(Supreme) Court Rules Against Home Care Workers

[Eugene]

Source: Associated Press

Court Rules Against Home Care Workers

Monday, June 11, 2007; 10:11 AM

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court ruled Monday that home care
workers are not entitled to overtime pay under federal law.

The unanimous decision upheld a 1975 Labor Department regulation
exempting the nation's 1 million home care workers from the
protections of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Justice Stephen Breyer
wrote that the regulation is valid and binding and does not exceed
the Labor Department's rulemaking authority.

The case was brought by lawyers for Evelyn Coke, a 73-year-old
retiree who spent more than two decades in the home care industry
helping the ill and the elderly.

Now in failing health, Coke said her employer never paid her time
and a half for all her extra hours on the job.

-snip-

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/11/AR2007061100864.html

[Samurai_Writer]

1. That's crazy

I work parttime as a home health care provider. It's a low-paying, difficult, and demeaning job. It's very labor-intensive. So carpenters and plumbers can get overtime, but not people who empty bedpans, cook, clean, give medications, and feed patients?

[zalinda]

2. Yes, but you see they know that carpenters and

plumbers will walk off the job at quitting time. Home health care providers are too caring to do that, and they know that too. I'm totally dismayed that it was unanimous.

zalinda

[HockeyMom]

4. I have worked in a group home (6 residents)

for developmentally disabled adults. I not only got OT, but double time for working holidays. I also had an excellent benefits package for only $48 a month. I have done all of the above, in addition to having to deal with sometimes severe behavior issues, many times with no other staff on shift.

Bush's new appointments have tipped this court in favor of business interests. The workers are getting screwed.

[KittyWampus]

5. this is partially why home health care workers sometimes pilfer from homes.

[Samurai_Writer]

7. No, people 'pilfer' from homes

Because they are thieves. Thieves are found in every industry and profession, after all. I would never consider taking something from one of my patient's homes, and most other home health care workers wouldn't either.

[Freddie Stubbs]

8. Tipped this court in favor of business interests? Not in this case

The ruling was unanimous.

[Warpy]

3. Most workers are women, and they love to shit on women

They especially love to shit on the women who are providing labor that they think women should do for free, which means caring for children, the elderly and the sick.

I have no idea what they think women should live on. Warm fuzzies don't pay the rent and men no longer earn enough for women to parasite onto them while they do the "hobbies" of child and elder care.

Conservatives hate women. It's as simple as that.

[jus_the_facts]

6. Yep...was told the very same thing...I was a glorified babysitter/housekeeper....

....and didn't have any recourse...eventhough we had to acclimate to *state standards* which were NEVER enforced by the home health company I worked for...sometimes I'd work over 120 hours in two weeks....they'd forge the timesheets to make it looked like my supervisor worked the extra hours...she'd get the extra checks and wouldn't give us our regular pay for those hours as she promised she'd do for us working extra hours the state deemed too many in one pay period...she was an addicted gambler and kept mine and another co-workers *overtime* pay for herself...this was home care for down's syndrome people not able to care for themselves....still makes me literally ill to think about the ignorant and uncaring people who ran this outfit...and the poor innocent people left in their care. :(

[ThomCat]

9. This is a sickening decision.

There is no justification for denying anybody overtime pay, regardless of what their job is. x(

[femrap]

10. Another sexist decision from the Court....

if men were Home Care employees, they'd get OT. Women should go on strike EVERYWHERE....including at home.

Mexican women did this a few years back.

[depakid]

11. Not at all- it's just an administrative law case

that happened to fall disproportionately by gender. That's why it was unanimous.

If Congress or the Labor Department wants to repeal the 1975 reg- they can.

Which of course, is what political pressure and things like like strikes are for....;-)

[Freddie Stubbs]

12. Bingo! Congress passes crummy laws and people b*tch when the courts uphold these laws

It is the job of the courts to strike down unconstitutional laws, not lousy ones. Congress needs to get on the stick and fix the law.

[depakid]

14. The Labor Depatmentment could have fixed it, too

Under Clinton....

As it stands- Congress can only overrule the regulation with a veto proof majority in both houses (assuming Bush would veto legislation) or with a filibuster proof majority- if a president would sign it.

However, that seems unlikely- and also seems to me that there are bigger fish to fry- there's also Taft Hartley, though you rarely ever hear anyone in the "leadership" make a peep about that....

[Igel]

18. Or under Carter.

It doesn't strike me as a crucially important rule, and the dem congress over many years could have passed a law replacing the reg.

[Morgana LaFey]

19. Whoa, there, buddy -- it's the SUPREME COURT we are talking

about here, and they absolutely have the right AND the responsibility to create new precedent by overturning bad laws. And I guarandamtee you that any law which falls "disproportionately" on one gender is a sexist law and NEEDS to be overturned. We have an "Equal Protection" clause in the Constitution -- that ought to be enough.

The Court's decision was sexist. Period. End of discussion.

[GeorgeGist]

13. "Justice" Stephen Breyer

wrote

that the regulation is valid and binding and does not exceed
the Labor Department's rulemaking authority.

jus·tice

–noun
1. the quality of being just; righteousness, equitableness, or moral rightness: to uphold the justice of a cause.
2. rightfulness or lawfulness, as of a claim or title; justness of ground or reason: to complain with justice.
3. the moral principle determining just conduct.
4. conformity to this principle, as manifested in conduct; just conduct, dealing, or treatment.
5. the administering of deserved punishment or reward.
6. the maintenance or administration of what is just by law, as by judicial or other proceedings: a court of justice.
7. judgment of persons or causes by judicial process: to administer justice in a community.
8. a judicial officer; a judge or magistrate.
9. (initial capital letter) Also called Justice Department. the Department of Justice.

[here_is_to_hope]

15. Over the road truck drivers have

been living with this for years. My SO used to work 90 hours a week but being paid by the mile, with no pay whatsoever for "dock time", what a give away.

[Megahurtz]

16. Unbelievable.

:grr:

[Spiffarino]

17. If they can organize, maybe this ruling won't matter

If the boss won't give it, take it from him.

[LiberalFighter]

20. It still would be better to have a minimum wage law for them

and at a minimum time and a half for hours over 40.

The law should be better than what is in effect for restaurant workers.

[Omaha Steve]

21. (US) High Court Rules Against Home Aide on Wages

Source: New York Times

High Court Rules Against Home Aide on Wages


Evelyn Coke, 73, a home care aide at the center of a wages case.

By STEVEN GREENHOUSE
Published: June 12, 2007

The United States Supreme Court ruled yesterday against a home care aide from Queens and upheld federal regulations that exempt most home care workers from minimum-wage and overtime protections.

In a 9-to-0 decision, the court rejected the arguments made by the home care aide, Evelyn Coke, that the Labor Department’s regulations should be invalidated because they conflict with Congress’s intent to broaden wage protections.

The ruling upset labor unions and women’s groups, which fear that it will push many of the nation’s 1.4 million home care workers into worse financial straits. But home care agencies and federal and city officials applauded the ruling, saying it would reduce labor costs for home care, costs that are largely borne by various levels of government.

The Bloomberg administration filed an amicus brief in the case, arguing that a victory for Ms. Coke could force the city, state and federal governments, which finance home care through Medicaid, to pay $250 million more a year to the 60,000 home care attendants in the city.

snip



Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/12/nyregion/12home.html

[Donnachaidh]

22. And the REAL losers are those patients who depend on homecare

Let's continue to nickel and dime the elderly and infirmed. Let's keep those wages low, so that the actual care given to these folks is minimal.

Yeah, we're a CARING country.

[zanne]

24. I think it's a disastrous ruling.

If you know someone who has ever been a home health aide, or if you've ever needed their care at home, then you know how hard they work. My mother's home health aides were so strong, so committed to caring for people and worked such strage hours that I thought that they were at least well-paid. I was horrified when I found out how little they make, how accountable they have to be and how unappreciated they are. Both of the aides my mother had worked through an agency that paid them per diem, even after they'd been with the company for more than ten years. They were both small women (under 120 lbs.) Every day, they transferred some very large people into and out of bed, to the toilet, and gave them showers. The fact that they still cared about the people they tended to under those conditions just blew me away. Though my mother passed away more than a year ago, sometimes they still come around to say hello.

I hope this ruling doesn't make us lose more of these underpaid, overworked, compassionate people.

[brook]

23. This so sukz!

I've done home health care and now am in another job dealing with the elderly. It's become a regular rant at my boss about the disrespect for what we do that is shown by the low wages and constantly rising expectations and duties. One of these days I expect him to can me - all I'd really miss are the clients.

[zanne]

25. God bless you and thank you, brook. nt

[kimmylavin]

26. What a ridiculous ruling.

Way to take care of people who really matter, SCOTUS.

Let's see...
We've shown an utter disregard for women, in regards to their bodies and their right to equal pay.
Now the elderly/infirm and the absolute saints who take care of them.

Who's next?
Teachers?

[MousePlayingDaffodil]

28. Well, to be fair to the Supreme Court . . .

. . . the decision at issue merely upheld U.S. Department of Labor regulations that exempted home health care workers from the overtime payment requirement. The Court concluded (unanimously, I note) that those regulations did not run afoul of the underlying federal statute. Now, if the Labor Department wishes to change those regulations, or if the Congress wishes to revise the statute, to make it clear that home health care workers should receive overtime pay, there is nothing in the Court's decision that precludes either of those courses of action. Will Congress step up?

[kimmylavin]

29. Ah...

I think we both know the answer to your last question... :)

[Hugin]

27. Typical... Give the least to those you depend on most.

Teachers.
Food Preparation.
Health Care Providers.

[sinkingfeeling]

30. I just don't understand why some occupations should ever be 'exempt from

minimum-wage and overtime protections. Why can't they join a union and get this stuff stopped? This ruling 'sucks' as someone else said! A lousy, $250 million more a year? And how far does that go to provide 'troop support' in Iraq?

[disndat]

31. $2 1/2 trillion for military

suppliers, as reported today, and no minimun for needed health workers. A great boost for the crooked nursing home industry.