Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

I-1163: Measure crafted for union, not the disabled

Letter by Shawn Eric Latham, Puyallup on Oct. 12, 2011 at 12:44 pm with 16 Comments »
October 12, 2011 1:13 pm

PAS-Port for Change is a statewide, grass-roots organization that seeks to improve the quality, reliability and availability of personal assistance services in Washington state.

PAS-Port says no on Initiative I-1163.

Proponents of I-1163 claim it provides improved, sufficient, appropriate training for in-home service workers. The Department of Social and Health Services supposedly will absorb the administrative costs and personnel requirements for that training.

In reality, I-1163 proposes unfunded changes to background checks. It institutes unfunded fraud investigations, extensive unfunded training requirements and unfunded audits. I-1163 adds another level of bureaucracy to oversee and track worker training with no accountability to, and no protection for, the people with disabilities.

I-1163’s provisions can and will put vulnerable people at risk. I-1163 was drafted without the involvement of the people with disabilities who employ in-home service workers or those who live in long-term care facilities. I-1163 was crafted by SEIU to serve union purposes, not the needs of the people with disabilities. How can they claim to improve the system without us?

I-1163 is bad business. Feed it to the shredder. Let’s do it over and do it right.

Leave a comment Comments → 16
  1. In reality, I-1163 proposes unfunded changes to background checks. It institutes unfunded fraud investigations, extensive unfunded training requirements and unfunded audits. I-1163 adds another level of bureaucracy to oversee and track worker training with no accountability to, and no protection for, the people with disabilities.

    I see….it’s all about money….because to add background checks, fraud investigations, extensive training and audits certainly seems to serve the interests of people with disabilities….

    How the “big bad union” got into this conversation is beyond reality…other than there is the boogeyman factor….

  2. I was not aware that in home care givers were members of the SIEU.

  3. theglovesRoff says:

    If the initiative passes, give them time…..

  4. So the headline is a flat lie.

  5. nwcolorist says:

    hanks, Shawn, for the red flag. I’ll make sure to read the fine print.

  6. taxedenoughintacoma says:

    Look at the PDC filings. The SEIU funding this entire boondoggle. They are the most corrupt organization in the country. They lie and this is their latest lie and attempt to rob the taxpayers.

    Won’t work this time. Vote NO.

  7. So…making sure that caretakers are background checked, fraud investigated, extensively trained and audited….means the taxpayers are robbed????

    Conservatives have an interesting take on care for the disabled…

  8. alindasue says:

    xring said, “I was not aware that in home care givers were members of the SIEU.”

    Most of us home care providers joined the union in the mid-part of the last decade. Our work hours, pay, and benefits are still not good (topping at roughly $11/hour and 6-7 paid days off/year ) and definitely not “livable” on their own, but it beats minimum wage with absolutely no benefits at all which was the standard for caregivers prior to the union.

    My personal feelings about I-1163 are mixed and I’m still not sure how I’ll vote on it. I agree that background checks, etc are good for the clients, but it does put a lot of added work burden and paperwork on the caregivers – especially caregivers who live with their clients (and who generally already work more hours than they are paid for).

    We had already put added paid training on the ballot a few years ago and it passed by a high percentage of the vote, but the state (DSHS) never actually budgeted the funds for the training like they were supposed to. I have a feeling that even if I-1163 passes, the same thing is going to happen again.

  9. alindasue….

    I’d like to compare case workers for Big Brothers Big Sisters to caregivers.

    A caseworker for BBBS must be degreed, but only get paid about $11/hr (avg) to start. Every case they handle is REQUIRED to complete a thorough written report – monthly to begin. Frequent training is required. As you can imagine, not only the mentors are required to have background checks, but case workers as well.

    There is no union organization for these workers….so if, as some say, this is all about unions….why would the agency require all of this stuff?

    SECURITY for the kids.

  10. alindasue, thanks for this, the most important point so far in this discussion I think:

    “We had already put added paid training on the ballot a few years ago and it passed by a high percentage of the vote, but the state (DSHS) never actually budgeted the funds for the training like they were supposed to. I have a feeling that even if I-1163 passes, the same thing is going to happen again. “

  11. “but the state (DSHS) never actually budgeted the funds”

    Neglect on the part of pencil pushers cannot end up in lessor treatment of the challenges. Budgets can be changed.

  12. Chippert says:

    The problem with initiatives that include unfunded requirements on the state is that, even if passed, they may never go anywhere, just as alindasue says. They may be offered with the best of intentions and goals, with nothing but good about them. But without a funding source they are just words. Do we really think that in this economy where the state budget has already been slashed and we are looking at further cuts that will hurt all aspects of our state, that we will somehow magically find the money to fund the provisions in this initiative? And even if we do, what other needed social program will be cut even more to fund this one? I personally think 1163 has much merit behind it but I am voting NO because it is not realistic to think it can work right now. And unfortunately, the initiative is already costing taxpayer dollars just by being on the ballot.

  13. ooops…..LESSER….

  14. Alindasue,

    Thanks for the info.

    IMO, the most important part of the law is the background checks which DSHS should do on all new caregiver applicants.

  15. Disabled people…..up to the lowest bidder…..sheeeeeesh

  16. GHpassage says:

    The SEIU lured people to sign the initiative by emphasizing background checks for caregivers. This was put on the backburner once passed to pursue the “training” portion. Each time an individual is “trained” the union gets more money. You may be working with a child with Autism and get training on Diabetes. The SEIU doesn’t give a rip about training, it’s all about money.

*
We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

JavaScript is required to post comments.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0