Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ihss Bargaining topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
State report finds statewide IHSS bargaining feasible but costly; consumers and counties raise concerns
Summary
The Department of Social Services’ AB 102 work group concluded statewide collective bargaining for IHSS may be more viable than regional models but would shift responsibilities, create substantial fiscal exposure and raise consumer‑voice and county‑funding concerns.
The Department of Social Services told Budget Subcommittees that its work group convened under AB 102 concluded statewide collective bargaining for In‑Home Supportive Services (IHSS) appeared more feasible than a regional approach but would carry major fiscal, administrative and governance implications.
Leora Felicina, deputy director of CDSS’s Adult Programs Division, said the department convened a stakeholder work group and contracted with the UC Berkeley Labor Center and other consultants to analyze potential models. CDSS reported preliminary cost modeling that estimated each $1‑per‑hour statewide wage increase could cost at least $1.3 billion to $1.5 billion annually, split among federal, state and county funds depending on growth and participation assumptions.
Unions representing IHSS providers argued statewide bargaining is necessary to professionalize the workforce, standardize wages and benefits, and address persistent recruitment and retention problems. "The current IHSS program is fragmented and is not conducive to standardizing an equitable living wage," said Tiffany Whiting of SEIU Local 2015. United Domestic Workers and SEIU speakers emphasized consumer inclusion and proposed advisory bodies with strong consumer membership.
County officials and consumer advocates raised countervailing concerns. Justin Garrett of the California State Association of Counties warned that shifting bargaining to the state could alter the county maintenance‑of‑effort funding structure and strain realignment funds used for health and mental health services. Consumer groups said moving bargaining to the state risks diluting local consumer control: Janie Whiteford of the California IHSS Consumer Alliance and local consumer chairs urged that consumers retain direct representation and influence, not only a statewide advisory role.
CDSS said its final report would be submitted to the Legislature and highlighted key policy questions that would need statutory clarity if bargaining moves to the state level: the scope of bargaining, consumer participation at the table, the future role of public authorities and the mechanics of county funding and liability. Stakeholders on the panel asked for initial implementation funding to begin planning; unions requested $1 million ongoing to staff a transition at CDSS and CalHR.
Legislative staff and the LAO said they would review the forthcoming final report and offer technical assistance; they flagged additional IHSS pressures, including caseload and hours‑per‑case growth and program gaps such as the Graduate Pathways program funding shortfall.
