WAGE BOARD REPORT:
WAGE ORDER 5- PUBLIC HOUSEKEEPING INDUSTRY
March 12, 2003
Workforce Investment Building
750 N Street, Conference Room A
Sacramento, California
WAGE BOARD REPORT: WAGE ORDER 5 - PUBLIC HOUSEKEEPING INDUSTRY
On March 12, 2003, the Wage Board convened at the Workforce Investment Building, Sacramento. The following persons were in attendance:
| Chairperson: | John Wormuth |
| IWC Staff: | Doug McConkie, Analyst David Zahedi, Analyst |
| Meeting Reporter: |
Cynthia M. Judy, Golden State Reporting |
Wage Board Members
| Employer Representatives | Employee Representatives |
| Barbara Maizie | Lisa Chin |
| Cal Parker | Peter Cooper |
| Sister Marygrace | Puchac Leroy Hawn |
| Frond Gelée Hausey, Alternate | Elsa Caballero, Alternate Karen Ridley, Alternate (arrived 10:21 a.m.) |
Call to Order
Chairperson John Wormuth called the meeting to order at 10:16 a.m., and all participants introduced themselves. Three employer representatives and one employer alternate were present; three employee representatives and one employee alternate were present. Employee Alternate Karen Ridley arrived after the meeting started.
Opening Statements
Employee Representative Peter Cooper stated that the California Labor Federation is concerned that the IWC is more interested in protecting industries than workers. He said the employers in this industry are proposing amendments that would deprive workers in residential care facilities of benefits enjoyed by workers in other industries. Instead of trying to pay workers less, he recommended that employers work together with employee groups to lobby for more funding from the state. Mr. Cooper added that the wage board should confine its deliberations to issues covered by its charge and impose reasonable time limits on whatever short-term solutions are proposed.
Mr. Cooper questioned whether all types of employers were fairly represented on the wage board. He noted there may be some large employers who can well afford to pay their workers overtime.
Employer Representative Sister Marygrace said the wage board needs to understand the context in which the deliberations were taking place. She stated that residential care services are labor-intensive and difficult, as providers have an awesome responsibility to ensure the happiness, safety, and well-being of their residents. She noted caregivers have to deal with the whole person and provide a high quality of life; this entails honoring the dignity and potential of each individual living in a residential care facility. Sister Marygrace emphasized that care and commitment rather than funding are the driving factors in this type of work. She added that her organization, East Bay Services to the Developmentally Disabled, pays workers a starting wage of $13 or $14 per hour, plus sick leave, health insurance, and retirement benefits. Having to pay overtime for work after 8 hours would constitute a significant hardship.
Sister Marygrace noted that workers in residential care facilities want flexibility to work longer shifts on certain days so they can spend more time with their families on days off and hold second jobs. She said that if overtime pay after 8 hours is required, facilities will not be able to schedule overlapping shifts and provide the continuity of care needed by residents. Sister Marygrace stated that residential care facilities are seeing substantial increases in workers' compensation premium rates and other costs, and future increases are likely. Employers are asking for a concession on the overtime issue so they can continue to operate.
Employee Representative Cooper asked how much of the industry pays wages as high as $13 or $14 per hour; he said he believed $7 to $8 per hour was more typical. Employer Representative Parker responded that very few residential care facilities can afford to pay as much as East Bay Services for the Developmentally Disabled. Mr. Cooper noted low wages lead to high turnover, which also impacts continuity of care. Employer Representative Sister Marygrace agreed, and stated that employers recognize the importance of paying decent wages and honoring the skills of their workers.
Employee Representative Leroy Hawn commented that his organization, ARC, is unionized and offers somewhat higher pay than other employers, but residential care is generally a low-paying job. He noted low wages are a particular hardship for workers in high-cost areas of the state like San Francisco.
Mr. Hawn expressed a willingness to work with employer representatives to come up with a short-term solution. In the longer term, he urged employers and employee groups to work together to change the system and obtain more money for these important services. Mr. Hawn added that there is currently a proposal in the legislature calling for more federal funding, and he urged both sides to support this approach.
Employer Representative Cal Parker said he felt torn by the competing sides on this issue. He noted that in family-operated board and care homes, workers and employers are the same people. He recognized the importance of higher wages and changing the system, but expressed concern about killing the industry. Mr. Parker added that wages are very low in San Joaquin County, the area he represents.
Mr. Parker stated that board and care home operators are concerned about making too many concessions. He noted concessions made in the past saddled providers with burdens that were not offset by increases in state funding. Mr. Parker concluded by saying that employers share all the concerns voiced by employee representatives and are interested in working together to arrive at mutually satisfactory solutions.
Employer Representative Barbara Maizie responded to some of the comments made by Employee Representative Cooper. First, she said she was a bit uncomfortable with characterizing residential care facilities as an "industry." She emphasized that employers and employees share common goals and work together in partnership to provide a high quality of life for residents. Ms. Maizie noted that her organization, the Contra Costa Association for Retarded Citizens, pays starting wages of $10.50 per hour. She added that high wages are a result of fundraising commitment and dedication, and larger employers pay workers as much as they can.
Ms. Maizie stated that the employer representatives on the wage board reflect the makeup of the entire industry. She said that although six-bed facilities are typical, there are some employers with fifteen-bed and ten-bed community care homes as well. She noted a key issue before the wage board is deciding the size of homes that should receive an overtime exemption.
Ms. Maizie explained that the exemption is being requested so employers can give their staffs the kinds of schedules they want. She noted many workers are single parents who prefer having a few days of work, followed by a few days off. She pointed out that this kind of schedule also results in better continuity of care for the people receiving services.
Employee Motion #1
Employee Representative Cooper made a motion to amend Wage Order 5 by adding the following Paragraph (3) to "3. Hours and Days of Work," Section (E):
IWC Staff Analyst Doug McConkie pointed out that Section (E) was changed to Section (A) in the latest version of Wage Order 5. Mr. Cooper amended his motion to refer to Section (A) instead.
Employee Representative Hawn seconded the motion.
Employer Representative Parker stated his opposition to granting an exemption only to owner-operated facilities of six beds or less. He noted the motion does not include mentally ill adults, and the proposed sunset date is too soon. He recommended extending the period to four years, or at least until 2005-06. Employer Representative Maizie pointed out that the motion should be in sync with the timelines in the legislative proposal so there will be no gap.
Employee Representative Lisa Chin commented that employer representatives wanted to focus on two tracks: one for short-term relief and another for a longer-term solution. She proposed limiting the short-term relief to two years.
Employer Representative Parker argued for inclusion of mentally ill adults. He noted facilities housing the mentally ill have the lowest reimbursement rates and are very vulnerable to closure. He suggested applying the exemption to all Title 22 facilities of 15 beds or less. Employee Representative Chin noted other IWC documents referred to "mentally dependent" adults. She expressed concern that services for the mentally ill are funded from different sources.
Employer Representative Sister Marygrace commented that many service providers will be unable to pay high wages if the exemption is limited to facilities with 6 beds or less. Employee Representative Chin stated that the intent of the motion was to cover 80 percent of the industry, or those facilities with 6 beds or less.
Employer Alternate Frond Hausey observed that the motion uses incorrect terminology. She clarified that the term "group homes" refers only to facilities for children, while adult facilities are called "community care facilities" or "residential care facilities." Ms. Hausey also noted that owner-operated facilities would not be affected by the exemption anyway because the owners are the employees. She recommended changing "owner-operated" to "staff-operated" instead.
Employer Representative Parker again proposed using Title 22 definitions.
Vote: 3 - 3, motion failed (all employee representatives in favor, all employer representatives opposed).
Employee representatives requested an opportunity to caucus, and a short recess was taken.
Employer Motion #1
Employer Representative Maizie made a motion to amend "3. Hours and Days of Work," Section (A)(2), as follows:
"(2) Employees with direct responsibility for children who are under 18 years of age or who are not emancipated from the foster care system and who, in either case, are receiving 24-hour residential care, and employees of 24-hour licensed, non-medical community care facilities of 15 beds or less, pursuant to the Community Care Facility Act, may, without violating any provision of this section, be compensated as follows until July 1, 2008;"
and to add the following language to "11. Meal Periods," Section (E), and "12. Rest Periods," Section (C):
" . . . and employees of 24-hour licensed, non-medical community care facilities, pursuant to the Community Care Facility Act, may . . ."
Ms. Maizie explained that the Community Care Facility Act defines the types of facilities providing residential services to adults. She said her motion proposes applying the exemption to facilities of 15 beds or less, extending the sunset date to July 1, 2008, and applying the same meal and rest period provisions that apply to employees in children's 24-hour care homes.
Employee Representative Chin observed that meal and rest periods were outside the charge of this particular wage board. Other participants agreed, and Employer Representative Maizie amended her motion to delete that language.
Employer Representative Parker seconded the motion.
Employer Alternate Hausey asked why any sunset date was being proposed. She noted the amendment to Wage Order 5 for children's facilities did not include a sunset date. Employee Representative Chin responded that she did not participate on the wage board for children's facilities, so she did not know what led to their recommendation. She said IWC Commissioner Bosco, in working with both sides, had talked in terms of arriving at a short-term solution.
Ms. Chin stated that employee representatives were unwilling to include facilities for mentally ill adults in the wage order. Employee Representative Cooper explained that employee representatives had not had a chance to confer with workers in facilities for the mentally ill. He noted there may be significant differences in the issues impacting these categories, and using the definitions in Title 22 might be too broad. Ms. Chin expressed concern about unintended consequences. She recommended staying with the "elderly, blind, or developmentally disabled" language currently in Wage Order 5.
Employer Alternate Hausey clarified that mentally ill adult facilities are part of the same industry, staffed by the same employees, and covered by the same law. She noted the Community Care Facility Act is very specific. Employer Representative Parker added that employees of facilities for the mentally ill are part of the same bargaining group as employees in other adult residential care facilities. He said employer representatives did not want to leave the mentally ill category behind.
Mr. Parker explained that the "elderly, blind, or developmentally disabled" language only addresses funding streams, not types of facilities. Employer Alternate Hausey stated that mentally ill residents receive SSI funds for their services.
Employer Representative Maizie commented that it would be easier to implement the wage order in the field if mentally ill facilities are not separated out. She noted a uniform application of the wage order would make more sense and be more efficient.
Employee Representative Cooper asked how many facilities in the state would be covered. Employer Representative Maizie estimated there were about 8,000 licensed community care facilities in California covering all adult categories.
Employer Representative Parker urged the employee representatives to consider a sunset date of July 1, 2008, and limiting the exemption to facilities with 15 beds or less.
Employee Representative Chin expressed unwillingness to consider facilities with more than 6 beds. She noted the most compelling testimony before the IWC related to small facilities. She added that limiting the scope to facilities with 6 beds or less would cover 80 percent of the industry, or approximately 20,000 to 30,000 workers. Employer Representative Parker pointed out there were only a few more facilities with 15 beds or less. Employer Representative Maizie agreed. She noted including 15-bed facilities and the mentally ill would have a very small impact in terms of numbers.
Employee Representative Chin expressed concern about tying the Wage Order 5 amendment to the Community Care Facility Act. She noted the Act could be amended in the future, so the definitions could be modified. Employer Representative Maizie responded that the Act has been in place for many years, so a significant change was unlikely. Employee Representative Cooper pointed out that California has had an 8-hour workday for many years, but there have been frequent attempts in the legislature to overturn that protection.
Employer Representative Maizie commented that the exemption is being requested by employees who want greater flexibility in their hours. She noted scheduling is difficult with the current overtime regulations. She suggested viewing the exemption as an advantage for workers rather than a take-away.
Employee Representative Hawn asked how many employees have requested the exemption. Employer Representative Maizie responded that at least two thirds of the staff in her organization would prefer longer shifts. She noted many employees work part-time, and longer shifts make it easier for them to hold two jobs.
Employee Alternate Elsa Caballero commented that based on her own experience, many employees prefer 8-hour shifts and overtime rather than being forced to work longer shifts. Employer Representative Maizie acknowledged that most people would rather have overtime pay than flexible hours. She agreed that employees should not be forced to work long shifts. Ms. Caballero pointed out that the proposed changes could have that result.
Employer Representative Sister Marygrace noted the original petition to the IWC requested the same amendment for adult facilities as for children's facilities. She said she was baffled and surprised that employee representatives wanted to dissect that language. Employee Representative Chin explained that employee representatives want to define as narrow a universe as possible. She said she was opposed to the proposed sunset date of July 1, 2008.
Vote: 3 - 3, motion failed (all employer representatives in favor, all employee representatives opposed).
Employer Alternate Hausey urged wage board members to try to establish some common ground as a basis for moving forward. She asked employee representatives if they were willing to move from their position at all. She emphasized that employer representatives wanted to arrive at a solution based on correct terminology and a negotiated timetable.
Employee Motion #2
Employee Representative Chin made a motion, seconded by Employee Representative Cooper, to add the following Paragraph (3) to "3. Hours and Days of Work," Section A:
"(3) The hours and days of work provisions in section (A)(2) shall also apply to workers employed as direct caregivers in non-medical community care licensed, 24-hour care residential facilities with six beds or less, that serve the elderly, blind, or developmentally disabled individuals. This section shall sunset on January 1, 2005."
Employer Representative Parker observed that the two sides did not appear to be that far apart. He noted everyone present seemed to want the same things, but there were differences in semantics. He said employer representatives were most concerned about the number of beds and the sunset date. Mr. Parker emphasized that the entire industry needs relief, not just certain segments.
Employer Alternate Hausey pointed out that the proposal in the legislature, if it succeeds, will not be implemented until 2006. She asked what would happen during the period between the proposed sunset date in 2005 and the implementation of the new legislation in 2006. Employee Representative Chin said the legislative proposal is still speculative at this point. She added that a better long-term solution would be to obtain more funding for the residential care system. Employee Representative Cooper noted that employer representatives have the ability to come back and repetition the IWC if a gap occurs. Ms. Hausey expressed her opinion that 2004 was too soon. She expressed concern that short-term relief will not be in place by 2005, and she asked for a little more time.
Employee Representative Chin recalled that SEIU worked on in-home supportive services for 12 years before relief was achieved, so this issue could also take a long time. She recommended that employer representatives consider coming back to the IWC in two years if nothing happens by then. Employee Representative Hawn added his organization typically negotiates two-year contracts, so that time frame appears reasonable.
Employer Representative Parker argued that the employee bargaining unit should not be carved up to separate elderly and developmentally disabled from mentally ill.
Employer Representative Sister Marygrace said the number of beds was also a critical issue.
Employer Representative Maizie proposed a sunset date of at least 36 months. Employer Representative Parker indicated he would be willing to consider a shorter time if the amendment covered facilities with 15 beds or less and serving the mentally ill. Employer Representative Sister Marygrace stated that a shorter period might be acceptable to her too. Ms. Maizie said she was willing to consider a shorter time if all categories were included and the exemption applied to facilities with 15 beds or less.
Employee Representative Cooper stated that employee representatives were unwilling to consider facilities with more than six beds if the sunset date is 2005.
At 12:20 p.m., the wage board recessed for lunch. Chairperson Wormuth reconvened the wage board meeting at 1:40 p.m.
Vote: 3 - 3, motion failed (all employee representatives in favor, all employer representatives opposed).
Employee Motion #3
Employee Representative Chin made a motion, seconded by Employee Representative Cooper, to add the following Paragraph (3) to "3. Hours and Days of Work," Section A:
"(3) The hours and days of work provisions in section (A)(2) shall also apply to workers employed as direct caregivers in non-medical community care licensed, 24-hour care residential facilities with six beds or less, that serve the elderly, blind, or developmentally disabled individuals. This section shall sunset on July 1, 2005."
Employer Representative Parker commented that the motion reflected little movement; he said employer representatives needed more.
Vote: 3 - 3, motion failed (all employee representatives in favor, all employer representatives opposed).
Employer Representative Parker expressed his disappointment in the results of the wage board's deliberations to that point.
Employee Representative Chin said she disseminated her initial proposal the previous week but did not receive any response from the employers. Employer Representative Parker pointed out that the proposal was directed to the IWC rather than to the employers. He added he saw the document for the first time the night before.
Employer Motion #2
Employer Representative Maizie made a motion, seconded by Employer Representative Parker, to add the following Paragraph (3) to "3. Hours and Days of Work," Section A:
"The hours and days of work provisions in section (A)(2) shall also apply to workers employed as direct caregivers in non-medical community care licensed, 24-hour care residential facilities with 15 beds or less. This section shall sunset on June 30, 2006."
Employer Representative Maizie said the employer representatives had been working in good faith throughout the entire negotiation process. She added that she and Employer Representative Sister Marygrace expected the deliberations to be concluded quickly because they anticipated adopting the same language as that adopted by the wage board for children's facilities.
Ms. Maizie expressed her opinion that limiting the exemption to facilities with 15 beds or less and accepting a time limit of 2006 represented significant concessions. She said employer representatives were surprised and disappointed by the employee representatives' attempts to separate out different types of facilities.
Vote: 3 - 3, motion failed (all employer representatives in favor, all employee representatives opposed).
Employee Representative Cooper explained that the California Labor Federation is concerned about opening more exemptions to the protections enjoyed by California workers. Employee Representative Chin agreed, and added that employee representatives want as narrow an exemption as possible. She said she looked up the code pertaining to community care facilities over the lunch break and had concerns that the broad range of Title 22 categories was outside the scope of the "elderly, blind, and developmentally disabled" language used by the IWC. Ms. Chin recommended keeping the amendment consistent with that terminology.
Employer Representative Sister Marygrace questioned whether the employee representatives were approaching the wage board deliberations in good faith. Employee Representative Cooper objected to the accusation. He noted failure to reach agreement was not the same as a lack of good faith.
Employer Representative Maizie emphasized the importance of providing some relief to residential facilities. She pointed out that homes are going out of business already, and agreeing to a limited time period was already a significant concession on the part of employers. Ms. Maizie estimated there are only 71 licensed homes for mentally ill adults operating in the state, so including that category would not broaden the coverage by much.
Ms. Maizie offered to compromise by accepting a sunset date of June 30, 2005. She said this was the employer side's final offer.
Wage board members took a short recess to discuss this proposal.
Employee Representative Cooper noted the employer representatives approached the wage board in good faith and made fair motions. He said the sunset date of June 30, 2005, was acceptable. Mr. Cooper reaffirmed the commitment of employee representatives to support the rights and protect the wages of workers in the industry.
Employer Motion #3
Employer Representative Maizie made a motion, seconded by Employer Representative Parker, to add the following Paragraph (3) to "3. Hours and Days of Work," Section A:
"The hours and days of work provisions in section (A)(2) shall also apply to workers employed as direct caregivers in non-medical community care licensed, 24-hour care residential facilities with 15 beds or less. This section shall sunset on June 30, 2005."
Vote: 3 - 3, motion failed (all employer representatives in favor, all employee representatives opposed).
Employer Representative Parker expressed his opinion that employee representatives had not acted in good faith. He said he intended to convey this to his constituents.
Chairperson Wormuth asked if there were any other motions to be considered. Neither side responded.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Employee Representative Hawn made a motion, seconded by Employer Representative Chin, that the meeting be adjourned. The motion was carried unanimously. At 2:25 p.m., the wage board meeting was adjourned.
Respectfully submitted,
John Wormuth
Chairperson