Have and Have Nots

Part I

Another Supermarket Strike?

In 2003-2004 collective bargaining created a new pact between United Food and Commercial Workers Union and their employers.  With that new pact came new frustrations.  The 2003-2004 labor agreement established a two-tierred wage structure the treats new workers differently than established employees.  Starting pay for a second-tier worker begins at a nickle above the miniumum wage while employees with the first-tier can take home as much as $11.05 an hour.

The union, according to the Los Angeles Times, does not like the agreement saying it splits the grocery workers into a group of haves and a second tier of have-nots.  United Food and Commercial Workers Union wants to win higher wages for all of its members.  The Union is hoping to correct the errors of 2003-2004.  Californian’s with developmental disabilities are not so lucky.

In 2003-2004 California revised the definition of "substantial disability".  Apropos this changed eligibility criteria within the Lanterman Act and made if more difficult for a person with disabilities to qualify for services brokered by California’s 21-Regional Centers.

By applying the change to eligibility prospectively California has split people with developmental disabilities into two groups, a group of haves and a second tier of have-nots.  Those individuals receiving services prior to the 2003 eligibility changes are judged by the older, less stringent standards, while some individuals seeking services today, who are similiarly situated and no less in need, are denied services.  But unlike Grocery store workers, who have the United Food and Commercial Workers Union in their corner, Californian’s with developmental disabilities that are new to the system have almost no voice.

As we near the sunset of institutionalization, another two-tiered delivery system, it is somewhat ironic that advocates have so easily allowed another invidious two-tiered system to develop.  Sometime before 2003 The Association of Regional Center Agencies (ARCA) formed a Task Force to “generate standardized guidelines for eligibility determination among all regional centers…”  The guidelines generated by the Task were contrary to statutory standards under the  Lanterman Act.  Regardless, the ARCA board of managers accepted and approved the new guidelines and submitted the work of the eligibility task force to the state.  ARCA distributed the new guidelines to ARCA regional centers.  Some Regional Centers, like the Regional Center of the East Bay, began to use the new standards before the state officially changed the law and harmonized it with ARCA guidelines.  While our current two-tiered system finds its genesis from ARCA, it finds its nascency from a few pro-active regional centers working outside of California Law, and it continues due to a silence the portends acceptance and perhaps even satisfaction from those that now sit on the first-tier.

During California’s last budget cycle advocates managed to increase funding to some consumers.  The increase included a 24% rate increase for on the job training, and an additional $19 million for wage enhancements for direct care providers.  In total, the first-tier of consumers received an increase of $100 million above and beyond natural caseload growth and purchase of services.  The second-tier of consumers, the roughly 1200 have-nots, have managed to save California roughly 10 million dollars last fiscal year, or 10% of what was given to the first-tier.

As each year progresses, and more money is “saved”, the cost of correcting this injustice will grow more costly.  As a result the push back to maintain the status quo will grow stronger from those that benefit – those in the first tier.

While those in the second-tier of United Food and Commercial Workers will receive something, the second-tier of people with disabilities will receive nothing.  While those in the second-tier of United Food and Commercial Workers at least get the satisfaction of recognition and admission by its advocate, the second-tier in developmental services gets little more than silence.  But – this is changing, and a few are beginning to speak.  Let us hope it continues and the volume increase.