More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Michele Host

GET UPDATES FROM Michele Host
 

President Obama Is Right: Home Health Aides Deserve Minimum Wage and Overtime Protections

Posted: 12/20/11 12:38 PM ET

When you picture a home health aide, what do you see?

Do you see someone sitting in a comfortable chair, chatting with a perfectly healthy companion while they both chortle at Dancing with the Stars? Or do you see a trained professional working with a patient -- helping with essential daily activities such as dressing, bathing, medication reminders, walking, and transferring the patient from bed to wheelchair?

Most Americans recognize that home health aides fall into the second category. Unfortunately, federal law does not. Home health aides are excluded from the minimum wage and overtime protections of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act because of something called the "companionship exemption." Designed in the 1970s, this exemption was slipped into the law to ensure neighborhood babysitters and sporadic workers would not be given federal employment protections. Unfortunately, the exemption has also excluded the professionalized home health aide workforce as well -- many of whom work full-time.

Thankfully, President Obama has signaled that the federal government may soon recognize home health aides as the competent, highly-trained professionals that they are. Last week, President Obama proposed new regulations that would eliminate the companionship exemption -- a long-overdue move that would finally guarantee minimum wage and overtime protection to this group of workers. Notably, as Secretary of State Hilda Solis wrote on the Department of Labor's blog, 92 percent of the 2 million home health aides in this country are women, and nearly half are people of color.

Home health aides are trained professionals who do demanding work that is in increasingly skilled. To work for home health agencies, home health aides must receive many hours of classroom training (which is regulated by state law) either through a home care agency or a private school. Their work encompasses everything from feeding, bathing, and toileting patients to assisting with medication and guiding patients through range-of-motion exercises. And yet, under the Fair Labor Standards Act, home health aides are not guaranteed wage and hour protections. Tellingly, as Steven Greenhouse noted in his New York Times article discussing President Obama's proposal, nearly 40 percent of home health aides are forced to rely on public benefits such as food stamps and Medicaid.

Moreover, the lack of minimum wage and overtime protections for home health aides hurts more people than just the workers themselves. Consumers inevitably suffer as well. Because home health agencies are not required to pay home health aides overtime, home health aides work extremely long hours -- even though many home health care agencies are for-profit corporations that charge customers considerably more than they pay their workers. This leads to a stressed-out, overtired workforce that is more likely to make mistakes. Unsurprisingly, the long hours and low pay also lead to heavy turnover among home health aides, which results in less continuity of care for patients.

Before President Obama's announcement, the national landscape for home health aides was a mixed bag, although workers' advocates around the country have mobilized around this issue for many years. In some cities, such as New York, home health aides are unionized and covered by living wage laws And state governments have made progress as well; many states already require that agencies pay home health aides the minimum wage, and some require overtime pay. In New York State, advocates successfully pushed the state to pass the Domestic Workers' Bill of Rights in 2010. This landmark legislation, the first of its kind in the United States, required employers to provide domestic workers with overtime pay and other workplace protections. Other states, such as Illinois, have coalitions of advocates actively lobbying their governments to raise the minimum wage for all workers.

On the federal level, before President Obama's announcement, the outlook for home health aides was bleak. A few years ago, the Supreme Court rejected efforts to dismantle the companionship exemption. The Labor Department has repeatedly signaled its willingness to write new regulations that would extend the Fair Labor Standards Act's protection to home health aides, but it has repeatedly failed to do so.

Last week, President Obama observed, "homecare is one of the fastest-growing industries in America, partly because we're getting older as a society." The president also emphasized the sad truth that "[a]s the homecare business has changed over the years, the law hasn't changed to keep up." Earlier this year, legislation that would end the companionship exemption was introduced in the U.S. House and Senate. Hopefully President Obama's backing will be the game-changer that home health aides have been waiting for.

 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 16
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
07:55 PM on 02/01/2012
It truly is rare to encounter an expert in whom you might have some confidence. In the world at present, nobody absolutely cares about showing others exactly how in this issue. How blessed I am to have now found such a wonderful web-site as this. Thanks a lot. Home Health Aide
03:44 PM on 01/10/2012
Shame on you Ms. Host. Just because Mr. Obama goes off half cocked when he makes some of his decisions doesn't mean an educated woman (Staff Attorney-Legal Editor) should. Try looking at the whole picture rather than what Mr. Obama is trying to shove down the public's throat. Here's the question you forgot to ask, Since the government (Medicare, Mediciad, etc.) will not pay for any of the senior's companion care, let alone this proposed increase, who will?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Anne Rutherford
03:45 PM on 12/21/2011
As a family caregiver who does most of what a home health aid (not a companion) does, I support home health aids getting minimum wage. Their agencies charge more than minimum wage for their services, but the aids themselves rarely get above $8-$10. For those of you who think all they do is watch TV with grandma, think again. It take strength to roll a 200# man back and forth for bed baths, skill to prevent bedsores from starting. It take a nose of steel to clean up after someone when they didn't hit the potty chair in time. Then there is BP to monitor, the medications to keep track of and doing with while not trying to make someone feel marginalized. Keep the care affordable shouldn't mean not paying someone - it should mean that it's a covered insurance expense (and it isn't for someone with long-term chronic illness). It is far less expensive to pay someone a living wage than it is to put someone in a nursing home and the outcome at home is often much better.
12:28 PM on 12/21/2011
This article contains a host of misconceptions. Home health aides and companions are not synonomous. Home health aides work for Medicare Certified home health agencies. Medicare does not cover companion care because it is considered "custodial". Companions usually work for private duty agencies and are usually paid for out of pocket. In California, companions must be paid the minimum wage of $8 per hour. A live-in companion in California is currently paid $192 per day. If the Obama proposal goes through, this same companion would need to be paid $304 per day. What will happen if overtime is required? The case will be staffed by three workers, each being paid $64 per day. The worker will see their pay fall and the client will need to have three workers rather than one. While well intentioned, the Obama proposal reflects a lack of understanding of how this care is provided and who pays for it. It distorts the history and purpose of the exemption and relies on incomplete and erroneous data. Most importantly, it fails to understand that keeping this care affordable is crucial just as the demand for such care is beginning to explode.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
11:27 AM on 12/21/2011
Consumers do suffer, because without protections and minimum wage provisions, the profession does not attract the best. Just like CEOs and executives, pay packages and compensation determine whether we get the "best and brightest" in any profession, or the desperate who are willing to take on anything just to keep from starving. I would not want a desperate person caring for my elderly parents, but one of the best and brightest in the profession.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
tacevad
American SS Card Carrying Socialist
10:11 AM on 12/21/2011
Home Health care workers, teachers, police and firemen are all seen as an "expense" item to be pared down in the Republican mindset. How many other positions are included? One needs only look at the jobs the illegals do to see numerous examples of jobs so "lowly" in the eyes of the monied segment of the population. Dignity was given to seniors and downtrodden in the New Deal. The union movement provided a spearhead to provide some dignity to the middle class while protections brought and earned by our fathers and grandfathers have been under attack ever since. We are now entering the second Robber Barron generation, The people who see no problem with below subsistence wages are doing the work for the few at the top because they fell for the lies they have been told over and over.The Greed is Good crowd have been winning for 30 years at the expense of the little people and now we see them so easily turning what's left of the middle against the least among us.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Anne Rutherford
03:52 PM on 12/21/2011
We entered that Robber Barron era with the election of St. Ronald Reagan. He shipped jobs to Mexico and beyond. We're more like the era just before the French Revoltion - just sayin"
11:48 PM on 12/20/2011
Of course Home Health workers deserve the same protections as other workers - and Mr. Obama having SEIU's support (not to mention an election coming up less than a year from now) makes this the perfect time to make a point of 'suggesting' it's time for them... But he hasn't gotten anything else done in his 3 years in office, why would this be anything different?
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
tacevad
American SS Card Carrying Socialist
09:58 AM on 12/21/2011
the list of things that President Obama HAS accomplished belies your post completely.
oilfield
small manufacturing business owner
10:51 PM on 12/20/2011
another day in backwards world......this will bring medical costs down for sure....
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
silverstreet
All you need is love
10:13 AM on 12/21/2011
Why don't we bring back slavery. That'll bring costs down. We can't have people who care for the elderly earning enough money to live on.
oilfield
small manufacturing business owner
01:43 PM on 12/21/2011
funny you should mention that....i work over 1/3 of the year for our government....so someone that sleeps at a house should be paid overtime?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Anne Rutherford
03:50 PM on 12/21/2011
So, it's o.k. to pay someone who cares for a disabled person less than minimum wage? How exactly does that work? It's physical work helping someone transfer, bathing or toileting someone who needs help. Perhaps your solution is just to put that parent, disabled child, or sick spouse outside and let them die - then they wouldn't be such an expense to you. As for your paycheck - if you stop unfunded wars, tax cuts for those who are doing quite well, and tax loopholes for specific businesses, perhaps the amount of your taxes could decrease.
09:50 PM on 12/20/2011
Another greedy effort to extort more money out of the elderly or their insurance (most likely the taxpayer). How despicable!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
silverstreet
All you need is love
10:12 AM on 12/21/2011
In other words, the person who cares for your elderly mother should earn as little as possible -- the taxpayer will pay for foods stamps and medicaid. What is wrong with a living wage for those who care for your mother?
10:04 PM on 12/21/2011
You state, 'In other words, the person who cares for your elderly mother should earn as little as possible'

Yeah because that person would be me. I have nothing worng with people earning money but let them compete and let the market determine what they are worth, not some artificially derived pay scale extorted at teh taxpayer's or insurers' expense.

Kai