LAKEPORT – The Board of Supervisors voted Tuesday to forward to the state a proposal that would give In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) providers a $1-per-hour raise if they undergo drug testing.
Critics of the proposal said the offered raise was too small, and that the issue hadn't been properly negotiated with the IHSS workers' union.
The board's approval Tuesday doesn't guarantee the wage increase will go through.
With 2.1 million hours of IHSS care being provided annually in Lake County, the $1-per-hour increase could translate into millions of dollars, money that the county can't some up with on its own, said county Social Services Director Carol Huchingson.
If the state Department of Social Services doesn't help up the costs, IHSS workers won't get the raise, Huchingson said.
In essence, the proposal would offer IHSS care providers the raise if they went through drug testing and cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) training, said Huchingson.
IHSS workers currently receive minimum wage, or $7.50 per hour, in caring for seniors and the disabled who qualify for the in-home care, Huchingson said.
The overall pay hike would actually go to $9.75, which would include $8.50 an hour for workers, plus payroll taxes, worker's compensation and a 33-cent per-hour administrative cost for the county's IHSS Public Authority oversight.
Because the state minimum wage will go up to $8 an hour on Jan. 1, 2008, Huchingson said she will return to the board no later than Oct. 1 to request another hourly wage raise for providers, from $8.50 to $9.
Focus placed on drug testing
David Smith, a representative of the California United Homecare Workers – the union that represents local IHSS workers – said after the meeting the proposal shouldn't have been taken to the board Tuesday, because it involved wages and benefits issues that belonged in the negotiations arena.
The union represents between 1,300 and 1,500 local IHSS providers, said Smith.
He said this latest proposal doesn't include medical benefits for workers and is about $2 an hour less than the state allows. Most local IHSS providers are paid less than fast food restaurant employees, he added.
During Tuesday's meeting, the drug testing requirement was a focus of discussion.
To be included in the IHSS Public Authority Registry, providers currently must fulfill several requirements, including providing references, attending a mandatory two-hour orientation/training, meeting with public authority staff for a face-to-face interview and passing a Department of Justice criminal records check.
Drug testing, under this recent proposal, would be added to that list.
The drug test screens for methamphetamine, marijuana, cocaine, opiates and PCP, said Huchingson. The CPR training would be five to six hours in length, and the public authority is considering a $15 stipend for IHSS providers who complete the training.
Drug screening and CPR training would be conducted by vendors hired by the public authority, Huchingson said, estimating the drug testing would cost about $114,000 annually.
Smith said the union currently offers free CPR training to IHSS providers, so he wasn't sure why it was added to the requirements or why the county plans to add CPR training costs to its budget.
Huchingson suggested removing the reference checks from the requirements for IHSS providers who wish to be added to the registry. She said post-employment followup with IHSS recipients have been much more valuable.
She asked the board to approve three new positions for the public authority, in addition to its current staff of 3.5 positions, because they believe the public authority's workload will increase by at least 100 percent. New positions would include a supervisor position, a bilingual specialist and an office assistant.
County, union disagree on how to handle proposal
The county's IHSS Public Authority will need to meet and confer with the union to implement the proposed registry policies, said Huchingson. But she suggested waiting until they get a sense of whether or not the state will approve the proposal before going back to the negotiation table.
At the end of the last bargaining session the public authority held with the union on May 29, the wage and drug testing proposal was presented to the union as an information item, said Huchingson.
Smith, who was at the negotiations, said the public authority handed the union a memo at the end of the meeting.
In a May 31 letter to the supervisors, union President Tyrone R. Freeman said that at the May 29 meeting the union told the public authority that the wage changes and drug testing couldn't be made without meeting and conferring with the union, and that the public authority “refused to negotiate.”
“In fact, the Public Authority said they would not even discuss the memo and left the room,” Freeman wrote.
“They didn't want us to have any response whatsoever,” Smith added, claiming that county negotiators “ran out the door” when the union tried to discuss it.
Huchingson disputed that the union told the public authority at the meeting that they needed to meet and confer.
“That did not take place in negotiations,” Huchingson said.
Supervisor Denise Rushing asked Huchingson what the board's recommended approval would mean.
The board's approval meant submitting the proposal to the state, said Huchingson, which could take up to 90 days to approve.
Different views of the plan
Supervisor Ed Robey said he felt the proposals offered a benefit to providers through extra training and higher wages, as well as to participants, who will receive services from providers with better skills.
But the proposal's focus on wages based on drug testing was a concern for some IHSS providers and for Andy Rossoff, an attorney who has been an outspoken critic over the years of the county's handling of the IHSS program.
Rossoff said he felt supervision was a key element in the program, and questioned doing away with reference checks. There are many people who commit crimes against seniors who don't use drugs or have a criminal past, Rossoff added.
He emphasized the need for recipients to have choice in who provides their care, which he said is the primary concern he's heard from IHSS recipients.
“It's a penalty on the providers,” he said of drug testing. “I also think it's a clear penalty on the recipients and their right to choose.”
No other county is considering pay differential based on such factors, Rossoff argued. “This feels like this is about IHSS workers and nobody else.”
Rossoff also said that the pay raise “doesn't cut it,” and that it should go $10.50 per hour plus health benefits.
Supervisor Anthony Farrington said he believed in the IHSS program, and didn't think drug testing took away choice from clients. It's better, said Farrington, to find ways to keep people in their homes rather than having them be “warehoused” in convalescent facilities.
IHSS provider Felicia Smith of Clearlake urged the county to meet and confer with the union about the proposals.
Smith said she felt the drug testing requirement singled out IHSS workers, because it's not required for other health care workers. “We're not criminals,” she aid.
Rushing said her sister, who lives in the Bay Area, uses IHSS services, which help her stay independent.
Like Rossoff, Rushing questioned the drug testing aspect. “I think there's been some good points today raised about the fairness of that.”
Farrington said he felt drug testing should be required for those going into the homes of the elderly and disabled, and surmised that only those who had something to hide would object.
“There is a reason why you wouldn't want to do it, and that's civil liberties,” Rushing replied.
David Smith said some other counties drug test IHSS providers, but it's done on a voluntary basis, based on requests of IHSS clients. He said the county should go to local IHSS clients and ask them if they want drug testing.
IHSS worker shares concerns
After the meeting, Felicia Smith, who has been an IHSS provider for six years – four years in Sonoma County and two in Lake – said she was concerned that no medical benefits were included in this offer. She noted that the plan included benefits considerations for the new Social Services positions, but not IHSS providers.
She said Lake County “should look at some of the other counties that are making this program work.”
In Sonoma County, she explained, workers received $10.50 per hour and benefits, and social workers did quarterly checks on IHSS clients to evaluate quality of care and look for possible abuse.
Smith said she personally had no problem submitting to a drug test, but felt that the issue was “just another way to hold up our benefits and our wages.”
She said she's not sure if she'll continue as an IHSS worker, saying she can't survive on the low wages while raising a 16-year-old, and she doesn't want to live on welfare and Medi-Cal.
Still, she said, it's difficult to leave clients. “Once they invite you into their homes and into their lives, it's hard for me to leave and someone take my place.”
David Smith said he expects negotiations will continue. “We're not going to stop that process,” he said of the union. “the board might, but we won't.”
Freeman's letter to the board, however, struck a more ominous tone.
He said if the IHSS Public Authority disregarded the meet and confer with the union and the county approved the proposal Tuesday, “the Union will take immediate legal action.”
E-mail Elizabeth Larson at
{mos_sb_discuss:2}
How to resolve AdBlock issue? 
