Model Programs Developed Through Labor-Management Cooperation

The following are examples of labor-management relationships that have resulted in quality services:

RHODE ISLAND

In 1979, the state made plans to shut down its institution for the developmentally disabled, move the clients into privately run group homes and leave the Ladd Center employees to fend for themselves. Instead, the union fought to bring together the interests of the workers and the institutional residents and their families to get involved in every stage of planning, training and implementation of deinstitutionalization. The union’s efforts paid off, and in 1980, the state signed an agreement (see Appendix D) which stipulated no layoffs and full AFSCME participation. What emerged was an innovative program of state-operated’ community-based facilities, which has meant job upgrades and improvements in the quality of care for the developmentally disabled.

"The world is changing and we need to work together to be prepared for those changes."— Maureen Martin, AFSCME Local 1293 (Council 94) and Labor/Management Steering Committee Member

In October 1997, AFSCME Council 94 and the Rhode Island Department of Mental Health, Retardation and Hospitals (MHRH) received a Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service grant to establish a pro-active partnership through a Labor Management Cooperation Program. Four AFSCME locals represent 70 percent of the more than 2,100 MHRH employees. Local 1293 represents 505 direct care and support employees providing services to the developmentally disabled in community-based settings. Local 1350 represents 640 nursing assistants, LPNs, dietary, housekeeping, and other direct care and support staff in the acute, long-term care and psychiatric units of the department’s fully accredited Eleanor Slater Hospital. Local 2392 represents 112 skilled craft, maintenance and support workers, and Local 2883 represents 139 supervisory personnel from all areas of the department.

The ultimate goal of the Labor Management Cooperation Program is to “position the department and its employees to continue to provide relevant, high-quality services to the citizens of Rhode Island in the changing health care marketplace of the 21st century.”

Goals during the 18-month grant period include:

• establishing an effective joint labor management steering committee that can direct and coordinate the department-wide Labor Management Cooperation Program;
• setting up three to five problem-oriented committees, at least one of which will focus on developing agency-level labor management quality teams;
• conducting a joint labor management MHRH 21st Century Workforce Conference to address workforce and service issues predicted for the next decade; and
• preparing the department to maintain an effective Labor Management Cooperation Program after the grant has ended.

By mid-1998, the program was well underway. The labor management steering committee had formed and was holding monthly meetings. It defined a vision statement and established three primary subcommittees: communication, training and evaluation. The workforce conference will be the kickoff event for employee involvement committees which will address priority issues such as workplace health and safety, retooling, worker illiteracy and training.

NEW YORK

Labor management cooperation was essential in the successful transition of thousands of New York state employees out of state MR/DD institutions and into community-based services. State workers were understandably concerned about moving to smaller’ community-based settings that they saw as more vulnerable to change in ownership (“turnkeying”) and thus privatization. There were ongoing labor management dialogues to address all worker concerns. This cooperation resulted in the following:

1. All direct care inpatient staff were automatically transitioned to comparable community titles.
2. Transition exams and preparation for them were virtually ongoing at every work location for staff not already engaged in direct patient care.
3. Job fairs were set up so that employees wishing to remain in other than direct care titles could do so.
4. Computerized bidding was created so that seniority could be used for working in a multitude of work locations.
5. Zip code analysis was used to help match staff with facilities in their area.
6. Labor representatives and local managers regularly held educational forums to deal with staff concerns.

"In a transition, everyone has to be open and work aboveboard. The union understands there's a give-and-take. But everybody has to be educated." — Kathy Button, president, CSEA Local 436, Finger Lakes Developmental Disabilities Service Office, Rochester, N.Y.

This joint labor management approach was a success. After the transition to community-based, state-operated MR/DD services was complete, worker satisfaction surveys revealed that 95 percent of all staff were quite happy with their new assignments. In fact, many support staff had been promoted in the process. Moreover, since 1987 there has been no wholesale privatization of state-operated homes. Current staffing levels are now at least 1.78 staff per client compared to 1970 levels of 0.6 staff per client, and OMRDD has essentially remained intact.

WASHINGTON STATE

When it became clear that the Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) intended to close state MR/DD facilities, Council 28 (the Washington Federation of State Employees or WFSE) contacted AFSCME International and requested assistance in establishing an MR/DD community-based, state-operated system of services. Council 28 was instrumental in assembling a team of observers to tour state-operated services in Rhode Island and Minnesota. The team was comprised of state and federal officials, parents of residents of the Regional Habilitation Centers (RHCs), community advocates, and the union.

"It is essential to have a labor/management process at work when planning any program shift or new initiative." — Duwane Huffaker, president, Council 28.

Subsequently, a labor management partnership was forged between WFSE and DSHS officials to implement community-based, state-operated services in Washington, called State Operated Living Alternatives (SOLA). And these issues negotiated: were job classifications, the transfer process from the state to the community, ground rules for determining the community-based model, and development and implementation of the SOLA program. SOLA was established in all regions of the state that had RHCs.

MINNESOTA

In the move to state-operated, community-based MR/DD services in Minnesota, the first order of business for AFSCME Council 6 was to negotiate job security. Council 6 negotiated a “no layoff” agreement with the state which helped the membership embrace the changes involved in moving into the community.

Concurrent with these negotiations, Council 6 and the state obtained a Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service grant to form a mega labor management committee, comprised of union leaders and top officials of state agencies, to hammer out the structure and operation of the community-based facilities. Then local labor management committees took over implementation of the plan, with oversight by the upper level committee. The first state-operated home opened in 1989. At present there are over 100 state-operated homes for the developmentally disabled in Minnesota, employing over 1,000 AFSCME members.

OHIO

A good model for confronting deinstitutionalization issues directly took place in Ohio in 1987 and 1988 during negotiations to massively reorganize the state’s mental health system and shift resources from mental hospitals to community programs. With the encouragement of Governor Celeste and AFSCME Pres. Gerald W. McEntee, the Ohio Department of Mental Health and union members worked out an agreement which covered the concerns of the workers (e.g. retraining of staff, no personnel cutbacks for at least three years). The entire Ohio system was essentially reconfigured with the cooperation of both labor and management. It is only when a process such as this is included in plans for change that the plans are likely to become a reality.”²²

"The entire Ohio system was essentially reconfigured with the cooperation of both labor and management. It is only when a process such as this is included in plans for change that the plans are likely to become a reality."

“Without Walls” (WOW) is a program that was developed as the result of suggestions made by OCSEA/AFSCME members at a state-operated children’s psychiatric facility. When the home-based program began, it brought community-based services to children ages 6 to 11. As the result of the union management collaboration on WOW, the program was expanded to serve adolescents as well as children. WOW provides intensive services to families so that severely emotionally disturbed children can remain in their homes or in the least restrictive setting. Most service occurs in the family’s home or community, and includes crisis management, family therapeutic intervention, advocacy, basic services, activity approaches, special needs training, behavior management and role modeling. Many hours are also devoted to working cooperatively with community agencies (schools, courts, hospitals, public agencies), coordinating support services and advancing the family’s best interests.

FOOTNOTES

1. Torrey, E.F., Wolfe, S.M., Care of the Seriously Mentally Ill: A Rating of State Programs, 2nd ed., 1988, p.99.