June 27 is a big day for roughly 235 employees at the Episcopal Church Home.
           At the heart of the nursing home,
among the warm wooden beams and Tiffany stained glass windows of the Chapel of
the Good Shepherd, these workers — service, maintenance, and clerical
employees; licensed practical nurses; certified nursing assistants — will be
casting votes that will decide whether or not they will be represented by 1199
SEIU Upstate.
           If the vote passes (by simple
majority), the ECH will be a union shop for the first time in its 135-year
history.
           The vote will be the final stage in
what has become a protracted process involving worker testimony in front of the
National Labor Relations Board, and the ECH’s hiring of consultants Jackson
Lewis, a law firm specializing in workplace law and “union avoidance,”
according to the firm’s website.
           Employees at ECH say they initially
approached SEIU in January. Their issues: dissatisfaction with benefits
packages, the ECH’s shift to an “earned time off” vacation plan, staff turnover
and shortages, and the lack of a clear pay scale for new and veteran employees.
           Patrice Barr has been a certified
nursing assistant at the home for the past 13 years. She says she was one of
the ECH employees who initially contacted SEIU because “we need help.”
           “In my 13 years there, things have
gotten worse for the workers, not better,” Barr says. “We used to have
vacations and sick time. When they changed it to earned time off, all of our
time was combined together. So if you get sick, that’s your vacation. You
accumulate a certain amount of hours a week. So if I’ve accumulated 12 hours,
and I get sick for two days, that’s my time. Then I have nothing. I have to
start all over again.”
           Susan Harnaart, another certified
nursing assistant, has worked at the Church Home for 15 years. Paid $12.60 an
hour, she talks about new hires at the ECH whose salaries are comparable to
hers.
           “I was just talking to a new hire
who started at $9.25,” she says. “I mean, she’s a new hire starting at $2 or $3
less than me and Patrice. That kinda stinks.”
           “The really bad part about it,” says
Barr, “is that me and Sue have to train the new hires.”
Then there’s
Eden. Toward the end of 2000, the Episcopal Church Home became an officially registered
Eden Alternative facility. The Eden model strives to create habitats for human
beings rather than facilities for the frail and elderly. Each participating home
“Edenizes” at its own pace and according to its own formula.
           Typically, as is the case at the
Church Home, Eden Alternative facilities provide their residents with plants,
pets, and a “family style” dining option that’s more like eating at a
full-service restaurant than in a cafeteria.
           “Where it’s done right, the union’s
very supportive of the Eden Alternative,” says Bruce Popper, executive vice
president of 1199 SEIU. “Where it’s done wrong, it’s a mess.”
           Barr and Harnaart talk about “the
cats and birds” as additional duties straining already tight nurse-patient
ratios.
           In addition to their usual tasks,
which include washing, feeding, and exercising residents, Barr and Harnaart say
they’re now being asked to clean bird cages and catboxes, and function as
waitresses — coming to each resident to take drink, main course, and dessert
orders.
           “What is the remuneration for
enhanced duties?” Popper asks. “There’s a whole negotiation over having the
staff do it right instead of management saying ‘Same staff, we’ll just do
more.’ Workers at the Church Home are telling us, ‘Look, we don’t have enough
hands right now. When we’re on a day that’s short and you want us to do all
this stuff, it’s too much.'”
Church Home
management has chosen not to comment publicly on the union campaign. Instead, long-time
ECH President and CEO Loren Ranaletta has issued two brief press releases
acknowledging SEIU.
           The first, issued in early April,
states: “We do not believe that union representation is in the best interests
of this organization, our residents, or our employees.”
           In the second release, written June
13 in anticipation of the upcoming vote, Ranaletta says: “The employees at the
Episcopal Church Home have always been able to come to any member of the
management team, or human resources, with any issues, and we have always tried
to work with our employees. We hope and believe that most of our employees will
decide that a union is not in their best interests, and will vote to remain
union-free.”
           Ranaletta’s opposition to the union
has been made even more obvious by his decision to hire Jackson Lewis.
           The book on Jackson Lewis’s
union-busting activity is long and, depending on whose side you’re on, either
deeply impressive or alarmingly relentless.
           Known mainly as the law firm that
thwarted the unionization efforts of Borders employees in the late-90s, Jackson
Lewis has hosted expensive seminars with titles like “How to Stay Union-Free
into the 21st Century.” It was also chided by a hearing officer in 2000 for
helping management at Boston’s Corey Hill Nursing Home circulate a forged
letter among the home’s workers. Bearing SEIU letterhead, the letter apologized
for the union’s failure to do its job in representing hospital workers.
           Since Church Home workers began their
union drive, at least 18 memos addressing the drive have been sent from
management to staff. All of them encourage ECH workers to “know the facts” when
it comes to organizing.
           One memo alleges that 1199 SEIU has
been “intimidating employees who oppose the union.” Another states that 1199
SEIU spent no money in 2001 “on behalf of individual members.” One more says
1199 SEIU is only interested in the workers at the Church Home because “the
union wants to break into the Rochester nursing home market. So far 1199 has
negotiated only one nursing home contract in Rochester [at the Jennifer
Matthews Nursing & Rehabilitation Center].”
           Each of these memos includes two
lines of text at the bottom of the page: “Distributed for your information by
Episcopal SeniorLife Communities. If you have any questions, please feel free
to see your supervisor or any member of management.”
A new state
statute, “the labor neutrality act,” prohibits nursing homes and other health care
providers from using public funds to fight unionization.
           Hiring a consultant with a
reputation like Jackson Lewis is a costly proposition. And 1199 SEIU wonders
where that money is coming from.
           According to the union, close to
two-thirds of the residents at the Church Home are getting financial assistance
from either Medicare or Medicaid to help fund their stay. That level of funding
alone, says Popper, is enough to raise suspicions.
           Church Home management will not
comment on the amount of Medicaid and Medicare funding the home is receiving.
One Church Home official would only say “I can promise you we’re not using
Medicaid money [to pay Jackson Lewis].”
           But 1199 wants proof. And Popper
recently filed a formal complaint with the state attorney general’s office,
requesting an investigation into the Church Home’s finances. (The statute
requires employers to keep records for three years as proof taxpayer money was
not used for anti-union activities.)
           “We know the Church Home conducted
supervisory training on the clock,” Popper says. “We know that they held
captive audience meetings. We know they prepared literature. We know they hired
a consultant. All of those are grounds for investigation under the state law.”
           “Can I prove that they used Medicaid
money to do that? No. It seems to me that if most of their funding comes from
Medicaid and Medicare, the burden of proof should be on them to show that they
haven’t,” Popper says. “Because if they co-mingle it, if they dumped it all
into the same bank account, then how do you prove anything?”
           State Assemblyperson Susan John says
the proof issue is a problem, and something that’s being addressed at the state
level. “We’ve talked about the notion that people could set up a separate
foundation or bank account that has segregated funds in it which they will be
using for [anti-union activity],” she says. “It was not going to prevent them
from [fighting a union] if they make the business decision to do that. But they
aren’t going to be doing it with public dollars.”
           John is one of several state
politicians who have sent letters to Ranaletta in support of Church Home
workers seeking union representation. And while she’s eager to support the
workers, she also recognizes the sad economic state of nursing homes throughout
the country.
           “There’s no question in my mind that
ECH would pay better wages to all its employees if they had the money,” she
says. “But they’ve gotten hammered by the federal government. And the state has
not been terribly kind to the nursing home industry, either. Because nobody
wants to pay taxes. And taxes are what provide the funding to big health-care
institutions because the majority of the nursing home population is Medicaid.”
This article appears in Jun 18-24, 2003.
