Senator Boucher Statement RE: 5312, AN ACT CREATING A PROCESS FOR FAMILY CHILD CARE PROVIDERS AND PERSONAL CARE ATTENDANTS TO COLLECTIVELY BARGAIN WITH THE STATE
May 6, 2012Senator Toni Boucher (R-Wilton) released the following statement re: HB 5312, AN ACT CREATING A PROCESS FOR FAMILY CHILD CARE PROVIDERS AND PERSONAL CARE ATTENDANTS TO COLLECTIVELY BARGAIN WITH THE STATE.
“This bill is a power grab by unions directed at the states most vulnerable population. This will affect the flexibility of money providing them services and will result in higher costs. This will only hurt those who are unable to pay those higher costs and may result in diminished care.
“These groups of workers are already funded through the state budget and can be provided with higher pay and given more training if the legislature appropriates them more money each year. Adding a layer that would assess these providers with union dues may result in higher costs for the individuals that receive those needed services. The state currently directs the money to pay for PCA’s and for Child Care workers to the people who receive services. Then those employers pay providers.
“I offer up the thoughts from one of my constituents who is on the front lines of this debate.
‘As we have seen happen in Michigan and other places where states have agreed to the unionization of direct care workers employed caring for people with disabilities in their homes; the disabled and their families have suffered. Disabled people and their families have lost thousands of dollars a year used to purchase this direct care to union dues and higher wages without the benefits of improved care or more care but have been able to purchase fewer hours of care for their disabled loved ones with the same dollars as before. The union provides no benefit to these families, but diverts these direct care dollars for their own purposes, to increase their membership and influence in the political realm.
‘This interference by the union stands in direct opposition to the meaning of self-determination for people with disabilities which advocacy groups fought for many years to develop. It stands directly in between the person with a disability and their ability to direct how their direct care dollars may be spent and how much service it will purchase. And to restate, it provides no benefit direct or indirect to the person with a disability, their direct care giver or family member who assists them in their daily life.
‘In addition to sifting these dollars away one also has to look at how union members have behaved thus far in this process. My friend Chris has a son who is wheelchair bound and relies on his brother to assist him on a daily basis. This brother was at home in his own driveway, washing his car when union members came without a call, without an appointment to talk to him about supporting and joining their union.
‘My friend was astonished that union members would just show up like that in her driveway. She wanted to know where they got her son’s name from and why they would just show up at her house like that. My friend Ellen has a daughter who receives day programming only 2 days a week because of the severity of her disability. She lives in fear that her direct care worker who is finally well training, will no longer be able to provide service unless she joins the union.
‘I have been an advocate for children and adults with disabilities for more than 10 years. I have a son with Autism, Developmental Apraxia and Scoliosis. I know how difficult it can be just to get from day to day. I know how difficult it can be to make our dollars stretch to be able to do the things we need to do to have as normal a life as possible. The last thing people with disabilities, their families ‘and their direct caregivers need is an organization which gets in the middle of that, which filters out dollars earmarked to assist people with disabilities to have a self-determined life.’
Maryann Lombardi, Wilton, CT
“During the last ten years, private unions have diminished in size while government unions have grown dramatically, which has the potential to slow down state services. If there is a movement for unionization, I believe it should come from the people in the industry, not be imposed by the governor in league with SEIU. This is part of a nationwide effort to create more dues-paying members of this union. At last count, this forced unionization has been attempted in fifteen states. Some have resisted it successfully; we will continue to fight it here in Connecticut.”