An article in the Detroit News from March 10, 2014, "Mich.slaps health care union with 2nd largest elections fine ever", by Chad Livengood, covers campaign financing law violations by the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) during a campaign to support a ballot proposal in the November 2012 election. The headline does not convey a surprising fact: Michigan disability advocates were involved as the treasurers of the campaign fundraising committees that were investigated and called to account for their handling of campaign funds and failures to meet reporting requirements in the law. The body of the article goes into some detail about Proposal 4, which was defeated in the election, and the campaign committees
supporting it.
The article summarizes the actions by the Michigan Secretary of State:
"Secretary of State Ruth Johnson’s office slapped the labor union with a $199,000 fine for multiple campaign finance violations after it used a nonprofit corporation to funnel $9.36 million in contributions into a ballot campaign seeking the passage of Proposal 4 in 2012. The fine is the second largest in Michigan elections history...
"The ballot campaign, Citizens for Affordable Quality Home Care, received nearly all of its funding from a single company called Home Care First Inc., which received its funding from SEIU and Michigan-based affiliates, according to a Bureau of Elections investigation.
"Home Care First Inc. 'belatedly' set up a ballot committee that reported after the November 2012 election that all of its money came from SEIU and its affiliates, an investigative report states.
"The state found SEIU and campaign treasurers for the two committees violated the Michigan Campaign Finance Act for 49 transactions of commingling funds in multiple bank accounts, 31 contributions involving incomplete or inaccurate campaign statements and three late contribution reports."
Dohn Hoyle, the Executive Director of The ARC Michigan, a state advocacy organization for people with developmental disabilities, was the treasurer of the Citizens for Affordable Quality Home Care (CAQHC). Norman G. DeLisle, Jr., who has been the Executive Director of the Michigan Disability Rights Coalition (MDRC) since 1997, was the treasurer of Home Care First Incorporated (HCFI).
The campaign committees were both formed in March 2012. CAQHC received donations funneled through HCFI without disclosing that the HCFI funds came entirely from SEIU-affiliated organizations. HCFI did not file all required forms with the state until just before the 2012 election and did not reveal the source of its funding until after the election.
Hoyle, DeLisle, and the SEIU did not admit guilt and no criminal charges were filed as a result of the investigation. Instead, a conciliation agreement was reached with the Secretary of State's Office with regard to the complaint, D'Assandro v Home Care First, Inc and Citizens for Affordable Quality Home Care and the $199,000 fine was levied by the Secretary of State. The SEIU and the disability advocates admitted that "mistakes were made" and claimed that they had not fully understood the campaign financing law. This is surprising, since presumably both the SEIU and the committee campaign treasurers had access to attorneys to advise them when they set up the campaign committees.
Filling in the blanks: Why were disability advocates involved in a ballot proposal campaign?
Proposal 4, a statewide ballot proposal that was defeated in the November 2012 election, was meant to amend the Michigan constitution to continue to allow union representation and collective bargaining rights for Medicaid-funded Home Help Workers and to reinstate the Michigan Quality Community Care Council, which had been defunded by the legislature, and rename it as the Michigan Home Quality Care Council. The Council would continue to be made up mostly of advocates for people with disabilities and seniors and would act as the representative for employers of Home Help Workers for the purposes of collective bargaining with the state. The employers of home help workers are the seniors and people with disabilities who receive Medicaid funding to pay for help with household chores and personal care in their own homes. The Council would also have maintained a registry of workers who had passed background checks and would offer training to improve job skills.
Other relevant facts:
The financial stake in the pro-Proposal 4 campaign was significant: The SEIU collected about $6 million per year in dues and fees from Home Help Workers and, prior to being defunded, the Council received about $1.1 million per year from the state.
Many factors make Home Help Workers a difficult and unusual population to unionize:
- About 75% of the Home Help Workers in Michigan are family members or close friends of the seniors and people with disabilities who hire them. Often the employee is the parent or another family member. Even more complicated is the fact that the employee may also be the legal guardian of the employer, the senior or disabled person.
- In 2005, when the election for unionization of Home Help Workers was held, only about 20% of those employed voted. There was confusion, especially among family members, about whether unionization applied to them at all, because many of them did not consider themselves "employees".
- Because the work takes place in the employers home, it is difficult to assess or regulate working conditions.
- The union was limited in how much it could bargain for increased wages because of appropriations decisions made by the legislature.
It does not appear that seniors and people with disabilities had any say in who represented them in the collective bargaining process.
The Home Help program has been around since the 1980's and its continued existence was not threatened by either the passage or defeat of Proposal 4.
Advocacy for whom?
The
financial entanglements of
the disability advocates with the SEIU during the proposal 4 campaign
seems to be a conflict of interest with the advocates' representation of people with disabilities and seniors.
When advocates and their organizations claim to represent people with disabilities, they need to maintain their independence and avoid conflicts of interest. In this convoluted campaign to amend Michigan's constitution, advocates allied themselves with a labor union while simultaneously seeking to continue to represent seniors and people with disabilities in collective bargaining with the union. The participation of disability advocates in campaign shenanigans of this magnitude certainly did not enhance the lives of people with disabilities nor did it protect the reputations of their organizations.
More information:
Michigan Secretary of State press release on the finance campaign investigation.
For more information on Proposal 4, see The DD News Blog.
To see documents relating to the complaint investigation, link here to the Secretary of State's website. Then scroll down to 8/30/2013, D'Assandro v Home Care … and link to documents in the right hand column, parts 1 - 12.
More news coverage on the campaign finance violations from Mlive and the Detroit Free Press
*****************************
P.S. - Irony Alert!
During the campaign for Proposal 4, a report from MIRS Capitol Capsule for April 10, 2012, quoted Mr. Hoyle as he complained about the the Governor signing a bill to reverse the ability of home help workers to unionize as state employees and the defunding of the MQCCC:
" Hoyle said he doesn’t understand people who have not talked with or dealt with MQCCC but are 'so bent on changing things without regard for what it does to people.'
"'To me it is just an ideological problem when people get so bent in one direction and ignore people who are on the other end of it, those with disabilities and those who are older,' he said. 'That’s just sad in my mind.'"
Many families will appreciate the irony of Mr. Hoyle's complaints, considering his own ideological bent and the adverse effects it has on people with disabilities. See "The ARC Michigan to state: Stop funding congregate settings" and "The ARC Michigan: Our way or the highway"
This is old news, but I think it is instructive to look back at the 2012 political campaign for Proposal 4, a ballot proposal to amend the Michigan Constitution primarily to assure continued union representation of organized Home Help Care workers by the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). These workers are paid from Medicaid funds that seniors and people with disabilities can use to assist them with personal care and household chores.
Both Proposal 4 and Proposal 2, another proposal to write collective bargaining rights into the Michigan Constitution, were defeated. Following their defeat the Michigan lame-duck legislature passed a law that makes Michigan a "Right to Work" state, a devastating blow to labor unions. These controversial union issues became entangled with the Home Help program that almost everyone supports as a way to help seniors and people with disabilities stay in their own homes. The Home Help program has been around for more than 25 years and its continued existence was not threatened by either the passage or defeat of Proposal 4.
[If you want to read more about unions in Michigan, here is a pro-union article, "This is not Wisconsin. It's Worse.", from the American Prospect, 12/10/12, by Rich Yeselson. It covers Michigan labor history, the United Auto Workers, and how unions have in many respects been weakened by past successes.]
The support by seniors and disability advocates for Proposal 4 focused on part of the proposal that would have maintained the MIchigan Quality Community Care Council (MQCCC) under a new name, the Michigan Home Quality Care Council (MHQCC). The MHQCC, an organization of advocates for seniors and people with disabilities with representation from the MIchigan Department of Community Health (MDCH), would have continued to represent the employers of Home Help workers, seniors and disabled people in the Home Help program, in bargaining with the workers through the SEIU. The MHQCC would also have continued to operate a registry of Home Help workers who had passed background checks and could receive training to improve their job skills. State funding from the MDCH for the MQCCC had been about $1.1 million per year until the legislature defunded the organization in October 2011. Since then it had received help in maintaining the registry from advocacy groups and the SEIU.
Senior and disability advocates were the face of the pro-Proposition 4 campaign. Most, if not all, of the advertising for it emphasized safety through the maintenance of the registry of home help workers. The advertising did not mention, however, that 75% of Home Help workers are family members or friends of the senior or disabled person, unlikely to use the registry, and not subject to background checks. Nor was there much mention of the more controversial union issue.
According to the 12/5/12 updates on the funding of the pro-Proposal 4 campaign called Citizens for Affordable Quality Home Care, funding came almost entirely from Home Care First, Inc. Home Care First got its money, $9,360,000, entirely from SEIU affiliates. The treasurer of Citizens for Affordable Quality Home Care was Dohn Hoyle, the Executive Director of the ARC Michigan. The treasurer of Home Care First, Inc., was Norm Delisle, the Executive Director of the Michigan Disability Rights Coalition.
Here is the campaign statement details for Citizens for Affordable Quality Home Care. This is the campaign statement details for Home Care First, Inc.
The financial stake in the pro-Proposal 4 campaign, was significant: the SEIU collected about $6 million per year in dues and fees from Home Help workers and the Michigan Home Quality Care Council hoped for renewed funding from the state that had been about $1.1 million annually.
One of the primary functions of advocates and their organizations should be to protect the rights of seniors and disabled people and the services they need to survive. To do this successfully, however, they need to maintain their independence and avoid conflicts of interest. In this convoluted campaign to amend the Michigan Constitution, advocates allied themselves with a labor union while simultaneously representing seniors and people with disabilities in collective bargaining with the union. The executive directors of two influential disability organizations were treasurers of the $9.3 million pro-Proposition 4 campaign and the committee that financed it with money entirely from union affilliates.
Seniors and people with disabilities and their advocates played a prominent role in promoting the uncontroversial aspects of the ballot proposal without acknowledging the more controversial union issues. There is a lot to be said for the quality and reliability of unionized workers who are adequately paid and trained and their role in improving the quality of care for people with disabilities, but, as far as I know, these arguments were not made in promoting the ballot proposal. Even if Proposal 4 had passed, the union and the advocacy organization representing seniors and people with disabilities were ultimately limited in their ability to improve the standing of Home Help workers. Although these workers were technically state employees, they received none of the benefits of most state employees and bargaining for better wages depended mostly on convincing legislators to provide adequate funding for the Home Help program.
Fortunately, the Home Help program is still intact and available for those who qualify for it. Beyond that, the chief beneficiaries of the ill-fated Proposal 4 campaign were the PR firms and the media outlets that ran advertising for it. Seniors and people with disabilities are probably no worse off, but advocates who were so intimately involved in this political campaign seemed unable to draw the line between themselves and outside interests and they probably undermined their credibility as advocates.
More on Proposition 4 from the DD News Blog
The Detroit Free Press held an on-line Web Chat on Proposal 4, Michigan's ballot initiative on collective bargaining rights for Home Help workers and continuation of an entity called the Michigan Quality Home Care Council to replace the Michigan Quality Community Care Council (MQC3) as the employer of Home Help workers for the purposes of collective bargaining with the union, SEIU Healthcare of Michigan. See an analysis of Prop 4 here and here .
The moderator for the chat was Jewel Gopwani from the Detroit Free Press. She was joined by Dohn Hoyle, Executive Director of the ARC Michigan, and Derk Wilcox from the Mackinac Center. They debated the issues involved in Prop 4 and answered questions from the public. The full transcript for the Chat is here . There were some details left out of the discussion and some statements that need further clarification.
Home Help workers are employed by seniors and people with disabilities and are paid with Medicaid funds to help their "employers" stay in their own homes. They provide help with personal care and household chores. Providers are often family members and friends of the senior or person with a disability and this was mentioned several times. The fact that they make up 75% of home help providers was left out. 80% of providers have only one client.
Parents, other family members, and friends usually view their participation in the Medicaid-funded Home Help Program as a way of subsidizing the care their loved-ones need at home, rather than as as a career choice or a way to make a living. They are often surprised that they are part of a unionized workforce. It is understandable that people who are trying to make a living taking care of people in their own homes may welcome unionization depending on the benefits they can get through collective bargaining. When Home Help workers voted on whether to have the SEIU represent them in 2005, fewer than 20% participated in the election. Much of the opposition to Prop 4 comes from family members who object to paying union dues (or fees if they opt out of the union) for what they see as little benefit to themselves or their disabled family member.
Dohn Hoyle from the ARC Michigan sees the unionization issue as a distraction from the real purpose of Prop 4, which he says is to write into the constitution The Michigan Quality Home Care Council to replace the MQC3 and maintain a registry of workers who have passed background checks and have access to training. Although both Hoyle and Wilcox agreed that the registry, background checks, and training are important, the MQC3 registry only lists 900 plus providers and could continue without inclusion in the Michigan Constitution. Background checks are required only for providers who want to place their names on the registry and are only a first step in assuring safety and quality care.
Looking at the events that led up to the unionization of Home Help workers, it seems obvious that designation by the state of the MQC3 as a co-employer of Home Help providers and the representative of seniors and people with disabilities in collective bargaining was crucial to forming a public employees union. Without the MQC3, there would not have been an "employer" for the union to bargain with. All in all, it is a peculiar arrangement. Home Help workers at least had the opportunity to vote for representation from the union while seniors and people with disabilities did not have a say in their representation by the MQC3.
Athough Dohn Hoyle asserted several times that without state funding the registry is not being maintained, he finally conceded that it is being maintained, just not with sufficient state funding to the MQC3. The union, SEIU Healthcare, contributed $12,000 to the MQC3 before the MQC3 signed the last extension of the union contract, according to Mr. Wilcox. This appears to be a conflict of interest between the union and the MQC3 who are supposed to bargain with each other, the SEIU on behalf of workers and the MQC3 on behalf of employers.
One argument for Prop 4 is that it will allow people to live at home rather than have to go to expensive nursing homes. The Home Help Program has been available for more than 25 years and will continue whether or not Prop 4 passes. Home Help services in no way replicate the level of care that is available in nursing homes. There are other Medicaid funded services through Medicaid waivers that provide for much more care than the Home Help Program. Home Help services are invaluable for many seniors and people with disabilities, but they are only part of an array of services needed by people with significant disabilities.
I had a question about how a family member or other Home Help provider who does not want to belong to the union, can opt out. This is what I heard from another parent in Southeast Michigan who looked into this:
For questions about union representation and opting out, contact SEIU Healthcare at 1-866-734-8466 and ask for Steven Cousins. He was very helpful to this parent and explained what the dues are for and can answer other questions that you may have.
Then, send a letter to:
Secretary Treasurer
c/o Sandra Mcmillan
2604 4th Street
Detroit, MI 48201
"I was told by SEIU Healthcare Michigan that I have the choice to opt out of the union as a Home Help Provider. I would like to opt out, and not have any future dues deducted from my paychecks. I understand that I will still have to pay a small monthly agency fee to remain under the Union contract, but will not have to pay union dues anymore."
In addition, provide all your contact information - name, address, phone number, and especially your Provider Number. Sign and date the letter.
Proposal 4 is a controversial ballot proposal that takes a non-controversial Medicaid-funded service for people who need help to remain in their own homes and places it at the center of a debate over left-right politics, public employee unions, the role of advocates for seniors and people with disabilities, and a formerly state-funded organization - the MQC3 - that may or may not disappear unless Proposal 4 passes.
Whether or not Proposal 4 passes, Home Help Services will continue to be provided for people on Medicaid. The Home Help Services program has been around for over 25 years. If you are on Medicaid, you are entitled to these services based on your need for them.
The following is the wording for Prop 4:
*************************************
PROPOSAL 12-4
A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE STATE CONSTITUTION TO ESTABLISH THE MICHIGAN QUALITY HOME CARE COUNCIL AND PROVIDE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING FOR IN-HOME CARE WORKERS
This proposal would:
- Allow in-home care workers to bargain collectively with the Michigan Quality Home Care Council (MQHCC). Continue the current exclusive representative of in-home care workers until modified in accordance with labor laws.
- Require MQHCC to provide training for in-home care workers, create a registry of workers who pass background checks, and provide financial services to patients to manage the cost of in-home care.
- Preserve patients’ rights to hire in-home care workers who are not referred from the MQHCC registry who are bargaining unit members.
- Authorize the MQHCC to set minimum compensation standards and terms and conditions of employment.
***************************************
Background Information and Analysis of Prop 4
To understand proposal 4, the best place to go for an objective analysis of the issues is to a report from the Michigan Senate Fiscal Agency (SFA) that provides background information on the proposal and explains the ramifications of a "yes" or "no" vote.
The Introduction to the SFA report lays out the issues involved in this proposal:
"Proposal 12-4 relates to workers who provide in-home care to Medicaid-eligible recipients of services under an existing State program called Home Help Services. These workers, who are hired by the recipients and paid by the State, are often relatives or friends of the recipients. The workers belong to a labor union, SEIU [Service Employees International Union] Healthcare Michigan. For this purpose, the workers are considered public employees of an entity called the Michigan Quality Community Care Council.
"In April 2012, legislation was enacted to prevent these workers from being considered public employees, and to prevent SEIU Healthcare Michigan from being recognized as their bargaining representative. A Federal lawsuit was filed to challenge that law. In June, the judge issued a preliminary injunction, preventing the law from taking effect for the time being. The Attorney General has filed a motion to appeal."
The Home Help Services Program is administered by the Michigan Department of Human Services and is paid for with state and federal Medicaid funds. The program supports services to seniors and people with disabilities on Medicaid who need assistance with personal care activities and household chores. For more information, see The DD News Blog. According to the SFA report, Proposal 4 reflects current practice with regard to recipients being allowed to hire and direct individual providers paid for by the state. Proposal 4 would not change this program.
The Michigan Quality Home Care Council (MQHCC) would replace the Michigan Quality Community Care Council (MQC3) and do what the MQC3 was doing, at least while it had funding: provide training for in-home care workers, create a registry of workers who pass background checks, and provide financial services to patients to manage the cost of in-home care. The MQC3 Board is made up of advocates for seniors and people with disabilities including Dohn Hoyle, the Executive Director of the ARC Michigan, who was the first Chair of the Board of Directors for MQC3. Here is a link to the MQC3 Web site.
According to the SFA, the MQHC "would set compensation standards, subject to appropriations by the legislature, and other terms of employment for the providers by program participants." Participant-employed providers would have the right to collectively bargain as public employees who do not belong to the civil service. "The providers would not be considered public or State employees for any other purpose, and would not have the right to strike," according to the SFA report.
Other pertinent facts are:
- The MQC3 was created in 2004 to coordinate personal assistance services provided by Home Help Services and to create a registry of providers.
- An election to organize Home Help Workers was held in 2005 with ballots sent out to 43,000 providers. Only about 8500 of them voted, with "yes" votes winning about 7 to 1 over "no" votes.
- According to a report from the Anderson Economic Group on "The Role of MQC3 and Home Help" from 2011, about 75% of the total number of home help workers are family members or friends of seniors or people with disabilities and 80% have only one client.
- In 2010 there were 53,516 consumers of home help services; In 2008, there were on average 44,000 home help providers each month.
- MQC3 had an annual budget of about $1.1 million from the Michigan Department of Community Health. Its registry contains the names of about 900 providers.
Objections to the organizing of home help workers have come from many of those who are family members or friends of the person they are caring for in their own homes who do not consider themselves State employees. Others object to paying 2.75% of their meager wages (about $8 per hour) in union dues. They may opt out of belonging to the union but they still pay a fee to the union for representation. As I understand it, the Michigan Department of Community Health deducts union dues and fees from Home Help workers pay checks, which are then sent through the MQC3 to SEIU Healthcare Michigan.
Others believe that the legislature, by passing Public Act 76 in April 2012 that amends Michigan's Public Employment Relations Act, has undermined collective bargaining rights and that a constitutional amendment is necessary to protect these rights. The law excludes people who receive government subsidies for their work from the definition of "public employee" and prohibits recognition of bargaining units made up of non-public employees. A Federal lawsuit challenged the law and an injunction has prevented it from going into effect.
The MQC3 has been defunded by the legislature and passing proposal 4 will put it back on its feet as the MQHCC. The organization's training programs and the registry of providers seem to be helpful, but whether it needs to be part of the Michigan Constitution is up to the voters.
One question that I have that I have not seen anyone address has to do with the MQC3 (and potentially the MQHCC) representing the "employers" of home help workers, seniors and people with disabilities who generate the Medicaid funding to pay for services. Were these "employers" ever asked if they approved of the MQC3 representing them or if they wanted such representation? It appears that the State assigned the MQC3 to represent seniors and people with disabilities without their knowledge or participation.
For Pro and Con views on Proposition 4, see opinion pieces in the Detroit Free Press from October 19, 2012:
Prop 4: Proposal assures higher standards for home caregivers, greater safety for patients by Dohn Hoyle
and
Prop 4: Family and loved ones providing home health care shouldn't be forced to pay union dues by Robert and Patricia Haynes
There will be a live chat on Proposal 4 at noon on Tuesday, October 23, 2012, sponsored by the Detroit Free Press. Go to the Web site to submit questions in advance.
***************************
I will be the first to admit that I am not an expert on many of these issues. I am just doing the best I can to piece together the information available to me. If you have questions, corrections, or comments on this blog post, please say so in the comments on my blog. I will publish them as long as they are civil and coherent. A diversity of views and opinions on this issue are welcome.
