Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "26412661",
    "label": "Welfare - Work - AFSME Proposals",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/26412661"
}

{
    "id": "26412661",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/26412661",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "Welfare - Work - AFSME Proposals",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/26412661",
    "collections": [
        "Records of the Domestic Policy Council (Clinton Administration)",
        "Cynthia Rice's Subject Files"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/61/4126/26412661/content/presidential-libraries/clinton/foia/2009-1414-S/2009-1414-S-JPG/Box_074/42-t-647851-20091414-S-074-009-2015/42_t_647851_20091414_S_074_009_2015_Page_001.JPG",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/61/4126/26412661/content/presidential-libraries/clinton/foia/2009-1414-S/2009-1414-S-JPG/Box_074/42-t-647851-20091414-S-074-009-2015/42_t_647851_20091414_S_074_009_2015_Page_001.JPG",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/61/4126/26412661/content/presidential-libraries/clinton/foia/2009-1414-S/2009-1414-S-JPG/Box_074/42-t-647851-20091414-S-074-009-2015/42_t_647851_20091414_S_074_009_2015_Page_001.JPG",
    "imageCount": 33,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/26412661",
    "naId": 26412661,
    "levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
    "otherTitles": [
        "42-t-647851-20091414-S-074-009-2015"
    ],
    "recordType": "description",
    "ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}

{
    "seq": 33,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "document",
    "url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/61/4126/26412661/content/presidential-libraries/clinton/foia/2009-1414-S/2009-1414-S-PDF/Box_074/42-t-647851-20091414-S-074-009-2015.pdf",
    "mediaId": "91b3f4055afa976d",
    "ocrText": "Clinton Presidential Records\nDigital Records Marker\nThis is not a presidential record. This is used as an administrative\nmarker by the William J. Clinton Presidential Library Staff.\nThis marker identifies the place of a publication.\nPublications have not been scanned in their entirety for the purpose\nof digitization. To see the full publication please search online or\nvisit the Clinton Presidential Library's Research Room.\nMERICANE PECERATION EMERGERY\nAPL-CIO\nMUNICIPAL\nEMPLOYEES\nThinking Creatively\nAbout\nWelfare-To-Work\nJob Creation\nFebruary 1998\n10/20/97\nMarie Monrad\n- Director of Public Polacy / AFSME 202/429-1155\n- Did attend two reetings\na\nDOL\n- Attending another one tomorrow\nQuestion=\nwhat else is out there 2\n- Medicaid nursing training\n- CDBG\n- Brownsfield\n- EZ/EC\n- DOT\noriginal plan\n5-10 cities\nCabnet Senetimes, etc. POTUS\nWants conversation w/ key people w/ Key agains\nabout available Funds\nThan they could stare information w/ City falks\n2\n1\nThey want information\nand/or\nwant pointproon at each agency\nthey could store info about what theire hearing\nNeed commitment from higher upo\n2\nHow might we want to high light this?\n3\nAlso trying to bridge the gap\nthey say\n- Albany NY\n-\nwhy Jon't be Think\ncreatively about\n- NYC\ngrant diversion\n- Philadephia\nunmet puffer\n- Pittsburgh (maybe)\nnerb that aren't\n- Indianapolis\nin current bargaining\n*\n- Detroit\n2 to 3 years\n- Cincinnati\ngrafthpa trol\netc\n- Milwan kee\nMostplaces have\n- Washington state\nbod hung\nfreezer\n- East Bay Regional Parks\ntrail maintenance\nThis will\n- Los Angeles city cound\nlet than\nexpand\n2\nThen ask choure= i) program with \"groduction\"\nor ii) some of jobs\n3\nBiggest concerns\nI\nDon't want to spend $\n2\nwant political cover\nnot another CETA\nwant to be a model program\nHas dore alot of walk on state laws\nand 12gr\nChiff Cohuson\n20-30\nsteve Savnar\nlozal officials in Nov,\nIn charago\nQuestion: Are they on \"welfore\" with the\nclock Holing of wage only $3 W2W gant\nAFSCME\nCC EK, CR\nFile:\nWR-Unions\nWELFARE\nREFORM\nWORKING\nFOR\nDIGNITY\nAFSCME'S PLAN\nTo Create A\nReal Working Welfare Partnership\nbetween\nThe Union, The Federal Government,\nCities and Welfare Recipients\nCreating New Work Opportunities\nfor\nWelfare Recipients\nJune 1997\nA REAL WORKING WELFARE PARTNERSHIP\nAFSCME proposes to work with the Clinton Administration and the Mayors of\na number of large urban cities to design programs that bring welfare recipients new\nwork opportunities and union benefits.\nAFSCME has identified a number of program areas that will serve not only\nwelfare recipients, but also the public. Each will be customized to the unique needs\nof the particular city and its welfare population. Work opportunities will fall under\nthree categories:\nIdentifying new work that is not being performed now is the highest priority.\nThe Partnership will match up the demand for particular services that the City\nhas otherwise been unable to meet with welfare recipients who can perform the\nwork. Also, each city would make an on-going assessment of where future\ndemand for services is expected.\nProviding transitional work experience is essential for those not qualified to\nmove immediately into newly created slots.\nThe City can also create work opportunities and save money by bringing in-\nhouse some functions it now contracts out.\nThese programs are designed around the following criteria:\nThe work activities are designed to maximize how well the state meets its\nfederally mandated work requirements.\nWelfare workers will receive paychecks for work performed, unless they are in\na training or transitional work experience that makes this infeasible. It is\nassumed that grant diversion of welfare grants to the employer to provide\npaychecks is the preferable route of funding positions.\nThe program is designed to be cost-effective. In most places, the grant\ndiversion alone will fully offset the cost of a paycheck, FICA, workers comp, UI\nand some workplace benefits. For additional resources, the union, the City and\nthe Clinton Administration would agree to work together to find as many\nfunding sources as possible to make these programs a success. All will commit\nto try to leverage private or foundation support as well.\nThe particular types of jobs identified will reflect the skill levels appropriate for\nmost welfare recipients. Those not able to perform them will be offered\ntransitional employment or training experiences that lead to appropriate jobs.\nThe union will be an active participant from beginning to end. At a minimum,\nunion concurrence will be obtained before any placements are made. Ideally,\nunion involvement will include identifying opportunities for collaboration,\nproviding training, peer support and mentoring for the new welfare workers.\nTo foster trust of existing workers and ensure that work created is truly new\nwork, each city would have to commit to maintain existing staffing levels in\nareas where welfare workers are placed. These programs are also designed to\nprotect the existing municipal work forces from displacement.\nThe union will represent the welfare workers and provide them with a union\ncontract.\nThe union must be an active partner both in designing and implementing the\nprograms. The following outline is a beginning to that process.\nDESIGNING UNIQUE PROGRAMS FOR EACH CITY\nI.\nIDENTIFYING NEW WORK:\nEach city would identify particular areas of unmet needs. They would pool\nsources of funds to create a number of \"flagship\" programs that would employ large\nnumbers of welfare recipients with intensive supervision and they would also identify\nthroughout various city agencies a smaller number of more dispersed positions that\ncould be created.\nA number of particular services jump out as high-demand areas, either because\nof changes in the workforce, demographics, or changes in our society. The following\nare some programs each city may want to consider.\nA.\nCREATING CHILD CARE PROGRAMS:\nThe City could create on-site child care facilities located at city office buildings,\nhospitals, or clinics. These would serve not only the children of welfare recipients who\nare now working for the city, but also the children of existing city workers. Depending\non market demand, the city could create the child care services most in need, such as\ninfant care or non-traditional hours. Many hospitals, in particular, have space available\nwhich could be converted to day care areas. If the city has existing child care\nfacilities, they could expand them with welfare workers who are trained to be child\ncare providers.\nThe City could bundle new federal child care dollars and existing Social Service\nBlock Grant Funds and/or CSBG funds to create the new facilities, and use grant-\ndiverted funds of welfare recipients to help staff the facility.\nThe welfare agency would identify for the city those recipients who are capable\nof working in such a field, and if they are not trained, the city could coordinate with\ntraining programs. (See discussion under Transitional Employment/Training)\nB.\nHOME HEALTH CARE\nRecognizing the demographics of an increasing number of elderly people who\nwill need assistance in their homes, the City could create within its Department of\nPublic Health a roster of home visitors and/or home health aides. These workers\nwould be city employees who would, depending on the services needed, be home\nvisitors to check on the elderly, or health aides who would see to the health needs of\nthe elderly as patients. (See attached pilot proposed by UDW in California as an\nexample.)\n1\nThe City could either charge a small fee for those able to pay, or use Medicaid\nfunds for those who are indigent. For those recipients who may need some additional\ntraining to be health aides, Medicaid may reimburse the City's health agency for a\ncertain number of training hours.\nC.\nTRANSPORTATION FOR NEW JOBS\nRecognizing that welfare recipients who are now asked to work may require\ntransportation to their job, the City could hire welfare recipients to run van pools that\npick up other welfare recipients at their homes and get them to work.\nThe City could participate in a number of demonstration projects being\ndeveloped by HUD, or pursue DOT or ISTEA funds for such a program.\nD.\nPROVIDE MORE ADULTS FOR CHILDREN IN SCHOOL\nRecognizing the acute need for more adults to monitor, supervise and interact\nwith children in elementary and high school settings, the City could put welfare\nrecipients to work in a number of school capacities: lunch room, playground and hall\nmonitors; extra adults to ride on buses; after-school programs; teachers' aides;\nsecurity.\nThe city could pool DOE funds, state education funds and use grant-diversion\nof welfare grants to employ welfare recipients in these positions.\nE.\nAGENCY-IDENTIFIED NEW POSITIONS\nThe Mayor could mandate that each city agency identify new work that they\nbelieve could be done if new staff were made available. (Agency heads are often\nasked to do the opposite of this, that is, identify positions and services that could be\ncut in times of budget shortfalls.) The Mayor would then identify which projects could\nhave the largest success as welfare-to-work program and develop them with the city\nagency and union concurrence. Such project areas may include: assistance in local\nlibraries, expanded recycling, expanded security in the city buildings, creating \"graffiti\npatrols\" to clean public buildings, etc.\nThese positions could be created as part-time or full-time permanent positions\nthat are new entry or even \"pre-entry\" level titles. They could be designed as\napprentice-type positions which convey first priority for consideration when existing\nposition vacancies become open.\nThese positions could be funded by grant diversion, surplus TANF funds, and\npossibly leveraging foundation or competitive federal grant support, depending on the\ntype of activity.\n2\nII.\nTRANSITIONAL EMPLOYMENT/TRAINING\nThe City could arrange with the local welfare agency to accept those welfare\nrecipients most qualified for the positions identified by the City. For those recipients\nnot yet qualified, the city could work out a number of forms of transitional employment\nor training arrangements to \"feed\" welfare recipients into the new slots as they\nbecome qualified.\nA.\n\"PRE-ENTRY LEVEL\" POSITIONS\nThe City could create a number of new job titles that would be held open and\nfunded solely as welfare grant-diversion positions. These could be identified by each\ncity agency as new work that augments existing work, such as library aid for librarians\nin the local library, or assistant hall monitor for school personnel. These positions\nwould provide the welfare recipient with work experience while performing a valuable\nservice for the City. The City would identify existing personnel who would act as\nmentors or intensive supervisors, and these could be union members acting through\na formal union arrangement. After a successful rotation in such a position, the welfare\nrecipient could have first priority for job vacancies that become open for regular jobs\nif they meet the criteria for such a job. (See the attached model program in New York\nCity's Board of Education.)\nB.\nON-THE-JOB TRAINING/\"SHADOWING\" WORK\nThe City could identify a number of new positions for which it would provide\non-the-job training to those welfare recipients who need it. For example, any new\nopening could include a parallel job for a set number of months for a welfare recipient\nto \"shadow\" an existing worker or get on-the-job training. Such workers would still\nbe employees collecting a paycheck although they may get less benefits. This would\nstill qualify as work activities without exhausting the training component.\nFunding for these slots could come from bundling grant diversion of welfare\ngrants with JTPA funds for disadvantaged workers or state training funds.\nC.\nTRAINING PROGRAMS\nOnce the City had identified the number and type of positions it anticipates\ncreating for welfare recipients, the City could enter into a training arrangement with\nunion-training funds, PIC supported programs, or community colleges to fund the\nspecific training needed. Upon successful completion of a training program, welfare\nrecipients could move through a process of on-the-job training and/or \"pre-entry\" level\nslots that would prepare them for a regular position when one would become open.\nIn effect, then the City will have created a continuum of opportunities for welfare\n3\nrecipients. These training programs could be for the newly created day care facilities,\nhome health aides or other positions that require some specialized training. While in\na formal training program away for the work site, recipients would not be collecting\na paycheck.\nFunding for training programs could come from TANF \"windfall funds\", JTPA,\nPerkins funds for community colleges, state training programs, Medicaid, ISTEA funds,\netc.\nIII. SAVING THE CITY MONEY ON CONTRACTED-OUT WORK\nEach city could identify what temporary clerical help and other services, such\nas janitorial and security, it now contracts with private companies to provide. By\ncreating in-house programs to provide those same services, the City could channel the\nmoney it now spends on overhead for those services towards hiring welfare recipients\ninstead.\nFor example, the State of Pennsylvania has been operating successfully just\nsuch a \"temp pool\" for clerical and janitorial workers for a number of years. As\nworkers fulfill hours in the temp pool, they attain seniority credits which help qualify\nthem for promotions into full-time openings as they become available. Having about\n100 - 150 \"Limited Term Clerks\" and \"Limited Term Typists\" in the temp pool at any\none time, 730 pool employees have been placed into permanent full-time positions\nover the life of the program, with only one not completing his probation period. While\nserving in the temp pool, the workers have an opportunity to learn different work\nenvironments and get \"tried before they buy\" by the employing agency that may have\nvacancies.\nNot initiated as a welfare-to-work program, the proto type lends itself to\nexpansion to provide work for welfare recipients. Such positions would be funded by\ngrant-diversion and savings from city contracts.\n4\nIV.\nWHAT THE UNION WILL PROVIDE WELFARE RECIPIENTS\nThe Union involvement in this Partnership will be:\n-\nTo help design the program and identify work and training opportunities;\n-\nTo negotiate over the size of program and duration of certain \"slots\";\n-\nTo ensure against displacement of existing workforce;\n-\nTo represent them in workplace matters;\n-\nIn appropriate situations, to offer mentoring/shadow relationships for\nrecipients on work sites.\nFor newly created grant-diversion positions, which would include On The Job\nTraining positions and transitional employment, represent welfare recipients and\nnegotiate on their behalf over:\nWages and other incidentals/allowances,\n(Assumes employer pays FICA, if necessary, and workers' comp;\nAssumes recipients qualify for Medicaid)\nSick leave, vacation, personal leave - as permitted under welfare\nprogram;\nWorking conditions, including creating a grievance procedure;\nProbationary periods and promotional opportunities;\nFor training positions, to represent welfare recipients as they become\n\"paycheck\" employees; and\n-\nTo work with the City and Federal Government to maximize funding\nsources to defray costs of programs.\nSee attached examples from Pennsylvania's Temp Pool and New York City's Board of\nEducation program and a pilot proposal for home health aides from California.\n5\nSAMPLE EXAMPLE OF COSTS INCURRED AND FUNDING AVAILABLE\n(1997 est.)\nNEW YORK\nDETROIT\nPHILADELPHIA\nCITY\nCost of each placement:\n$5,315\n$5,315\n$5,315\n20 hrs/wk at $5.15/hr for full year\nCost of 25% \"roll up\" to cover FICA\n$1,328\n$1,328\n$1,328\n(if necessary), Workers' Comp, UI,\nother allowances or wage increases\nTotal Cost to City for each 1,000\n$6.7 million\n$6.7 million\n$6.7 million\nplacement it accepts\nAverage Cash Grant (plus Food\n$570\n$542\n$678\nStamps) per month\nTotal grant diversion available to City\n$6.8 million\n$6.5 million\n$8.1 million\nfor each 1,000 recipients\nState's TANF \"Windfall\"\n$65 million\n$186 million\n$350 million\nState's Federal Child Care Funds\n$56 million\n$127 million\n$258 million\nAvailable\nState's Projected General Fund Budget\n$1.2 billion\n$4.3 million\n$360 million\nSurplus\nOTHER SOURCES OF POSSIBLE FUNDS\nSocial Services Block Grants\nCommunity Services Block Grants\nCommunity Development Block Grants\nMedicaid Reimbursements\nJOLI\nEmpowerment Zone Funds\nBridges to Work Demonstration\nJob Plus Demonstration\nJTPA\nPerkins Grants\nISTEA\nState Training Grants/Programs\nState Child Care Funds\nPending $3 Billion Job Creation Initiative\n6\nATTACHMENTS\n7\nClerical/Custodial Pool\nnegotiated by Council 13 AFSCME\nand the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania\nCouncil1\nAFSCME\nEdward J. Keller\nExecutive Director\nCouncil 13 AFSCME\n4031 Executive Park Drive\nHarrisburg, PA 17111-1599\nTelephone: (717) 564-9312\nInternet: http://www.afscme13.org\nClerical/Custodial Pool\nnegotiated by Council 13 AFSCME\nand the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania\nThe Clerical/Custodial Pool (pool) was created in 1991 in response to AFSCME's attempt\nto reduce the Commonwealths reliance on private temporary help contracts. The contract\nlanguage, (see Attachment A) provides that employees of the pool will not be used to reduce the\nnumber of permanent employees. To accomplish this goal the language further provides that\npool employees can not be assigned duties which are permanent and full-time in nature. The\nlanguage further provides that the parties will establish the salaries and working conditions of the\npool employees. The pool is administered in two groups. clerical and custodial, and is used only\nin Dauphin County.\nSalaries, working conditions of pool employees\nThe parties have since negotiated an agreement establishing the salaries and working\nconditions of the pool employees. (sce Attachment B -- current agreement). The agreement. in\naddition to establishing the salaries of the pool employees, gives the employees rights to entry\nlevel vacancies for which they qualify. This agreement is renegotiated after the conclusion of\neach Master Agreement negotiations. The salary/working conditions agreement is currently\nbeing renegotiated.\nCustodial Pool - Adjunct Custodial Workers\nThe custodial pool is administered by the Department of General Services and the\nemployees are known as Adjunct Custodial Workers. These employees by agreement are\nassigned duties that would be considered permanent and full-time. This occurs because by their\nvery nature, custodial duties are permanent and necessary and do not occur in temporary spurts as\nin the clerical field. Regardless of this, we were successful in eliminating most of the private\ncustodial contracts, and this has resulted in approximately 40 workers being hired from the pool\ninto permanent full-time custodial worker positions. There are currently 51 Adjunct Custodial\nWorkers participating in the pool.\nClerical Pool - Limited Term Clerks and Limited Term Typists\nThe clerical pool has two groups of employees, Limited Term Clerks and Limited Term\nTypists. All Clerical Pool employees must pass a Civil Service test to cnable them to be assigned\nto Civil Service and non-civil service jobs. This program is administered by the Bureau of State\nEmployment (BSE) a part of the Office of Administration. This bureau acts as a temporary\nemployment agency for Commonwealth agencies in Dauphin County. When an agency needs\ntemporary clerical help they contact BSE and the appropriate clerical person is assigned. Since\n1\nthe inception of the program 730 pool employees have been placed into permanent full-time\npositions with only one not successfully completing his probationary period. There are currently\n128 Limited Term Clerks and 106 Limited Term Typists for a total of 234 employees\nparticipating in this pool.\nWelfare to Work Program\nOur current negotiations over the pool agreement includes discussions over incorporating\nthe Welfare to Work Program into the pool structure. We believe that the pool arrangement not\nonly provides a cost effective way of meeting the temporary needs of the Commonwealth but\nalso provides an effective way of training prospective employees and evaluating their job\nperformance and work habits before committing them to a permanent job. We believe the pool\narrangement has proven itself an excellent tool in recruiting for Commonwealth vacancies given\nthe fact that only 1 of 730 pool participants didn't complete the probationary period. We also\nbelieve the pool arrangement can serve the same purpose for welfare recipients in order to place\nthem in Commonwealth jobs, other local government positions or in the private sector.\nThis program has been a plus for the Union. It has virtually climinated private contracts\nfor clerical and custodial workers and gives us control over the kind of work assigned to\ntemporary workers, and possibly welfare recipients, in the Commonwealth agencies.\n2\nAttachment A\nMaster Agreement\nbetween\nCommonwealth of Pennsylvania\nand\nCouncil 13, American Federation of State,\nCounty and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO\nEffective July 1, 1996 to June 30, 1999\nArticle 44\nTEMPORARY POOL EMPLOYEES\nSection 1. The Employer agrees to the creation of an employment pool of temporary employees,\nto be comprised of temporary employees capable of performing temporary clerical or custodial\nduties within the Capitol Complex in Harrisburg. Additionally, the Commonwealth will\ncontinue to meet with AFSCME and review the possible expansion of the pool concept to\ninclude other classifications of temporary employees throughout the Commonwealth.\nThe employment pool will be administered by the Employer and a quarterly report containing the\nname. social security number, home address, classification and hours worked to date, will be\nsupplied to the Union. The Commonwealth will have the right to establish reasonable standards\nfor the work performed by pool employces.\nThe parties agree that employees covered by this Article will not be used to reduce the number of\npermanent employees performing the levels of work existing as of the ratification date of this\nAgreement. To that end the parties agree that employees covered by this Article will not be\nassigned to perform duties which arc permanent and full-time in nature.\nSection 2. Salaries, working conditions and other articles of the agreement which will be\nextended to employees of the pool shall be established between the parties.\nAttachment B\nAn Agreement between\nCouncil 13 AFSCME\nand the\nCommonwealth of Pennsylvania\nestablishing salary and working conditions for a\nClerical/Custodial Pool\nTemporary Pool Employees\nIn accordance with Article 44, Section 2 of the AFSCME Master Agreement the parties\nagree the following shall establish the salary, working conditions and Articles of the Master\nAgreement which are applicable to all temporary clerical pool employees and temporary adjunct\ncustodial pool employees.\nSalary\nEffective January 8, 1994 the following pay structure will go into effect:\nClerical Pool Worker -\nCredited Seniority Hours\n1-8-94\n1-7-95\n1-6-96\nUp to 1350 hours\n$6.60\n$6.60\n$6.85\nOver 1350 to 2700 hours\n$6.85\n$6.85\n$7.05\nOver 2700 hours\n$6.85\n$7.10\n$7.25\nCustodial Pool Worker -\n1-8-94\n1-7-95\n1-6-96\n$6.60\n$6.60\n$6.85\nEmployees will be placed on the pay schedule outlined above in accordance with the number\nof credited seniority hours as of December 24, 1993. Employees will then move to the next\nhigher step of the pay schedule effective the beginning of the pay period following the pay period\nin which they obtain over 1350 or over 2700 hours as applicable.\nCredited seniority hours shall be defined as all hours worked in the pool from February 10,\n1992 through December 24, 1993. Effective December 25, 1993, only regular hours worked in\nthe pool will be counted as credited seniority hours.\n- 1 -\nThe following shall constitute a break in service: resignation, separation for just cause,\nabsence without leave for five consecutive working days, failure to report after leave and\nacceptance of other permanent employment while on leave. If service is broken by any of the\nabove, the employee shall lose seniority hours. If an employee is returned within one year after\nsuch break in service, the employee shall be credited. for pay and seniority purposes, with the\nnumber of seniority hours accrued up to the time the break in service occurred but shall not be\nentitled to any credit for the time represented by such break in service.\nRenegotiations\nWe are currently renegotiating the rates for 1997 thru 1999.\nSeniority\nEmployees will earn seniority credit for each regular hour paid. An employee covered by this\nAppendix who becomes permanent cannot carry the seniority carned under this Appendix with\nthem into the permanent job.\nBidding/return rights\nAfter working 1465 hours as a pool employee, employees covered by this Appendix shall be\ngiven preference for permanent entry level vacancies for which they qualify. The three most\nsenior interested employees will be considered for the vacancy. The Employer reserves the right\nto refer employees with less than 1465 hours, when, in the Employer's judgement the employees\npossess the required knowledge, skill and ability for the job opening. Additionally, when special\ncircumstances exist the Employer reserves the right to recruit into these vacancies from outside\nthe clerical pool.\nEmployees promoted into permanent agency vacancies through the pool's bidding/placement\nprocess, who elect to return, or are returned due to failure to successfully complete their\nprobationary period will be ineligible to bid on vacancies from the same agency they returned\nfrom, for a period of 6 months from the date of return to the clerical pool.\nA vacancy for purposes of this provision will not include any vacancy to which a current\npermanent employee would have a seniority claim.\nContractual probationary period\nUpon attaining permanent status. an employee who has worked 975 hours as a pool employee\nor more will serve a 90-calendar day probationary period. Employees who have worked less than\n975 hours as a pool employee will serve a six-month probationary period.\n2\nOvertime\nEmployees who work in excess of 40 hours in a work week shall be paid at the rate of time\nand one-half for all hours worked over 40.\nMeal periods\nEmployees will receive a 30 minute unpaid mcal period after working four consecutive\nhours, unless their work assignment ceases and the employee goes home. This meal period will\nbe scheduled prior to the end of the employee's fifth hour of work.\nUnion security/dues deduction\nThe provisions of Articles 3 and 4 are applicable to employee covered by this Appendix.\nSick leave without pay, parental leave without pay, and family care leave without pay\nEmployees who have been employed at least 12 months and have been paid for at least 1250\nhours during the previous 12 month period, are entitled to a total of 12 weeks of leave without\npay, without benefits in a 12 month period for purposes of leave for serious health condition,\nparental leave, and/or family care leave, as those leaves are described \"Family and Medical Leave\nAct of 1993\" and Title 29, Part 825 of Federal Regulations.\nLeaves of absence without pay for union business\nThe provisions of Article 17. Section 3, are applicable to employees covered by this\nAppendix.\nDiscipline\nThe provisions of Article 28, Section 1, apply to employees covered by this Appendix after\ncompletion of 1.950 regular hours of work.\nUniform, clothing and equipment\nThe provisions of Article 31 apply to the employees covered by this Appendix.\n- -3- -\nDiscrimination/employee treatment\nThe provisions of Article 32 apply to the employees covered by this Appendix.\nMiscellaneous provisions\nThe provisions of Article 36, Sections 1, 2, 3, and 10 are applicable to employees covered by\nthis Appendix. The provisions of Section 7 will apply only after the pool employee reports to the\ndesignated work site. If any current/former employee wishes to become part of the employment\npool, they shall be allowed to do so. However, their rate of pay and benefit entitlement (if any)\nshall not exceed the maximum paid to a pool employee.\nAffirmative action\nThe provision of Article 37 apply to employees covered by this Appendix.\nGrievance and arbitration\nThe provisions of Article 38 apply to employees covered by this Appendix.\nSafety and health\nThe provisions of Article 39 apply to employees covered by this Appendix.\nPolitical action\nThe provisions of Article 42 apply to employees covered by this Appendix.\nThe term of this Agreement shall be in accordance with Article 45 of the AFSCME Master\nAgreement.\nMichael Fox\nAFSCME Council 13\nDate: 12/16/93\nWilliam Trusky\nBureau of Labor Relations\nDate: 12/16/93\n4 -\nLocal 372\nLOCAL\nOur job is kids\n372 N.Y.C. Board 0\nDC MESOME\nEducation Employee\nAFLICIC\n125 Barclay Street, New York, N.Y. 10007 (212) 815-1050\nAffiliated with District Council 37. American Federation of State. County & Municipal Employees. AFL-CIO\nCHARLES HUGHES\nPRESIDENT\nLOCAL 372\nBETTY SILVERSTEIN\nEXEC. VICE PRESIDENT\nDISTRICT COUNCIL 37\nVINCENT LYNCH\nAMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES\nVICE PRESIDENT\nCATHERINE BRUNO\nVICE PRESIDENT\nERNESTINE WILLIAMS\nTREASURER\nWORK EXPERIENCE PROGRAM\nMILDRED STEPHENS\nWITH THE\nCOMPTROLLER\nNEW YORK CITY BOARD OF EDUCATION\nYETTA AUERBACH\nRECORDING SECRETARY\nJOSEPHINE BATTISTA\nSGT. AT ARMS\nBACKGROUND:\nCARL GAITHER\nSGT. AT ARMS\nCARMEN COLON\nLocal 372, a local of twenty two thousand members in both the New\nSGT. AT ARMS\nYork City Board of Education and the New York City Police Department, has\nJOHN WASHINGTON\nSGT. AT ARMS\nits own bargaining district with the City of New York. Local 372 represents\nNORMA SCHILD\napproximately twenty two thousand members, including eight thousand\nS.A. CHAIRPERSON\nschool lunch helpers, eight thousand school aides, twenty six hundred\nJESSIE BLACKSTON\nSECRETARY\nparaprofessionals, eight hundred substance abuse prevention intervention\nROVENA DANIELS\nspecialists (drug counselors), other Board of Education titles, and two\nM/A S.L. CHAIRPERSON\nthousand school crossing guards hired by the New York City Police\nLOUELLA BRADY\nDepartment.\nSECRETARY\nKATHLEEN HARLEY\nHOURLY S.L. CHAIRPERSON\nLocal 372 has long been active in both community and legislative\nMABEL McNEILL\ninitiatives. In early 1995, Charles Hughes, president of Local 372, began\nSECRETARY\ndiscussions with then New York City Schools Chancellor Ramon Cortines\nLILLIE PARHAM\nPARAS CHAIRPERSON\nand Mayor Rudolph Giuliani. From those discussions evolved meetings with\nFRANKLIN SPEAR\nrepresentatives of the Board of Education, the Mayor's office, the City Office\nSECRETARY\nof Human Resources Administration, and the City Office of Personnel.\nHENDERSON DAVIS\nS.N.W. CHAIRPERSON\nSHEILA ORR\nIt was proposed by President Hughes and later expanded on by a\nSECRETARY\nspecial committee that the overall intent and philosophy of the proposed\nLINWOOD DANIEL\nWorkfare Experience Program would be as follows:\nSAPIS CHAIRPERSON\nREBECCA MARSTON\nSECRETARY\n1.\nTo provide reliable employees to carry out selected, non-\nLUCILLE JAKUBEC\ninstructional responsibilities in the schools.\nS.C.G. CHAIRPERSON\n2.\nTo provide a successful work experience for workfare\nEFFIE TUCKER\nSECRETARY\nparticipants.\nMAE THOMAS\n3.\nTo prepare workfare participants for permanent job\nTRUSTEE\nplacement.\nANNA COLEMAN\nTRUSTEE\nSYLVIA SHIELDS\nTRUSTEE\nALISA ROGOSIN\nCHIEF ASST TO PRESIDENT\n18%\n4.\nTo provide opportunities for adult, basic secondary and post-\nsecondary education and vocational training as appropriate\nfor workfare participants.\nThe Board of Education already had some participants in the\nWorkfare Experience Program at the Central Board, working mainly in\nclerical functions. However, there was no intent by the Board of Education\nto hire them in any permanent jobs. The Local 372 program was developed\nonly with permanent job placement as its final goal. Local 372 had\npreviously developed a joint effort with the Board of Education called\nProject Step, which basically took unemployed youth and young adults off\nthe streets and provided them with adequate training and mentoring so\nthey could become permanent employees. This program provided the\nnecessary background for the successful WEP effort with the Board of\nEducation.\nTherefore, in March, 1995, the parties came up with the following\nproposed agreement which was subsequently approved by both the Board\nof Education and the Mayor's office.\nElements of the joint proposal included:\nThere would be created a joint training and job placement program\nin titles represented by Local 372, probably in the Board of\nEducation school lunch program. The inclusion of other titles will be\ndiscussed at a later date.\nThe workfare program would lead to Board of Education jobs after a\nperiod of work experience and job training. The jobs will offer union-\nnegotiated pay and benefits.\nThe workfare program would provide welfare recipients a radically\ndifferent work-study experience program in that it would provide a\ntruer work experience. The program is seen as a bridge to a paid\nposition with the Board of Education.\nThe Union will be involved as an equal partner from the very\nbeginning and in all levels of the planning and execution of the\nprogram.\n2\nThere will be screening and orientation for the welfare recipients\napplying for the program.\nThe Union will address any issues related to impact on existing\nBoard of Education employees.\nThe Union will provide support services as needed (training, GED,\nmentoring, etc.)\nThe agreement in principle is for only a program in the Board of\nEducation. No such agreement has been contemplated with other city\nagencies who plan to use welfare recipients in work experience plans.\nOne reason why the Local 372 program is successful is because\nmembers of Local 372 are involved in the one on one mentoring process\nthat takes place at the school level. Local 372 members help the employees\nbecome orientated to all factors of the job. This is after the employee has\nundergone formalized training sponsored by the Board of Education.\nSUCCESS RATE:\nSo far, we have had seventy one workfare participants promoted to\npermanent positions, out of the total training population of seventy four.\nWe now have twenty three new trainees who have recently started with the\nBoard of Education. Obviously, as far as percentages of those who stay\nworking are a concern; this has been a very successful program. New York\nCity recently audited Its training programs for people on public assistance;\nit found that only twelve per cent of those placed in jobs had gotten off\nwelfare, and were still working ninety days later.\nPROGRAM DESIGN:\nThe Board of Education and the City of New York, in cooperation with\nLocal 372, Board of Education Employees and District Council 37,\nAmerican Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, proposes\nto identity, assign and train Work Experience program (WEP) Home Relief\nrecipients for positions developed by the Board of Education as Food\nService Helpers. Those selected will work for a period of four months as\ntrainees. Local 372 and the District Council 37 Education Fund will provide\n3\nto program participants employment counseling and job preparation skills.\nThe WEP Participant Services Unit (PSU) will respond to participants'\nproblems, such as unresolved timekeeping, personal or work related\nissues. Problems directly related to a participant's public assistance case,\nsuch as a budgetary question or case closing not related to WEP, will be\nreferred to the City Human Resources Administration. Successful trainees\nwill be hired for positions as School Lunch Helper. If, at the end of the\ntraining period, the number of candidates exceeds the number of\nvacancies, every effort will be made to place candidates in jobs developed\nby a program advisory committee. The committee will be jointly appointed\nby the City, Local 372, District Council 37 and the Board of Education.\n4\n/\nUnited Domestic Workers of America\nState Office: 610 Gateway Center Way, Suite K\nJune 2, 1997\nSan Diego, California 92102\n(619) 263-7254\nHonorable Senator Michael Thompson\nCo-Chair, Welfare Reform Special Committee\nState Capitol Building\nSacramento, California 95814\nRe:\nDiversion of TANF Client to Vacant Jobs in the\nIn Home Supportive Services (IHSS) Program - Support\nDear Senator Thompson:\nUnited Domestic Workers of America supports the proposed Option to establish a pilot program\nwhereby current welfare recipients will be screened, trained, supervised and matched with job openings in\nthe IHSS program. Caring for the sick, elderly and disabled is a noble calling. With a few enhancements\nto the minimum wage, lack of benefits and absence of work standards that exists throughout most of the\nIHSS program, this calling could also become a good job and an excellent career opportunity.\nThe one issue upon which there is virtual agreement among all constituents, interest groups, advocates\ngovernment officials and policy advisors is that it is often difficult for many IHSS recipients, particularly the\nelderly and severely impaired, to locate, train, supervise and retain qualified home care workers. Turnover\nis very high and there is a constant need for new workers who are properly trained and have appropriate\nincentives and support to stay on the job. The need for home care is growing at a rapid pace yet the high\nturnover and lack of available workers threatens to deny these services to those in need thereby resulting in\nmore costly service alternatives such as nursing homes, hospitals and other institutions. Without some\nenhancements these IHSS positions cannot really be viewed as jobs. But with a targeted investment to\nprovide health insurance, mileage and fringe benefits, training and supervision, California will be creating\njobs out of unstructured work openings.\nThe proposed job Option will protect the clients' right to select their own home attendant and allow\nparticipating counties to establish or expanding existing IHSS programs, such as fee-for-service contracts and\npublic authorities, which would serve to provide the necessary administrative coordination to fulfill the pilot\nobjectives. These entities would perform the screening, training and supervision functions as well provide\nquality assurance in the delivery of services to recipients and the work performed by new trainees.\nThis proposal will provide real jobs with a future, transferable skills and gainful work\nexperiences in the expanding field of home care, for properly matched welfare recipients. We ask for\nyour support.\nSincerely,\nKon\nPresident\nKSM:lfj\nA\n\"WELFARE TO HOME CARE\"\nA JOBS CREATION AND PLACEMENT PROGRAM FOR\nCALIFORNIA WELFARE RECIPIENTS\nPROPOSAL: Establish a four to five county pilot program in which current welfare recipients are\nscreened, trained, appropriately matched and supervised to work as home care employees under\nCalifornia's In Home Supportive Services (IHSS) program. Statewide implementation will be evaluated\nin the near future.\nJobs will be made available based on the high turnover in the IHSS program. There will the no displacement\nof existing employees. Selected counties will participate at no cest to the county and IHSS recipients will\nhave the right to select their individual care provider. The success of this effort will require maximum\ncooperation and partnership between state and county government, private home care providers, IHSS\nemployee representatives and advocates of IHSS recipients. Participating counties will be expected to create\nand maintain these partnerships.\nBACKGROUND: The IHSS program provides personal care and domestic services to frail, elderly, blind\nand disabled individuals enabling them to remain safely in their own homes and out of costly institutions.\nThere are nearly 200,000 individuals who receive care under the IHSS program. With a turnover rate of\nat least 25% there are 50,000 IHSS jobs to fill each year. Over 95% of IHSS services are provided under\nthe Individual Provider (IP) method in which there is no screening, training or supervision of employees and\nno oversight of program services - none of the basic components associated with a job.\nNearly two thirds of IHSS recipients are elderly yet under the IP system an elderly recipient who needs\nsignificant assistance in locating, supervising and replacing a home care worker is treated the same as a\nhighly self directing young disabled recipient who needs minimal outside help to manage his/her own care.\nBoth recipients are required to find and supervise their own help which is often difficult even for the most\nable-bodied. Services are not monitored and little employment statistics or long term care service\ndocumentation is maintained. By providing an employer of record, through a contract agency or public\nauthority, pilot program counties will be able to preserve client rights and independence and handle\nemployee payroll, set up registries for recruitment and training, and provide substitutes, emergency\nback ups and oversight of services.\nIHSS is funded by the federal government (Title 19/Medicaid), the state and counties. About 60% of IHSS\ncases are Personal Care Service Program (PCSP) cases which are funded at 50% by Medicaid. Jobs for\nwelfare recipients who serve PCSP cases under the IHSS program will have 50% federal funding.\nIHSS home care employees are predominantly female and middle aged. Many are sole providers of their\nfamilies and single heads of households. The vast majority do not have formal education or training beyond\nhigh school. The Individual Provider program under IHSS employs workers at minimum wage with no health\ninsurance. sick leave or other fringe benefits. There is no pay differential for these who take care of severely\nimpaired recipients or who possess special training, certification or extensive experience. Wages are only\nincreased when the legal minimum wage goes up. Because of the low wages and lack of benefits some\nindividuals who work under this program are OB public assistance themselves. Recent increases in the\nminimum wage address some of the pay inequities but the lack of benefits and long term economic incentives\ncreate an unstable, transitory workforce and results in thousands of new job openings every year. The elderly\nand disabled population is growing at a rapid pace. The 85 and older population is projected as the single\nfastest growing age group. The need for home care and IHSS is expected to grow as well.\nPage Two - \"Welfare to Home Care\"\nA small, targeted investment in the IHSS program could turn the current revolving door of home care\ninto a real job opportunity and career starter for thousands of welfare recipients across the state. This\ninvestment would be dedicated to providing health insurance and basic job benefits, economic incentives for\nsuccessful completion of training and probation, enforcing job and service standards in the areas of employee\nrecruitment, screening, training and supervision, and monitoring the delivery of services to recipients.\nCurrently, counties are sometimes reluctant to contract with home care agencies for IHSS because they are\ncharged a higher hourly rate to pay for these necessary employment provisions. If this extra county cost were\ndefrayed as part of a welfare-to-work program, this reluctance might turn to enthusiasm.\nDemonstration counties will provide services under one of several or an integration of different IHSS service\nmodes which will have the administrative component needed to provide structured training or access to\ntraining, supervision or oversight and gainful work experiences for welfare recipients.\nDESCRIPTION OF DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM COMPONENTS:\nThis demonstration program will be conducted in a cross section of four to five different counties\nrepresenting a total of about 30,000 IHSS cases. At a 25% turnover rate, there are 7,500 new IHSS\nemployees bired each year to care for these 30,000 elderly and disabled recipients. An additional four\nto five counties or locations may be added for a combined total of 50,000 IHSS cases. This would generate\nup to 12,500 new jobs per year. With a targeted program to recruit, screen and match job seekers to these\nopenings many, perhaps most, of these positions could be filled with welfare recipients.\nSelected counties will meet the following program provisions. All costs beyond current county\nspending required to implement these demonstration program requirements and monitor the results\nof this project, not otherwise reimbursed by Medicaid, will be borne by the state.\n1. Recruit IHSS job applicants directly from current welfare recipients and perform criminal\nbackground checks, screening, reference checks and in-person interviews of applicants.\n2. Notify IHSS recipients of the possibility of getting home care workers through the welfare-to-work\ncontractor or public authority but allow recipients to retain the right to select, reject or change any worker.\n3. Provide at least twenty 20 hours of pre-placement training/orientation to all applicants in home\ncare service delivery skill development and basic employment and job retention skills. Successful applicants\nwill be immediately placed in any available opening. Within ninety days of hiring provide at least ten\nadditional hours of specialized training for employees serving severely impaired recipients.\n4. Assign each welfare recipient a job supervisor who will monitor work performance, including\nholding regular meetings with each employee to provide direct evaluation of work and personal progress and\nassist in promoting the development of good job skills.\n5. Conduct regular in-home visits of IHSS recipients to evaluate the work and services provided and\nthe condition of the service recipients and their homes.\n6. Provide an economic incentive of $.25 per hour above minimum wage to all employees after the\nsuccessful completion of a reasonable probationary period and an additional $.50 per hour pay differential\nfor those serving severely impaired recipients. Provide health insurance for full-time employees (full-time is\n32 hrs/week in IHSS) and paid benefits including sick leave, holidays, vacation mileage and/or bus fare.\nPage Three - \"Welfare to Home Care\"\n7. Allow existing IHSS recipients the option to select to receive services under any available mode\nin the county. Place incoming IHSS recipients into a supported care mode of service with the ability to opt\nout of such mode and select a different method of care.\n8. Recognize the right of employees to exercise collective bargaining representation and any other\nexisting employee workplace provisions as set forth by applicable federal and state law and work in\nconjunction with any designated employee representative organization in order to ensure maximum\ncooperation and success in recruitment and placement of applicants, provision of job-based and social support\nservices and assistance with ongoing follow-up and transition to long term employment.\n9. Conduct program and fiscal monitoring of job placement agencies at least quarterly.\n10. Counties with existing IHSS fee-for-service agency contracts or public authorities may expand\nthese programs in order to provide the systematic recruitment, screening, training, supervision and\nemployment of welfare recipients, ougoing in-home monitoring of IHSS recipients. oversight of IHSS\nprogram services and any necessary fiscal and program reports related to this project.\nOTHER DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM PROVISIONS:\nIt is intended that a variety and mix of IHSS service modes be utilized to determine the most cost effective\nmethods of implementing this demonstration program and achieving the established job placement goals. This\nwill include use of the fee-for-service agency contract, public authority. agency-supported individual provider\nmethod as well as preserving the current Individual Provider option.\nThere will be a fast-track procurement process for agency contracts.\nThe director shall have authority to waive regulations or statutes as may be necessary to ensure the\nexpeditious implementation and success of these projects.\nThe Governor's office will determine the final selection of counties participating in this program.\nTOTAL"
}