County caregivers protest outside Kern chambers, demanding better wages

Nov. 28—Nearly 200 caregivers who attend to the elderly and disabled across Kern County protested on Tuesday outside the county's top administrative building, one day ahead of their next round of wage negotiations.

"We are on year seven," Sydney Ryanna O'Connor, the vice chair for United Domestic Workers Union's Kern District, said over a microphone before a crowd situated in the rear courtyard. "That's unacceptable."

It's been seven years since Kern caregivers through the state's In-Home Supportive Services program have been awarded a new contract. Today, few of Kern's roughly 10,000 caregivers in the program, according to state social services data, make above the state's minimum wage.

Kern County, alongside the counties of Siskiyou, Tehama, Calaveras and Glenn, offer the lowest IHSS wages in the state.

These are the workers who cook, clean and care for a rapidly aging or disabled population in Kern — in some cases their relatives. Without the IHSS program, many people would have to leave their homes and move into more costly facilities, at the government's expense.

"It's kind of shameful that we're all doing the same work that's vital and lifesaving work," O'Connor said. "And if I lived in a different county, I'd be making more money."

At the supervisors' 9 a.m. Tuesday meeting, IHSS workers spoke before the board.

"My story is like a lot of my brothers and sisters here," said Julie Rocha, a Kern resident who became a IHSS worker after her daughter was disabled in 2018 after a car collision with a drunken driver. "That left me to have to leave my career behind and become her full-time caregiver ... it's unpredictable and can happen to any of us."

Bryan Leyva, an IHSS worker from Tehachapi, directed his comments to District 2 Supervisor Zack Scrivner.

"Zack, you're up for reelection next year?" he asked. "We'll see about that."

Scrivner is not up for reelection until 2026.

This comes more than a year after an impasse between parties led UDW to file a complaint with the California Public Employment Relations Board. CPERB, in turn, penalized the county 7% of its 1991 Realignment funding, about $780,000, which is used to fund in-home supportive care and child welfare.

"They found out that Kern wasn't coming to the table with good intentions," O'Connor said.

As of October, the penalty has been bumped up to 10%, to be withheld on an annual basis until an agreement is reached. In 2022, the county received about $128 million as part of the 1991 Realignment.

Ryan Alsop, who was Kern's chief administrative officer at the time, said in a 2021 statement he found it "unfortunate, but this is really a case of the UDW leadership colluding with the state Legislature to blackmail Kern County taxpayers into providing wage increases, on their terms."

Now CAO James Zervis declined to comment on the record about the penalty.

During the meeting, Zervis told Kern supervisors that IHSS workers are state workers and do not qualify for health benefits under the county's policy. Since the negotiations are ongoing, Zervis refrained from going on the record, though he told the board that the county looks forward to "meeting and conferring with (UDW)."

Each side — UDW and Kern officials — have bemoaned the slow process, accusing the other of prolonging their response and refusing to agree to a fair offer.

In the two years she's sat on the negotiating table, O'Connor accused county officials of "nickel and diming" them.

"We've been faced with nothing but contempt and disrespect," O'Connor said, accusing Kern Chief Human Resources Officer Devin Brown of saying amid negotiations, "'I cannot wait to counter you.' That kind of sounds like, 'we can't wait to shoot this down.'"

While the workers are administered at the county level, they are not technically employed by the county. The IHSS program, created by the state, is paid for by a cocktail of federal, state and county funds. A state audit in 2020 showed California contributing $4.5 billion, counties $1.6 billion and the federal government $7.2 billion.

Kern pays about 35% as their share, Zervis said, at least for any pay increase up to $1.10 per hour above the minimum wage. Any agreement negotiated above that amount has to be covered totally by the county.

"Even though they're not technically county employees," Zervis explained.

Historically, Kern officials have maintained that they cannot afford the raises requested by IHSS workers. Even a slight bump, such as 20 or 30 cents an hour, means millions of dollars the county has to pay through its general fund.

"As we can continue that discussion and work towards, hopefully an ultimate resolution that fits both their needs as well as it works within the county's budget as well," Zervis said to the supervisors.

But union members countered, citing three years of surplus in the county budget — though much of that was due to pandemic-era subsidies — as well as the success of the recently passed Measure K penny tax, which is expected to generate $56 million this year. Advocates also argued that they have gotten health care benefits in other California counties. And O'Connor maintained that they are "not state employees."

"We wouldn't be bargaining with the county if we were solely state employees," she added.

But they are more than dollars and cents, advocates argued.

"This isn't just about county finances," said Precious Henley, a Kern IHSS worker. "It's about our lives and the lives of our clients."

As many workers live on minimum wage, lack benefits and safeties typical of 9-to-5 jobs, they rely on welfare services to get by.

"We do go to food banks, we go to churches, just to supplement groceries because we're basically living on credit," O'Connor said.

While the county continues with negotiations today, leadership looks north to Sacramento, where a working group of state lawmakers, $1.5 million in hand, is studying the logistics and finances for the state to consolidate all IHSS contract negotiations so that it's no longer a county matter.

Many disagree with the plan, saying it will not reflect the varying needs and costs of living statewide, and will likely price out some counties while underserving others.