My name is Tyrone Dickens and I am a union healthcare worker.

I have worked as a homecare provider in San Francisco for almost six years. My work involves cleaning, cooking and caring for patients in their homes who cannot do these things for themselves. For some of my homecare consumers who don’t have family any more, I am the only companion in their lives.

This week I have attended a civil lawsuit in which the officials of the union that currently represent me are suing the former leaders of my local union, leaders that I elected and that I still support. I know that may sound confusing, but I think I can explain it clearly so that you can understand.

Despite my and other members’ protests, officials from SEIU removed the former leaders of my union, SEIU-UHW, from office in January of 2009 and since that time have pursued a civil lawsuit against 28 defendants who used to work for SEIU-UHW asking for $25 million. You can read more about the lawsuit and the defendants here.

Like thousands of other healthcare workers in California, I support the former leaders of my union and the new union we are building together, the National Union of Healthcare Workers (NUHW). NUHW is a democratic union that we, the union members control.

That principle, workers having a democratic voice in our own union, has always been the primary disagreement between the officials of the SEIU and tens of thousands of healthcare workers and the leaders we have elected to represent us.

For that reason, I want the public to understand some facts about this lawsuit. This is a civil lawsuit. For as much as SEIU wants to make this trial seem like a criminal proceeding. It is not.

Despite SEIU making claims to my co-workers that this civil trial is the result of the defendants “stealing” money or that actions taken by the defendants hurt union members bargaining or grievances, the truth is that SEIU’s lawyers, some of the highest-powered attorneys in the country, are not making those claims at all.

However, SEIU is not explaining that to my coworkers.

SEIU is also not telling my coworkers that the scope of their civil lawsuit has shrunk. In fact, Judge Alsup, the federal judge overseeing this trial, reduced the scope of the trial to one fifth of SEIU’s previous charges. Even then, SEIU will have to prove its case in court.

What I’ve seen so far has not impressed me. Today we found out that SEIU staff who took over our union and who were supposed to be looking for and securing files didn’t do a very good job.  The people who are saying that stuff is missing didn’t even try to see if someone else had them. They just said “Oh, well” and let it go.

One of the other things that I have learned about this trial that disturbs me is that the lawyers for SEIU are being paid an estimated three times more than what the civil suit is asking for. Since SEIU’s lawyers are being paid out of my dues money, I think our dues could have been better used fighting Arnold Schwarzenegger and protecting healthcare workers.

Finally, I would also like to share my personal experience of the civil trial. I attended the trial because I wanted information and to see for myself what was being said in court. Sitting alongside me in support of the defendants this week were other homecare workers, nursing home workers, hospital workers, community members, labor allies and friends and family. But don’t take my word for it, come to court and find out for yourself.

Thank you for reading,

Tyrone Dickens, IHSS, San Francisco

::

{NUHW, the National Union of Healthcare Workers, is a vibrant and democratic movement of healthcare workers, dedicated to dignity, justice, and healthcare for all. NUHW Voice features blog posts by workers from NUHW’s Our Voices page. You can follow NUHW on Facebook and Twitter.}

We last heard from ambitious Sacramento County District Attorney Jan Scully in July, when she was a cheerleader at Gov. Schwarzenegger’s infamous fraud news conference.

As you may remember, that’s where the governor made the outrageous claim that the fraud rate in the state’s In Home Supportive Services (IHSS) program is 25 percent or more. Following the news conference, the Sacramento Bee accused the governor of: “Spouting misleading rhetoric about waste and fraud” , while the San Jose Mercury-News called his allegations: “phantom claims.”

Nevertheless, it appears that Ms. Scully had so much fun at the governor’s dog-and-pony show, she decided to have one of her own yesterday to proclaim what she termed:”a new day” in Sacramento.

Flanked by team members in black shirts reading “IHSS Fraud Task Force,” Scully  announced the arrest Wednesday of 12 people in Sacramento County who are accused of defrauding the in-home care program or other social services.

The cost to set up this multi-agency task force: $1.7 million.

You  might think that Ms. Scully would have proof of widespread fraud in order to justify spending this kind of money on an anti-fraud campaign.  But you’d  be wrong:

Scully said she has no estimate for how much fraud exists in the in-home care program.

Here’s an estimate she could have used, but didn’t: In Sacramento County during fiscal year 2006-2007, there were fewer than 400 reports of suspected fraud out of 17,000 IHSS clients: a rate of only about two percent.

But why let the facts get in the way when you can score political points?

Unfortunately, what the overzealous Ms. Scully has done in Sacramento County is being replicated statewide by the Schwarzenegger Administration. Without any real proof of “massive” fraud, the state is spending tens of millions of dollars on its fraud crusade. Among other things, it has imposed onerous new requirements on the 460,000 low-income elderly, blind and disabled Californians in IHSS and those who care for them.

Treating Alzheimer’s patients like common criminals may be a low point in the history of our state’s criminal justice system. A new day, indeed.

With all the concerns about the state budget deficit, here’s an interesting question:

One year of care for a client in the In Home Supportive Services (IHSS) homecare program costs the state around $13,000 a year, while one year of nursing home care for the same individual costs taxpayers $60,000 and year and up.

Yet every year, it seems, the IHSS program faces serious budget cuts while nursing homes are fully funded. Why is that?  Suggestions welcome.