The Pros and Cons of Proposal Four
(League of Women Voters, http://www.lwvmi.org/documents/LWVMIProCon11-12.pdf)
Note: This information is provided by the League of Women Voters. Find out more about this nonpartisan organization at www.lwvmi.org
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.
Should this proposal be approved? YES __ NO ____
Citizens for Affordable Quality Home Care , a bipartisan coalition of senior advocates, disability rights groups, veterans, clergy, law enforcement officials and community leaders , supports the Keep Home Care Safe proposal to establish Michigan Quality Home Care Council (MQHCC). An eleven – member council appointed by the Governor will establish a registry to help eligible recipients obtain Home Help services. The registry will pre – screen workers, do background checks and provide critical job training so workers can better care for those needing assistance . The home care workers will have collective bargaining rights, but are not State employees. Medicaid pays workers, but p atients are responsible for hiring and firing the home care workers. MQHCC enables seniors and people with disabilities to choose safe, quality care in their own homes as an alternative to expensive institutional care. According to the Anderson Economic Group report , Michigan saves $47,000 annually for each person using home services rather than being in a nursing facility. A similar Michigan Quality Community Care Council (MQC3) established in 2004 was eliminated by the Governor and Michigan Legislature in 2012 . By monitoring unemployment claims by service providers, MQC3 save d the state $1,100,000 in unemployment benefits over four years. For more information go to www.keephomecaresafe.org.
This proposal would amend the Michigan Constitution to allow the unionization of home-based caregivers as state employees. If passed the Constitutional amendment would override Public Act 76 of 2012. PA 76 amended the Public Employees Relations Act (PERA) to exclude in the definition of “public employees” persons who receive a govern ment subsidy in their private employment and prohibit the recognition of a bargaining unit of individuals who are not public employees. Elected officials passed PA 76 to eliminate the Michigan Quality Community Care Council and stop collecting dues for the Service Employees International Union on behalf of home care workers. Citizens Protecting Michigan’s Constitution (CPMC) opposes Proposal 4 arguing that home care workers are not employed by the state but by their clients, and, therefore, should not have collective bargaining rights and pay union dues. CPMC states that the federal Home Help Program is already in existence to allow seniors and disabled people to receive care at home instead of at a nursing facility. Most seniors in the program use family members to provide the services. CPMC argues that this proposal would hijack the Michigan Constitution to allow unionization of caregivers as state employees. For more information go to www.handsoffourconstitution.com.
For Ferndale 115 News coverage of election-related stories, including candidate profiles and League of Women Voters break-downs of the ballot proposals, please visit https://oaklandcounty115.com/category/voter_info/.