A couple items from the income inequality file.
First, as State House News reports (paywall), the Baker administration is about the business reining in the overtime hours of the 39,000 people in the state who work as personal care attendants. PCA’s, as they are called, assist people who have severe disabilities with daily activities like getting dressed and bathing. This help enables many disabled people who might otherwise need to live in a nursing home to remain in their communities.
The cost of the PCA program is rising, and to cap that increase the Baker administration is restricting the number of overtime hours that PCA’s may work. As you may imagine (there being 24 hours in a day), many of the 26,000 people receiving PCA services require more than 40 hours a week of assistance. Nonetheless, the administration is targeting this program for savings by requiring advance approval by the state for any PCA working more than 40 hours per week, up to a maximum of 60 hours. No word on whether the administration is anticipating that this restriction might result in more nursing home placements of persons now able to live outside that setting.
PCA’s now earn $13.68 per hour, which translates to an annual income of $28,454 for a forty-hour week. (If you’re curious, the income necessary to afford a studio apartment in the state is $36,142).
Second, as DigBoston reports, the Baker administration is asking the Legislature to increase the amount of economic development tax credits the state awards to corporations annually from $30 million to $50 million, and also to allow the administration complete discretion to decide which corporations receive these new incentives (aptly named Extraordinary Economic Development Opportunity Credits).
By “complete discretion” to award these credits, the Baker administration is proposing that, to quote from its bill:
The decision by the secretaries to designate or not to designate a proposed project as an extraordinary economic development opportunity shall be a decision that is within the sole discretion of each of the secretaries, and may include such conditions as the secretaries shall in their discretion impose. Such decisions shall be final and shall not be subject to administrative appeal or judicial review… or give rise to any other cause of action or legal or equitable claim or remedy.
Wow – so much for the separation of powers. It’s not clear (to me at least) that this “extraordinary” delegation of authority to the executive branch to award tax credits, which expressly precludes any sort of court review to control abuses of discretion, would be constitutional. The Supreme Judicial Court has in the past approved laws in which the Legislature delegates its power to tax — but on the condition that certain safeguards have been met, including that some means of judicial review is available for parties aggrieved by the resulting decisions.
In any event, interested persons are invited to suggest to their Legislators that funding overtime hours for PCA’s to provide assistance to persons with disabilities is a higher priority, especially in this time of severe budget austerity, than funding extraordinary tax credits for favored corporations.
Here’s the link http://www.1199seiu.org/massachusetts_home_care_workers_first_in_nation_to_win_15_hour_starting_wage#sthash.LjSI0ssx.dpbs
From the same spot:
I don’t know much about this, but in general yours is the glass half-full version.
What if agencies, rather than hiring additional staff, are forcing current employees to work overtime when they don’t want to? If overtime is time-and-a-half, isn’t it more efficient and effective to hire more employees as more work would get done for the same amount of money (relatively, obviously there’s more overhead)? More entry levels jobs as well.
Maybe the current workers like overtime, and that’s great, but all organizations put in controls on overtime (like must be with managers approval) so it’s not exactly sometime that should be unexpected.
From one of the articles in your link:
…maybe — if you don’t know much — shooting from the hip shouldn’t be your first response….
But the point is a plan is in place to raise their rates, the union is excited and Baker is supportive. Baker is a big believer that these types of jobs are important. Why was this post written with the slant that Baker is screwing PCA’s and favors corporate interests?
Yes, it’s very good that there’s a plan in place to raise PCA wages. But $15 per hour two years down the road can’t be called extraordinarily generous — the minimum wage will be at least $11 per hour by then.
PCA’s are paid by the state, but they are hired by the people with disabilities whom they assist with various tasks, some of which, like bathing and dressing, are very intimate. It’s not unreasonable that a person with disabilities, having found a conscientious PCA, would prefer to use that PCA’s services rather than finding another PCA (also — the amount of PCA assistance the state will provide to a person with disabilities is not unlimited). And when the Governor and the union negotiated the 30-cent raise last year, was the union aware that these restrictions on overtime might in in the offing?
I found the juxtaposition of the Baker administration’s positions on PCA overtime and corporate tax breaks, both of which have been put forward during the past two weeks, illuminating of the Governor’s priorities.
but don’t you think that he had some issues- like financing lavish foreign trips by shifting non-transparent funds around, that seemed to contradict his public persona?
I think they should make more as well. I think there are others who should make less.
As to “corporate tax breaks”- it’s for the purpose of economic development, hopefully resulting in more jobs. Again, something the former governor doled out in abundance, not even including all the funds doled out by quasi-government organizations with development in their name with little or no oversight.
As to the overtime you might be right. Or you might not be.
Perhaps I should not comment. You seem to give Baker a fair shake most of the time. As you see below, when all else fails use the phrase “country club.”
Thank you for raising awareness of these issues…these are the decisions that happen on a regular basis in the administration and Legislature that have a real impact on people.
In the end, this is about values and priorities. We need to make sure the priority is on helping people who are getting left behind in this economy – and we need legislators who are willing to stand up for progressive values and take action when decisions like this are being made.
This is just an example of Governor Baker’s moral core:
The people making under $20 an hour need to tighten their belts in order to preserve tax breaks for the people in the $20,000-a-year country clubs.
The House largely shares his austerity agenda despite being overwhelmingly “democratic” on paper. It’ll be there long past Baker or the next Democrat, and making it progressive should be the long term plan.
Agree on both counts.
(n/t)
Getting GE here was swell. Living in a state where everyone who works a full time job can afford a home, food, clothing, medical, and savings for a rainy day and retirement would be as if we lived in a state that was controlled by Democrats!