Obama Backs Overtime Pay For Home Care Aides

WASHINGTON -- In a move sure to please labor leaders and worker advocates, President Obama came out in support Thursday of a long-awaited change to labor law that would entitle the country's nearly 2 million home care aides to overtime pay and a guaranteed minimum wage, likely raising the pay scale in a booming industry.

Though the rule is still under review, if approved it will remove a 36-year-old exemption for home care aides from the Fair Labor Standards Act, the law that provides basic wage protections for most American workers. While home care aides have been calling for the change for more than a decade, some industry leaders say the new rules will raise their labor costs, forcing them to hike prices on customers.

Knocking Congress for its lack of progress on jobs, the administration described the rule change as part of a series of executive actions designed to help working-class Americans and the economy as a whole.

"They work hard and play by the rules and they should see that work and responsibility rewarded," Obama said of home health aides in a statement. "Today's action will ensure that these men and women get paid fairly for a service that a growing number of older Americans couldn't live without."

Most home health aides are already being paid above the minimum wage, but employers don't have to pay them overtime, thanks to the so-called "companionship exemption," which critics say was intended for casual workers like babysitters. Since the exemption was carved out in 1976, home health care has morphed into a massive industry as a growing number of Americans hit their golden years.

Home health aides tend to care for people who are disabled or chronically ill, performing important duties like tube-feeding or physical therapy. Many of them work long hours and travel to several different patients' homes in a single day. For those who work over 40 hours a week, the new overtime rule could give their paychecks a significant boost.

House Republicans, who've blasted the administration for what they deem burdensome new regulations on job creators, quickly pounced on Obama for putting his weight behind the rule change. In a joint statement, Reps. John Kline (R-Minn.) and Tim Walberg (R-Mich) said the president was moving forward with a new regulation without considering the costs to businesses.

"Once again, the administration is pursuing new regulations without regard for the potential unintended consequences," they said. "The president’s goal is commendable, but the likely result of this new rule is reduced hours for home care workers and higher costs for taxpayers."

Paul Hogan, CEO of Home Instead Senior Care, which has 900 franchise offices nationwide, recently told HuffPost that the new rule "will drive up our costs," and that "our clients and their families do not want to pay for overtime, and they will go to alternatives."

But a home care aide in Florida who regularly works over 70 hours a week without overtime pay told HuffPost she supports the rule change, even if it will lead to higher costs for patients. "If you're in this job for money, you're in it for the wrong reason," the woman said, requesting anonymity. "But I'd like to see that change someday."

In 2007, the Supreme Court ruled against a home care aide named Evelyn Coke, who argued that her long hours entitled her to overtime pay. The court upheld the companionship rule, leaving it to either Congress or the Labor Department to update it. Congress has done little on the issue, but the Labor Department has moved the rule change forward with the backing of Sec. Hilda Solis. Now that it has the administration's blessing, the new rule will undergo a public-comment period before it's finalized.

In a statement, Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), chairman of the health and labor committee, argued that the rule change would ultimately lead to lower turnover rates and higher morale among workers, benefiting both home aides and the people they care for.

"It will help encourage more workers to enter and remain in this field, so that we can ensure that all of our parents and loved ones with disabilities receive the quality care they deserve," Harkin said.

Comments

[happydale]

11:56 AM on 01/31/2012

I have a disabled child who has a worker 67 hrs a week. His worker and I believe this would be detrimental to her and us. Right now we have 67 floating hrs a week. Which works for us if we need her for more hrs on certain days. This bill would make for restrictive hrs a day, for worker not to exceed 40 hrs, drive up cost so that my child's hrs would be reduce and quality of care will go down because I won't have a pay scale anymore to give incentive raises. My child's worker and I oppose this bill!

[fairfieldfamilycare]

07:45 PM on 12/19/2011

We want to be fair to everyone who works for a living and that includes compensation for overtime. Unfortunately, the 'system' cannot absorb the additional cost without consequences. While a small portion of our society has long term care insurance, the vast majority of cases are paid out of pocket by the client or their family. A sizable number of cases require 24 hr live-ins. If overtime is mandated, then either: i) costs will skyrocket and make home care unaffordable for most families thus putting those people out of work that this legislation is intended to help, or ii) in order to maintain the business, workers hours will be limited thereby cutting hours available per individual per agency. The overtime legislation will be side-stepped and the caregivers will still be working 60 hour weeks without overtime. This will impact on the quality of care, especially in cases of Alzheimer’s or dementia where consistency is key to disease management. Fractionation of the work force will also result in increased overhead costs to cover the resources needed to manage scheduling, build larger pools of part-timers, track service quality, and ensure back up for call-outs. While the intent of this legislation is to provide a fairer wage, it is destined to fail because only the wealthy will be able to afford the additional cost. In my opinion, this is short-sighted legislation that will fail to accomplish its goal resulting in higher costs and reduced quality of care.

[Wise beyond my years]

02:37 PM on 12/17/2011

I have already put up a couple of post here, but one more will help. I live in Oregon and I have had a Personal Care Assistant for years. I am still young, but I have a couple of chronic diseases that ended my careers in a hurry. Several years ago I had an assistant who worked with me 8 hours a day, five days a week; she got prevailing wage from her agency and the agency made a couple of bucks an hour on top of hers. No one was getting rich. But then Oregon opened up their bleeding hearts and raised the minimum wage. Guess what. I could not afford it so instead of eight hours, my PCA works six hours a day and actually takes home less money. Bad for me. Bad for the PCA. And bad all round. But the bureaucrats were certain it was a brilliant idea. I am certain this new idea of Obama’s will prove to be equally as brilliant and demonstrate once again his deep understanding of markets and economics.

[soisay]

11:53 PM on 12/16/2011

I see the Dems say the exclusion was written for ”babysitters” and has been abused to include an unintended labor grade. I have heard GOP say l it will cost money to pay people more”, but not address this fundamental question. If the GOP issue is ”cut labor cost” any way possible,.then they would want to away with all mandatory overtime (make all ”exempt”),.all collective bargaining, the minimum wage, child labor laws, worker safety laws, discriminatory hiring and during laws, and make it easy to retaliate against any employee taking out even talking about a union even when not on company time or property. OT for home companions would be the tip of the GOP iceberg, if ” cut labor cost” is their only concern.

[sindurrella]

04:04 PM on 12/16/2011

Paul Hogan, CEO of Home Instead Senior Care, which has 900 franchise offices nationwide, recently told HuffPost that the new rule "will drive up our costs," and that "our clients and their families do not want to pay for overtime, and they will go to alternatives."

wonder how much this CEO is paid...just sayin'.

[Wise beyond my years]

07:48 PM on 12/17/2011

Let's see ... the company has 900 franchises. That's 900 small business owners who put up serious money to buy a franchise. These 900 small business owners employee how many thousands of people? The way I see it you owe this guy a pile of thanks for creating so many jobs, not a whiney gripe about how much he's making.

And yes, he's right. PCA's (personal care assistants) will lose jobs. A huge percentage of people who need PCA's pay for it out of their own pocket and whether you realize it or not, not everyone has unlimited money to make people like you feel better.

[sindurrella]

10:56 AM on 12/19/2011

A PCA is not doing this job out of the kindness of their heart, although they must have enormous hearts to undertake such a job. They have families to feed and care for, too. To expect them to work more than 8 hours in a physically and emotionally stressful job, and not be compensated is just taking advantage of people who already don't get paid nearly enough. Your comments at being "whiney" could be directed back at you - People who need this care don't have unlimited money, therefore care givers should not be paid for their services - preposterous! They are getting 8 hours at an agreed upon wage. Sevices beyond the agreed upon time should be compensated.

[ksenior]

03:13 PM on 12/16/2011

They have got Obama on the ropes and he is coming up with anything. I read in another article Tis suppose to help Black people and Latino hmmmm. How many Black and Latino seniors and disabled will be able to afford this. I am currently taking care of my Mother using the help of 2 caregivers. If this bill goes through this will have a very negative effect on 5 black women. Me, my mother, the 2 caregivers we employ fulltime, the young black lady who has started a companion business based on a business need she saw. I come from a small town and very few people can afford to pay what Obama is proposing. Please everyone think about what can happen to you if you are a senior and you need this type of service, if your Mom or Dad needs this service. This is something that is geared towards the rich. Both parties are about the rich, we need to decide which of these 2 parties we can live with. For my Mom the caregiver gets her up in the morning and gives her breatfast and they mostly watch TV for the rest of the day. If we had to let her go, the only job available in our town would be working at a chicken factory. I am sure she would much rather be with my Mom.

[soisay]

11:42 PM on 12/16/2011

So these employers are not paid through an agency, and the family hiring them do not get any subsidy? ok , I'll nibble on the bait. Do they have insurance? TB tests? CPR training? Know how to formally sterilize equipment our prepare food? If not, I believe you are talking about a ” companion exemption” as described in the article. Like hiring the neighbor kid to paint your fence or mow your lawn. These laws would apply to commercial providers. Big Med. The folks with millions too spread false scare stories about anything that impacts their profit. I believe you are either fearful of an overpowerful government, or trying to make others fearful by your words.

[jpolzner]

01:19 PM on 12/16/2011

I do not trust or believe that Obama will follow through on this. It was good press for him, but, when all is said and done, he'll find some way of "backing-out" and say he had to compromise. The man has no moral courage.

[SisterAnn]

11:04 AM on 12/16/2011

If the home care workers are actually working for an agency, then how much does the agency earn of their $280 a week?

[freddsky]

01:13 PM on 12/16/2011

The exact answer to your question is likely $0. The agency charges the govt. or (the well-heeled private individual) some kind of fee, maybe a flat rate for every employee provided or an hourly rate out of which it pays the employee a portion and pockets the rest for overhead and profits. I thought placement agencies that demanded that their employees kick back a portion of their wage had gone the way of the dinosaur. If you know of such today, dig 'em up and let us see.

[lochadro]

08:33 AM on 12/16/2011

More of the same from this labor friendly socialist. I agree that home health care people work hard at times; but, often the work is just sitting and reading a book and waiting to provide some care, especially in the wee small hours of the morning. What this pay adjustment may well do is put home health care beyond the reach of the people who really need it. Just what in the heck is the president of the United States doing in the middle of a home health care pay controversy? This guy is a headline hog...a freaking community organizer seeking votes.

[tulfs]

11:48 AM on 12/16/2011

Another commenter who has never done the job and knows nothing about it, just that Obama must be wrong.

[shedevil]

12:58 PM on 12/16/2011

The comment was only made to make a personnal dig at the president as usual, they never have anything positive to say about him no matter who he helps. If it is of no benefit to one of them it has to be bad.

[janylaw]

12:03 PM on 12/16/2011

"Often the work is just sitting and reading a book" - and often the work is trying to control a disabled child from fleeing his home or helping a child communicate needs or giving an exhausted mom a much needed break. It's not just snoozing seniors that need home care.

[ILoveGreatDanes]

08:08 AM on 12/16/2011

I don't believe a word that comes out of his mouth anymore.

[rock-n-rollinHoneyBadger]

07:30 AM on 12/16/2011

Good idea, drive those wages higher and squeeze grandma and grandpa for every cent. Good job Obama

[Canuckphd]

08:17 AM on 12/16/2011

Conversely, keep those wages lower and squeeze those home care aides for every cent they earn. The Teapublican way is not the best way either.

[tulfs]

11:50 AM on 12/16/2011

Let them pay a living wage or sleep in s**t. No one forces them to hire a home health aide, the nursing home is waiting for those who can't afford it.

[sunk1ssd]

10:50 PM on 12/16/2011

Thank you, you said IT!!

[johnny56]

07:18 AM on 12/16/2011

Nice voting block to go after. More pressing matters than this. How many Home Health Aides do you know who work overtime without pay? And last I heard the wages were well above minimum wage. Looks good in the news but actually does nothing for reality.

[tulfs]

11:52 AM on 12/16/2011

The law does not require overtime so ALL of them work overtime without pay.

[shedevil]

01:03 PM on 12/16/2011

Where did you last hear it from? I guess it is better for the elderly to go into a nursing home and fork over everything they earned or own even down to their life insurance in the state of maryland.

[Wise beyond my years]

04:19 AM on 12/16/2011

In my experience a majority of those with a PCA’s are private payers; they do not qualify for or receive assistance either because they have too much money or their need is not great enough. An increase of even a buck an hour will raise my monthly costs by about $170 (I only need someone during the days). For those with 24/7 needs the monthly increase will be debilitating.

We’re talking about only those who for some reason have chosen to work for someone else. The wages and rules were pretty clear when they signed up. Those PCA’s who are self-employed can obviously set their own rates and they receive substantially more than minimum wage. There are a few large companies in this business, there are a heck of a lot of small employers scrambling to make a buck too.

This job is frequently temporary because it is easy to get, the hours are extremely flexible, and it requires virtually no training or innate skill.

The reason wages are low is there are plenty of people willing to do this work. If there was a shortage of people willing to take the available jobs then there would be a natural increase in wages and the market would fix the problem by becoming a more attractive job. (and no, not just now when times are financially very tough for many) But that is not the case. Even when the economy was good, there was never a shortage of PCA’s.

[sunk1ssd]

10:56 PM on 12/16/2011

I hope you never need one of us and if you do you get for what you pay for! It's about caring for a human being!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Wise beyond my years]

02:25 PM on 12/17/2011

I’ve had a PCA for years. I guess it wasn’t obvious from my post ... turns out there is a 250 word limit and I had to edit it severely.

Over the years I've had probably a dozen PCA’s. Although I’ve always gotten along very well with my PCA's, they do move on because they aspire to do something else. A couple have been CNA's waiting to find a job in a hospital, one just signed up for about three months a year to get holiday money, a few were going to college for nursing or social work. In reality only a couple were in this field for good. In other words, most were simply doing a job they could get with minimal qualifications.

Sure, it can be physically demanding on occasion; lifting and moving clients can be tough work and can lead to a lot of back injuries if not done correctly. But most of the time there is little to do ... watch TV, read, make a meal, clean up a bit. In 90% of the cases, this is very easy, non-taxiing work whether you want to admit it or not.

I do have experience with the business and I was tired of reading posts form folks who haven’t got a clue. But why should I be surprised ... there are posters spouting off about how the world should be run who have never left Eugene, Oregon or whatever tiny burg they hide in.

[Scurvydog74]

03:30 AM on 12/16/2011

I hope somebody goes after the exemption of food servers from the regular minimum wage laws next. $2.35 an hour is ridiculous even with tips. No other business depends on customers to donate what they see fit to pay for the efforts of the employees performing the service.

[tulfs]

04:44 AM on 12/16/2011

Food servers are bumbed up to minimum wage if tips are low enough.

[Richard Lent]

03:25 AM on 12/16/2011

How do I know this? Very simple, while trying to make money trading the forex market 4 years ago at my website Forex Daily Signals, I discovered that the Forex market doesn't actually trade, but a computer controls it, I discovered this by breaking the computer "code", which is actually very simple to do in nature, but took me a long time before I actually saw it. Come over to my website "0iI Trading Academy".......