Why don't you give the SEIU a call. Tell them your pro-union, but, you have got concerns about how this home health care worker thing is going to work. If their smart they may even ask you to be on some kind of an advisorary board, or, get you appointed to some sort of an a state advisory board. It may take a few phone calls or letters to the SEIU---I'm sure it would be worth it to you and to them.
Possibly, someone on the list knows the SEIU worthies in California. If this were the Steelworkers, I could be of more help.
Your email pal,
Tom L.
Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
> Marta:
>
> All of the concerns you expressed, some of which are echoed by your
> friend's testimony as to his needs being disregarded at a hospital, have
> and will occur whether or not workers are unionized, as long as disabled
> persons in particular and patients in general are not regarded as sources
> of knowledge. Solving this problem requires the organizing of disabled
> people and solidarity of others, on which you have been working. Some of
> your comments suggest that you think of home care workers' unionization as
> a debit for those who are given care, in the zero-sum game of power.
>
> Your insistence that it is important that disabled persons be empowered to
> fire an attendant on the spot, that there be no-strike clause, etc. is
> understandable but seems to me to be counter-productive. You yourself say
> that homecare work is one of the last-resort jobs, so workers who take this
> kind of job "tend to be people who can't get work doing anything else," to
> quote from your reply. Unionization should make this line of work more
> attractive and give workers a reason to want to stick to it. If a job is
> unpleasant and pays little, there are not many incentives to do it well,
> especially given that taking care of a disabled and/or old person is tough
> enough work even if it pays well.
>
> A strike isn't the only reason that workers may cause an inconvenience for
> disabled persons. They can quit, may not show up when they are supposed to,
> may be late or go home early, may work to rule or do even less than that,
> etc. Such situations are likely to occur more often when workers are
> dissatisfied with their jobs in some way. If you think that unorganized
> ways of expressing discontent are preferable to organized ones, you may
> insist upon a no-strike clause, but otherwise, what's the advantage for the
> disabled? (And why should a strike be a 'public relations disaster' for
> workers, and not the state? A strike can be prevented if the state makes
> concessions.)
>
> Do you think it is a good idea to empower patients so that they can fire a
> doctor, a nurse, an orderly, etc. on the spot? Maybe you do, but if you
> don't think that's a good idea, why should home care attendants be let go
> on the spot if those who are given their care think fit?
>
> Yoshie