compensation for the workers would wreak havoc on the state budget.
Union leaders say that's not the case since more consistent use of home-based care would reduce the need for far more expensive care at nursing homes and hospitals. They also argue that putting more money in the hands of the low-income aides - including nearly 700 in Worcester and about twice that many in Central Massachusetts as a whole - would be a boon for the local economy.
It's interesting that the Legislature's Republicans lined up against Romney's veto, not to mention that one of the most active anti-union forces in the state, the Associated Industries of Massachusetts, has not taken a stand on the issue.
Then again, maybe it's to be expected that AIM would not direct any vitriol against the idea of a PCA union. After all, they're an employers' organization, and, in this case, it seems that the employers are perfectly happy to see their workers organizing.
WBJ Web Partners
Most Recent
0 Comments