Proposition B's real intent is to force union on home caretakers

On Nov. 4, Missouri voters will be asked to pass Proposition B, known as the Quality Home Care Act. The brief description of the proposition presented on the ballot reads like a godsend to the older adult and disabled communities, citing the creation of a Missouri home-care council and a few other things that seem either positive, or at least innocent enough. After reading the limited amount of information on the ballot, who wouldn't vote for such a measure?

The true intent of this ballot measure is buried deep in the text and does not appear at all on the ballot seen by the voter. A reading of the entire text discloses that the true intent of this measure is to unionize Missouri's consumer-directed services program that allows Missouri's disabled citizens to remain in their homes as opposed to being placed in nursing homes. The measure has been heavily backed by the Service Employees International Union, one of the nation's largest unions, which has spent a great deal of money in order to get it on the ballot and get it passed. SEIU also helped assure that when you vote on this measure, you would not know that you were voting for unionization at all.

To understand the impact of Proposition B, it is first important to know what the consumer-directed services program is about. This program is Medicaid-funded and allows people with disabilities to receive personal attendant care in their own homes and maintain personal control of that care. The attendant can be someone they know and trust such as a family member or friend, but not the spouse. Many of the services performed by the attendant are personal, such as bathing, dressing and assistance with toiletry. No doubt, familiarity and comfort with the caregiver is important to the person receiving the care, and many disabled people choose family members to perform these personal, private things.

So do family members have a choice to opt out of union membership if they choose? Not really. According to the wording of this proposition, the entire state is considered a bargaining unit, and if 10 percent of the personal-care attendants in Missouri vote to unionize, the other 90 percent are forced to join the union and pay union dues. This means that if you choose to take care of a parent or other loved one with a severe disability who receives Medicaid to pay for personal care, you could be forced to join the union and pay dues in order to care for them whether you choose to or not.

Other issues surrounding this proposition include the prospect of strikes, something the proposition prohibits presently. But what about the future after the union has a foothold? In New York last August, this same union threatened to strike against the state's in-home care providers. The union also promises health-care coverage for personal-care attendants, but since the program is Medicaid-funded, how would this be paid for? Will this program have a substantial effect on administrative costs that will have to be borne by Medicaid? The proposition does not address this, and taxpayers need to know this before voting on such a measure. It was also stated in the proposition that current consumer-directed services attendants lacked training. This claim is patently false.

By far the most disturbing aspect of Proposition B is the fact that the wording on the ballot itself, which does not mention unionization, flagrantly misleading voters. In fact, the wording of the ballot has been a subject for legal contention and is still being litigated in the Missouri Supreme Court. While we support the right of workers to organize and appreciate many of the social changes resulting from that, if a cause is worth pursuing, it certainly is worthy of openness and honesty when it comes to the voters right to know what they are voting for.

It also defies the democratic principle of majority rule and common since to allow 10 percent of a work force to dictate to the other 90 percent whether or not they will belong to and pay into an organization they may not choose to belong to. It defies common sense especially in rural areas where recruitment of personal-care attendants can be more difficult to strap families who choose to perform that service for their loved ones with the prospect of forced union membership and the cost of dues.

We ask the public to thoroughly read over this proposition as long, cumbersome and confusing as it may be before casting their ballot on Nov. 4.

Will Richardson is the director of outreach and education at SEMO Alliance for Disability Independence in Cape Girardeau.