A few words on home health care

by: Eric B.

Mon Jul 30, 2012 at 10:46:29 AM EDT

I don't think I've yet spilled ink on the ballot proposal to undo the state Legislature's law outlawing the home healthcare providers union. There's a reason for that. Conservatives describe it as a dues skim for SEIU that diverts resources away from the needy and to the union.  I have no idea whether that's true. What I do know, however, is a little something about the people who say that. Based on their track record for factual accuracy, the claim is probably 10 percent kernel of truth, 20 percent purposeful obfuscation, and 70 percent utter horseshit.

What we can be certain of is that tears from these people for the elderly shut-ins who they say are being ripped off are almost certainly as false as George Washington's teeth.  These people haven't batted an eyelash as human service programs have been gashed and cut over the last decade at both the state and federal levels to cut taxes for the wealthy, and these are the same people who a couple of years ago came up with a food stamp "reform" that would have prompted elderly shut-ins to starve to death. Their concern over this comes from the same place as their concern for the innocent Mexicans killed by the flow of firearms from the United States in a scheme they claim was cooked up by the Obama administration. Just as they ceased to care about freely flowing firearms when the victims couldn't be used as a political cudgel against Eric Holder, their concern for old people dries up when it can't be used to howl about greedy, corrupt unions.

What is certain is that human services improve immeasurably when the people providing them get some kind of training, which isn't possible without a centralized organization. We also know that Chelsey Sullenberger, who was a national hero for a minute for heroics that prevented a plane crash, received the requisite training from the pilot's union and not his employer (this is why he was only a national hero for a minute ... when the role union training played was made public, conservatives acted as if nothing had ever happened). As such, this is almost certainly true.

The proposal establishes the Michigan Quality Home Care Council, which would:

• Oversee a registry that links home care recipients with pre-screened home care providers in their area.

• Require home care providers on the registry to undergo background checks to ensure safety for home care recipients.

• Give home care providers access to critical job training, so they can better care for seniors and persons with disabilities.

• Save taxpayer dollars in avoided nursing home costs, since home care is significantly less expensive to taxpayers than nursing homes, according to numerous non-partisan studies.

If I put much thought into this, I'd probably think while this is all a good idea. It really is. I'm not sure if it is to enshrine it in the state constitution, however. What I am certain of is that when the state Legislature outlawed this union, they did it without replacing any of these mechanisms, or without making any effort to create any of this through the statutory process. In other words, they were really concerned with busting a union, less concerned with how it might affect services to people who'd benefit from it. And, the people who'd benefit are primarily care recipients, who need trained staff rather than relying on vague flourishes about a market at work.