President Obama signs the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009

Earlier today, President Barack Obama signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009. Here are the statements by President Obama, The First Lady, Michelle Obama, and Lilly Ledbetter from the signing ceremony, along with a copy of the law. The Act, as many know, overturns the U. S. Supreme Court's 5-4 decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 550 U.S. 618 (2007). The Act is the first bill that President Obama signed into law. Craig Estlinbaum Adjunct Law Prof Blog

A Victory for Women Workers

Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Bill on Its Way to President Obama Mike Hall January 27, 2009 It’s been a long and bumpy road, but women and other workers who suffer pay discrimination are about to find a smoother path to justice now that the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act is on its way to President Barack Obama’s desk. The House, this afternoon, passed the bill for the final time 250-177. The bill is named after the Alabama woman who, after working nearly 20 years at a Goodyear tire plant, discovered she had been paid significantly less than men doing the same job. A federal jury ruled in her favor but Goodyear appealed, and in 2007 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Ledbetter—and other workers—has no right to sue for a remedy in cases of pay discrimination after more than 180 days after the first paycheck, even if she—or other workers—didn’t discover the pay discrimination until years later. Since the ruling, hundreds of pay discrimination cases have been thrown out of court based on the decision. Says AFL-CIO President John Sweeney: The new Congress has made a real difference in America’s working women and men’s lives today by passing the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. This critical law will help ensure fairness and equality at the workplace. Shortly after the ruling in 2007, the House passed the first Ledbetter Fair Pay bill, but Senate Republicans blocked a vote and former President Bush vowed to veto it if it ever got to his desk. This year, the House passed the Ledbetter bill Jan. 9 and the Senate approved a slightly different version Jan. 22, requiring the House to vote again. Obama could sign the bill as early as tomorrow. from AFL-CIO NOW Blog As I was driving to work this morning I heard on NPR Radio that this bill will be signed today! Yes this is a victory for Women Workers, equal pay for equal work. NPR interviewed Ms. Ledbetter and she was very honored and pleased that the bill bears her name. She said that she was a supervisor. When she found out that her male counterparts, doing the same supervisory work were being paid more, she filed a lawsuit against Goodyear. Kudos to Lilly Ledbetter for not giving up the fight!

Here's a Great Editorial from the New York Times

Caring for the Caregivers published January 27, 2009 in print January 28, 2009, page A30 of New York edition With more jobs being lost all the time across the board — more than 71,000 layoffs in the United States were announced on Monday and Tuesday alone — there should be comfort in the fact that one sector, health care, continues to add jobs. In December, employers added 32,000 health-related positions. Unfortunately, one of the fastest-growing areas within the health care field — home care for the elderly — also is one of the lowest paid and most exploitable. Outdated labor rules from 1975 allow home care aides to be defined as companions, which exempts their employers, usually private agencies, from federal standards governing overtime and minimum wages. As the population has aged, however, demand for home care has grown and the work has evolved far beyond companionship. It is not uncommon for home care workers to perform significant housekeeping chores and to help their elderly clients move, dress and eat, make sure they take their medicines and go to doctors’ appointments. In its last days in office in 2001, the Clinton administration proposed a revision to the labor rules to allow federal protections to apply to personal home care aides, but the Bush administration promptly threw that out and reasserted the status quo. A 2007 Supreme Court ruling upheld the rules, and a push that year by House and Senate Democrats to pass a bill to update the law went nowhere. According to the Labor Department, personal and home care aides are expected to be the second fastest-growing occupation in the United States from 2006-2016, increasing by 51 percent, slightly behind the expected growth in systems and data communications analysts. Most home care aides are women, low income and minority, and many of them are immigrants. Some states have taken steps to provide them with basic labor protections. Efforts to unionize home care workers in some states also has led to wage gains and better conditions. But the progress is incomplete without a federal law to recognize and protect the home care work force. It is unconscionable that workers who are entrusted with the care of some of the nation’s most vulnerable citizens are themselves unprotected by basic labor standards. It is also unwise, because poor pay for long hours leads to high turnover, which undermines the quality of care. Turnover also drives up the cost of providing home care — a needless drain on Medicaid, which pays for many home care services. And that is not the only way that poor quality home care jobs end up costing taxpayers. Nearly half of home care workers rely on food stamps or other public assistance, so taxpayers ultimately compensate for their low pay and inadequate benefits. Of necessity, job creation and job quality will be the focus of the Obama administration in 2009, and, most likely, for many years. The Department of Labor could rewrite the rules to extend federal protections to home care workers. Or Congress and the White House could work together to pass a law granting those protections. Either way, the point is to ensure that home care, a 21st-century growth industry, creates good jobs. Be sure to read the comments generated by this editorial. They are very interesting! Thanks to Leonila Vega, director of the Direct Care Alliance, for her contribution.

Relief Seen for Jobless and States in Health Care Plan

by Robert Pear The New York Times published January 27, 2009 in print January 28, 2009 on page A1 of the New York edition WASHINGTON — The stimulus bill working its way through Congress is not just a package of spending increases and tax cuts intended to jolt the nation out of recession. For Democrats, it is also a tool for rewriting the social contract with the poor, the uninsured and the unemployed, in ways they have long yearned to do. With little notice and no public hearings, House Democrats would create a temporary new entitlement allowing workers getting unemployment checks to qualify for Medicaid, the health program for low-income people. Spouses and children could also receive benefits, no matter how much money the family had. In addition, the stimulus package would offer a hefty subsidy to help laid-off workers retain the same health plans they had from their former employers. Altogether, the economic recovery bill would speed $127 billion over the next two and a half years to individuals and states for health care alone, a fact that has Republicans fuming that the stimulus package is a back door to universal health coverage. “It’s raining money,” said Representative Michael C. Burgess, Republican of Texas. The House plans to vote Wednesday on the $825 billion bill, and the Senate is expected to vote on a similar measure next week. As Congress rushes to inject cash into a listless economy, it is setting aside many of the restraints that have checked new domestic spending for more than a decade. The White House said the changes contemplated by Congress would provide coverage for nearly 8.5 million newly uninsured people who had lost their jobs and would protect Medicaid for many more whose eligibility would otherwise be at risk. Of the $127 billion cost, the Congressional Budget Office said, $87 billion would be used to increase the federal share of Medicaid, $29 billion would subsidize private insurance and $11 billion would finance Medicaid for unemployed workers who could not otherwise qualify. Most of the aid is billed as temporary. But Republicans fear that states would get hooked on it, just as they might grow accustomed to a big increase in federal aid to education, also included in the bill. Democrats said the current economic crisis did not allow time for public hearings on the legislation. “This is as urgent as it gets,” said Representative Anna G. Eshoo, Democrat of California. After the House Ways and Means Committee approved its piece of the economic recovery legislation last Thursday, Representative Pete Stark, Democrat of California, said, “We accomplished more today than in the last eight years.” Congressional Democrats developed the package in close consultation with President Obama. Health care provisions of the bill taking shape in the Senate are broadly similar to those in the House bill, though they may prove less expensive. Obama aides and advisers said the president would insist on health insurance assistance for the unemployed as part of a final bill, which he wants to sign by mid-February. The legislation would allow states to provide Medicaid to an entirely new group: those who are receiving unemployment insurance benefits, their spouses and children under 19. Medicaid is normally for low-income people, and for decades it has been financed jointly by the federal government and the states, with the federal share averaging 57 percent of costs. The economic stimulus bill prevents states from enforcing a means test, saying, “No income or resources test shall be applied with respect to any category of individuals” who become eligible for Medicaid because they are receiving unemployment benefits. The federal government would pay 100 percent of the costs for people enrolled under this option through December 2010. Republicans said this proposal would take a big step toward federalizing Medicaid. For their part, Democrats said the changes took a major step toward their goal of coverage for all Americans. At the same time, the legislation would provide a huge measure of fiscal relief to state Medicaid programs, at a time when state revenues are declining and the number of Medicaid recipients is rising because of the recession. The federal share of Medicaid spending now ranges from 50 percent in higher-income states like New York and Connecticut to more than 73 percent in poor states like Mississippi and West Virginia. Under the House bill, the federal share would be increased by at least 4.9 percentage points in every state, and by much more in states with large increases in unemployment. The bill would also offer a lifeline to workers who have lost health insurance along with their jobs. In theory, such workers and their families can keep their group health benefits for 18 months under a federal law, the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986, known as Cobra. But laid-off workers are often required to pay 102 percent of the full premium, including the employer’s share, so the cost now can be prohibitive. Under the bill, the federal government would pay 65 percent of the premiums for a year. That subsidy would almost surely increase the number of laid-off workers choosing to continue coverage. Republicans wanted to deny the premium subsidies to people who had annual incomes of more than $100,000 or assets of more than $1 million. They also wanted to prevent people with more than $1 million of family income from taking advantage of the Medicaid option for the unemployed. Democrats voted down those proposals in the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Representative Nathan Deal, Republican of Georgia, said “the poorest of the poor” had long been subject to income and asset tests when applying for Medicaid. But, Mr. Deal argued, under the new option, a millionaire could get Medicaid benefits, financed entirely by the federal government, without being asked about such matters. The committee chairman, Representative Henry A. Waxman, Democrat of California, said, “It’s highly unlikely that you are going to find millionaires who would like to go on Medicaid.” Moreover, Mr. Waxman said, the purpose of the new options is to “streamline the enrollment process” and speed assistance to people who are unemployed. “It’s going to set up an unnecessary barrier if we have any income test,” Mr. Waxman said, adding that the enforcement of a means test could require “a whole new bureaucracy.” The bill would also create a new option for people 55 or older and for those who have worked for the same employer for 10 years or more. They could retain health benefits under Cobra, at their own expense, until they became eligible for Medicare at 65 or obtained coverage through another job. Under this option, employers said, younger workers could conceivably hold onto their coverage for decades. In a joint letter to Congress, the United States Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers and the National Retail Federation opposed this proposal, saying it would drive up costs for workers already covered by employer health plans. “The people who sign up for unsubsidized coverage under the new option are more likely to have serious medical conditions and therefore to increase the cost of employee health care disproportionately,” said E. Neil Trautwein, a vice president of the National Retail Federation. If states wanted the federal government to pay a larger share of Medicaid, they would have to maintain current eligibility levels and could not adopt more restrictive criteria. But states could reduce benefits or payments to health care providers. Representative Christopher S. Murphy, Democrat of Connecticut, said he feared that such cuts would make it more difficult for Medicaid recipients to find doctors in some parts of the country.

Will Small Business Owners Support Health Care Reform this Time?

by Mike Hall, Jan 27, 2009 As part of our series looking at health care reform proposals and initiatives from a range of groups and experts, today we take a look at the small business community. In the early 1990s, when President Clinton launched his ambitious campaign for comprehensive health care reform, it was the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) that struck the sharpest knife into the reform initiative. But a group of small business owners and employers and self-employed entrepreneurs has found startling similarities between what small business owners see as key issues in health care reform and some of the central principles unions say any plan must be built around. Main Street Alliance, a network of state-based small business health care coalitions, recently surveyed 1,200 small business owners. The coalition also conducted in-depth interviews and found that small business owners and employers:

• Are concerned deeply about the adequacy of insurance, including the breadth and affordability of services covered by their plans.
• Believe government should provide a public alternative to private coverage.
• Want increased oversight of private insurers.
• Are willing to contribute their fair share toward a system that makes health care work for small businesses, their employees and the communities they serve.

One of the key issues for unions today is defending the public insurance plan that President Obama is proposing as an alternative to private insurance and that insurance companies and right-wingers have teamed up to try kill.

The Main Street Alliance asked small business owners to choose between a reform plan with a public insurance option and one with expanded private market options. Fifty-nine percent preferred the public plan option, while just 26 percent picked the private insurance option.

Here’s what Jim Houser, who runs an auto repair business in Portland, Ore., has to say about insurance companies:

Most health insurance companies have so much power. They decide who is covered and who isn’t, they determine what qualifies as a pre-existing condition and what doesn’t, and they can deny coverage for a procedure and you often have to go through a long appeals process. Health insurance companies are making huge profits off of people’s ill health: that means money that could be taking care of people is going into the pockets of CEOs and investors.

The Obama administration is developing a comprehensive plan to address a broad range of health care concerns. The AFL-CIO has not endorsed a specific plan but has established certain principles that any plan should be built around.

Reform must secure high-quality health care for all; lower the costs that are now crushing working families and businesses; and share responsibility among employers, government and individuals among other principles. Click here for more information.

Of course, the Main Street Alliance’s report, Taking the Pulse of Main Street: Small Businesses, Health Insurance, and Priorities for Reform, is just one of many studies and surveys that needed to be carefully examined. But it does show that while the NFIB may claim to be “the voice of small business,” small business owners and employers speak with many voices. Small business owners in our communities just might be an ally for health care reform.

Click here to read the full survey. Click here to take a look at proposals by California Nurses Association/National Nurses Organizing Committee (CNA/NNOC) calling for a single payer system and recommendations from Health CEOs for Health Reform.

Click here to read about University of California professor Jacob Hacker’s call for a creation of a public health care insurance plan as an option for workers and families who either have private insurance coverage or no coverage at all.

1 comment

Jimmy1920 on 28.01.2009 at 13:33

Mike

Important Point. Small businesses and their employees probably have the most to gain from meaningful health care reform. They will be able to draw on a larger talent pool because employees won’t need to make job decisons based on the health benefit package.It will level the competitve playing field. Individuals with creative ideas will have one less barrier to overcome in bringing new ideas to the marketplace.The problem is that the NFIB and Chambers of Commerce and many business associations are in the business of marketing their own health insurance programs. They are not speaking for the interests of their members, but for their own business interests. In addition, many of the smallest businesses aren’t don’t even belong to an association.Fortunately a group like this is willing to come forward and be a genunie advocate for small businesses and put common sense ahead of ideology and self interest.See my own blog posts on the topic. http://thehealthcaremaze.wordpress.com/2008/11/22/health-insurance-for-small-business/http://thehealthcaremaze.wordpress.com/2008/10/25/ask-jesse-the-artist/

from AFL-CIO Now Blog

Legislation Introduced to Gain Health Insurance for Maine's Direct Care Workers

On January 15th, the Maine Direct Care Worker Coalition was successful in getting a bill introduced for a pilot program for health care coverage for direct care workers. The bill is sponsored by Senator Nancy Sullivan, former co-chair of the Insurance and Financial Services Committee. Senator Sullivan became a champion for direct care worker issues after a strong hearing on a bill (pdf) addressing health care for DCWs heard by the committee last year. The bill echoed the recent recommendation of the Bureau of Insurance. The report does mention Dirigo and Dirigo's design as a possible way of providing DCWs with health insurance. What that means is that because we workers are low paid, we could get help with subsidies to help with the cost of the insurance. But, LD1687 failed because it was Dirigo specific. Dirigo was in trouble last year. Now with the loss of potential revenue from the "beer tax", that the beverage lobby spent millions to defeat (just think if those millions were spent on health care instead!), Dirigo is surely struggling. There are no more subsidies for individuals or sole proprietors or small businesses. Enrollment is closed for those who need subsidies. With the Maine State Chamber of Commerce (please see post about small businesses and health care reform) filing litigation against the way the savings offset payment is figured, that also slows the process of Dirigo getting those payments. I think litigation on this has been filed almost every year since Dirigo went into operation. And, the Maine State Chamber had representatives at the table during the Direct Care Worker work group sessions with the Bureau of Insurance last summer. Go figure. With Dirigo in trouble, that leaves DCWs again with little or no health insurance options. The bill as introduced reads: An Act to Enhance Health Care for Direct Care Workers This bill would establish a pilot project with a $500,000 limit (up to discussion) that will be available to providers of MaineCare Services to enhance or add health insurance for their health care workers. The funding will come from MaineCare. There will be a simple process by which providers may apply for this limited project. The DCWC (Direct Care Worker Coalition) is working on steering this legislation away from Dirigo. That's what foundered our last attempts with LD1687. This is a pilot project. We are working out the details as to how agencies will be chosen to participate. One thing I'm pushing for is that the money does get turned into health insurance for the workers, not what I call fluff. Fluff like "health care fairs" where we learn how to eat right, get enough exercise, live healthy. I think we all know how to do that, no matter what we do for work. Fairs like that are nice and I do enjoy them and enjoy talking with fellow workers, but I want this to come down as health insurance for direct care workers. Talking with other advocates who have been working on this issue for years, I get the feeling from them that this is the closest we've ever come to actually gaining health insurance for DCWs. Don't kid yourself, although this is excellent, we still have a lot of hard work ahead of us. We need to be at any legislative hearings pertaining to this bill, showing our support and our need for health insurance. Yes, advocates have been there for us in the past, but it is also very effective for our senators and representatives to hear it from us workers. I'm very excited about this bill and am working with the DCWC to push this forward. We are at the beginning of the process. As we move it along, I'll post as the information becomes available. It is very exciting!

Pilot Health Plan for Iowa Direct-Care Workers Moving Forward

A report (pdf) by the Iowa Department of Health and Human Services and the Division of Insurance outlines a demonstration project that would provide health insurance for up to 250 direct care workers through a voluntary employer-sponsored plan. The report was a directive of HF 2539, a health insurance reform bill passed during the 2008 legislative session.

Report recommendations include:

• eligibility requirements for both workers and employers
• coverage and cost parameters, and
• criteria for measuring success

Employee contributions would be limited to 2.5% of gross family income and employers would be required to contribute at least 50% of the cost of an employee’s single plan. The remainder would be subsidized by the state.

The goal of the project, as stated in the report, is to determine whether the availability of affordable health care coverage helps to stabilize the direct care workforce and improve quality of care. However, there was acknowledgment that the size of the project which is limited to 250 workers may not be large enough to adequately evaluate whether the goal of the project is met.

The recommendations of the report must now be introduced in legislation and passed in both the House and the Senate.

Allison Lee

National Campaign Manager

Health Care for Health Care Workers

alee@phinational.org

2 Responses to “Pilot Health Plan for Iowa Direct-Care Workers Moving Forward” Becky Johnson, January 22, 2009 at 8:27 am

"This is a start in the right direction,although, I don’t think 250 is a big enough number to evaluate. I know, from experience, that if a person has some kind of benefits they will do a better job and stay at the job longer. I live in a small town in Iowa, and one of our nursing homes have increased starting wage, CNA’s left other nursing homes to work there. This particular nursing home is doing quite well with an adequate staff and residents getting better care.

I am going to Des Moines next week for “A Day At The Capitol” and talk to my legislators about health insurance for the direct care worker."

Helen Hanson, January 23, 2009 at 9:40 am "I too think this is a step in the right direction, and 250 is not a large enough number, but at least it is a start.

Here in Maine, we successfully got a bill into the Legislature for this session. Our bill will also set up a pilot to insure direct care workers.

We do not yet have the specifics, this will be hammered out in the upcoming weeks, but like in Iowa, it is a step in the right direction.

It takes small steps, and sometimes steps backwards, to achieve your goals. I keep saying, 'Let’s keep this moving forward!'

Thanks to PHI, we in Maine will be watching what happens in Iowa.

I think not having health insurance through our work is a grave injustice to direct care workers. I hear from co-workers that having health insurance will greatly help them."