Home care workers ‘invisible no more’ after filing for historic union election

Nikki Villavicencio (L) and home care worker Sumer Spika lead a celebration outside the Bureau of Mediation Services after workers filed for a historic statewide election.

Nikki Villavicencio (L) and home care worker Sumer Spika lead a celebration outside the Bureau of Mediation Services after workers filed for a historic statewide election.

When home care workers in Minnesota launched their campaign to form a statewide union less than two years ago, they set out to raise wages, improve working conditions and bring legitimacy and respect to a career path seen as critical to meeting the needs of an aging population.

They may not have set out to make history, but home care workers did just that today, formally petitioning the state to conduct what would be the largest union election in Minnesota history.

SEIU Healthcare Minnesota, the union seeking to represent an estimated 26,000 workers in state-funded home care programs, presented the Minnesota Bureau of Mediation Services this morning with more than 9,000 cards signed by home care workers requesting representation, exceeding the 30 percent threshold needed to trigger an election.

Afterward, workers gathered outside the BMS’s St. Paul offices, where union supporters like Jaycee Berens celebrated the grassroots organizing behind today’s historic filing – and looked forward to voting “yes” in the near future.

“I knocked on hundreds of doors each day,” Berens said of her involvement in the organizing effort. “I found behind those doors were caring, hard-working, dedicated people who love what they do.

“We are eager as home care workers to take care of clients that live in their homes, but we also need to be able to better provide for ourselves and our families.”

Many workers at the celebration stood alongside the clients who rely on their care. Nikki Villavicencio of Maplewood said she expects the quality and reliability of her care to improve when workers are at the table, participating in decisions that affect the home health care field.

Villavicencio said she’s long wondered, “Why is this field so undervalued? Why are the workers who support my family so invisible?”

“When workers receive better wages, benefits and training, it makes the whole community stronger,” she added.

Pat Winick said she wouldn’t have been able to remain in her South Minneapolis home after suffering multiple brain injuries if it weren’t for the care she receives from state-subsidized home health workers.

Pat Winick said she wouldn’t have been able to remain in her South Minneapolis home after suffering multiple brain injuries if it weren’t for the care she receives from state-subsidized home health workers.

Political, legal hurdles

Today’s filing marked another milestone on home care workers’ uniquely challenging path to collective bargaining – a path that became even more complicated with the Supreme Court’s Harris v. Quinn ruling last month.

When their organizing drive began two years ago, state law prohibited workers who provide self-directed care – workers hired directly by their clients but paid with state funds – from forming a union, treating them more like independent contractors.

Backed by SEIU Healthcare Minnesota, workers lobbied to change the law last year, and in May 2013 Gov. Mark Dayton signed a bill passed by DFL majorities in the Legislature extending collective bargaining rights to both home care workers and child care providers.

Home care workers’ campaign to gain the signatures needed to file for an election kicked into high gear over the winter. Workers, organizers and supporters from the labor community fanned out across the state to collect more than 9,000 signed cards.

But the SEIU waited to file those cards until after the Supreme Court handed down its ruling on Harris v. Quinn, a case that tested the authority of another state, Illinois, to extend collective bargaining rights to workers in state-subsidized home care programs.

The court’s decision was bad news for unions. It exempted home care workers in Illinois from having to pay so-called “fair-share fees,” but kept in place requirements that unions represent all workers in a collective-bargaining unit – even those who choose not to pay dues.

Not giving up

Outside the BMS, however, home care workers like Sumer Spika pledged to move forward with the organizing election, even if their union would not be able to collect fair-share revenue. “This ruling will not stop the home care workers in Minnesota who are joining together,” the St. Paul resident said.

After scrutinizing the authorization cards, the BMS will conduct an election by mail, likely later this summer. If more than half of workers who participate in the election vote “yes,” SEIU Healthcare Minnesota will be authorized as the workers’ exclusive representative.

Nicole Taras, a recipient of in-home care who has muscular dystrophy, traveled to the BMS with her partner and part-time care provider, Tyler Frank.

Nicole Taras, a recipient of in-home care who has muscular dystrophy, traveled to the BMS with her partner and part-time care provider, Tyler Frank.

That’s the celebration Nicole Taras, a recipient of in-home care who has muscular dystrophy, said she looks forward to most. Taras, who traveled to the BMS with her partner, Tyler Frank, said low wages and high turnover rates make it difficult to find caregivers she can rely on.

“Right now this is a throw-away job,” Taras said. “Because turnover is so high, I hardly ever get a fully trained person before they leave for a Walmart job or something better, and then Tyler has to do it.”

With a union, Frank said, comes better pay, more training opportunities and, hopefully, greater stability for home care clients like Taras, which would free him to pursue his own career aspirations.

“I’ll no longer have to choose between my goals and hers,” Frank said.

Judy Wahlberg: The sexist agenda hidden in Harris v. Quinn

AFSCME Council 5 President Judy Wahlberg

AFSCME Council 5 President Judy Wahlberg

Any day now, the U.S. Supreme Court will rule on Harris v. Quinn, the most important labor law case in decades. The lawsuit is another attempt to kill off public employee unions. It centers on a small group of Illinois home care workers who sued to avoid paying fees to the very union that would negotiate their wages and benefits. Their lawyers are asking the high court to go even further and rule against the right of all public workers in America to choose a union.

While that’s troubling enough, the case is about more than workers’ rights. It potentially opens up yet another front in the nationwide war on women now raging from state legislatures to our doctor’s office and our bank accounts. Here’s why.

The face of the working poor is a mother struggling to feed, shelter and educate her children. She’s working multiple jobs, but still can’t get by. She can’t put healthy food on the table and she can’t afford to live in a safe neighborhood. That’s because her profession is undervalued and her hard work isn’t recognized with a decent paycheck. Chances are she is a caregiver, one of millions of women who help us raise our children and care for our aging parents.

There are now more than 3 million home care and family child care providers in the United States, and more than 90 percent are women. With Americans living longer and baby boomers entering their golden years, it is expected that more than 5 million providers will be needed in the next five years to assist our growing, aging population.

Caregivers are with us from cradle to grave. Child care providers make sure our kids are healthy, learning and safe. Home care providers assist the elderly and people with disabilities who want to live in their own homes instead of an institution. These workers cook, clean, make beds and do laundry. Many also provide health-related care like changing bandages, monitoring medical equipment, and administering medication. It’s physically demanding work. Anyone who thinks that lifting children and helping a client in and out of bed every day isn’t work has probably never done it.

Yet many of these jobs pay too little, have inadequate benefits, and don’t provide women with a path out of poverty so they can support their families.

That’s why so many women have come together to form unions. The average salary for home care workers and child care providers is about $20,000. But caregivers represented by a union have seen their salaries increase by as much as 65 percent, reflecting the grueling demands of the work.

It’s simple. When women join unions, we gain a voice on the job. That gives us the power to get the fair and equitable compensation we deserve. We close the income gap. We climb out of poverty.

A ruling undermining unions in the Harris case would bring that progress to a halt and deal a significant blow to pay equity for women, as well as fair treatment in the workplace.

Let’s be candid about why cases like Harris v. Quinn are rising to the Supreme Court. Women make up 45 percent of union membership and will become the majority by 2020. That has anti-worker forces worried. They know that if women enjoy collective bargaining rights and have a strong voice in the workplace, the inequalities of the past will begin to fade away. Nearly 60 percent of women would earn more if they were paid the same amount as men, and the poverty rate would be cut in half.

We have already lost too much time and too much compensation owed for our work.

Caregivers have a better shot at the American Dream when they choose a union to represent them. The evidence of that is clear. The question now is whether the Supreme Court will side with hardworking women, or put the judicial seal of approval on income inequality.

– Judy Wahlberg is president of AFSCME Council 5, a union of 43,000 public service workers in Minnesota.