Unions and Direct Support Workers

[Guest guest]

Hi all:

Here are some thoughts about unions from a woman in Pennsylvania by the name of

Tina Siedel. Tina works for ACES$. Her thoughts and opinions are based on

recent dealings with Unions in Pennsylvania, which have been trying to get the

support of families to sign up for Union representation as is occurring here in

Illinois...

Ms Siedel says that in states where direct support workers were unionized, the

cost per hour for workers went up $4-$5 per hour, so you would have far fewer

hours available per month.

Participants lost the ability to decide what they wanted to pay workers because

the union agreement now dictated that.

Workers had to go through mandatory trainings and drug testing. Ms. Siedel

claims that in Virginia, they had been 250,000 direct support workers and of

those only 97,000 passed the testing, creating a shortage of workers (I am not

so sure I would want to employ anyone who tested positive, to be honest, in

fact, it sounds like we would want to avoid moving to Virginia, altogether!)

Firing workers is more difficult if they are unionized.

According to Ms. Siedel, Pensylvania did a study that determined the workers

would pay 7.9 million in union dues...not sure over what period of time..A life

time? 20 years? 40 years?

And, according to Ms. Siedel, in California, the unions promised a no strike

clause. But then, they did strike. Apparently, new union officers don't have

to honor commitments made by past officers..

I haven't the time at the moment to substantiate any of this. What I was hoping

to do, is to generate some good, well informed commentary on unions, pro and con

so that we can all make informed choices about whether it makes sense to

unionize direct support staff.

I have a knee jerk negative reaction to unions, but to be honest, I don't feel

all that well informed about the pros and cons.

Ellen

[Guest guest]

Hi all:

Here are some thoughts about unions from a woman in Pennsylvania by the name of

Tina Siedel. Tina works for ACES$. Her thoughts and opinions are based on

recent dealings with Unions in Pennsylvania, which have been trying to get the

support of families to sign up for Union representation as is occurring here in

Illinois...

Ms Siedel says that in states where direct support workers were unionized, the

cost per hour for workers went up $4-$5 per hour, so you would have far fewer

hours available per month.

Participants lost the ability to decide what they wanted to pay workers because

the union agreement now dictated that.

Workers had to go through mandatory trainings and drug testing. Ms. Siedel

claims that in Virginia, they had been 250,000 direct support workers and of

those only 97,000 passed the testing, creating a shortage of workers (I am not

so sure I would want to employ anyone who tested positive, to be honest, in

fact, it sounds like we would want to avoid moving to Virginia, altogether!)

Firing workers is more difficult if they are unionized.

According to Ms. Siedel, Pensylvania did a study that determined the workers

would pay 7.9 million in union dues...not sure over what period of time..A life

time? 20 years? 40 years?

And, according to Ms. Siedel, in California, the unions promised a no strike

clause. But then, they did strike. Apparently, new union officers don't have

to honor commitments made by past officers..

I haven't the time at the moment to substantiate any of this. What I was hoping

to do, is to generate some good, well informed commentary on unions, pro and con

so that we can all make informed choices about whether it makes sense to

unionize direct support staff.

I have a knee jerk negative reaction to unions, but to be honest, I don't feel

all that well informed about the pros and cons.

Ellen