Essential Yet Invisible: Homecare workers in Oregon

New studies from the Labor Education and Research Center (LERC) at the University of Oregon with homecare workers in Oregon find the need to invest in strengthening labor standards and raising wages and that, under COVID-19, homecare workers are “essential yet invisible.”

The State of Homecare Work in OregonThe first study, The State of Homecare Work in Oregon: The Need to Invest in Raising Wages and Strengthening Labor Standards, shows that Homecare work has one of the highest projected growth of any occupation. The homecare industry is growing rapidly while nonunion private agency homecare workers’ wages stagnate. In total, the median cost to clients of homecare in Oregon is $4,957/month. However, the median homecare worker monthly wage is $1,350. Long devalued, homecare workers exhibit skill and remarkable dedication in their profession. This study details how raising wages and standards in this industry is necessary to recruit and retain the skilled and dedicated workforce Oregon needs.

A second, follow-up LERC studyEssestial Yet Invisible with homecare workers in Oregon examines how COVID-19 has made already hazardous and complex work even more risky and challenging to navigate, as homecare workers often must figure out on their own how to adapt care routines and take on additional health and safety precautions at work. Because homecare work is primarily conducted by women and is one of the most racially and ethnically diverse professions nationally and in the state of Oregon, these new challenges disproportionately affect women and women of color specifically.

Homecare workers expressed that, despite being classified as essential, they feel sacrificial and undervalued. Underpaid homecare workers are often paying for necessary supplies out of pocket and must navigate anxieties from both increasingly unstable hours and earnings and fear of contracting the infection while working.

Understanding the anti-union industry

Why do so few American workers have unions?

Unions are one of the key strategies for improving American workers’ standard of living and decreasing inequality.  Across the country, if you compare two people who work in the same occupation and same industry, with the same education and experience, but one has a union and the other does not – the person with a union on average makes more than 10% higher wages and has a 20-205% better chance of getting health insurance or a pension through their job.

Simply put, unions enable employees at any job to negotiate with their boss for a fair share of the profits that their work creates – it’s no surprise that people who are able to engage in collective bargaining end up with fairer working conditions.

For this reason, it’s no surprise that many non-union workers wish they had a union in their workplace.  The most recent survey data shows that nearly half of all non-union workers say they would vote for a union in their workplace if given a chance.  If all these people had their wish come true, there would be an additional 58 million union members in the country, and the crisis of inequality would be dramatically improved.

In reality, however, only 50,000 unorganized workers a year manage to win the right to a union through the National Labor Relations Board.   If 58 million people want a union, how can it be that less than 1% of them are able to realize this goal?

The answer to this question can be found in two recent reports published by the Economic Policy Institute, co-authored by LERC professor Gordon Lafer and LERC graduate research assistant Lola Loustaunau.  The first report – titled simply Unlawful – reports on the vast industry of “union avoidance” consultants who coach American employers to launch intensive campaigns aimed at stopping their employees from exercising their right to collective bargaining.  The report documents that American corporations – including many name-brand companies – spend over $340 million per year to deny their employees the right to organize.  In those efforts, these same employers are charged with illegal acts of intimidation or retaliation against their employees in over 40% of cases. (report is here: https://www.epi.org/publication/unlawful-employer-opposition-to-union-election-campaigns/)

The second report, Fear at Work (https://www.epi.org/publication/fear-at-work-how-employers-scare-workers-out-of-unionizing/) shows how, even when they don’t break the law, employers rely on a set of intimidation tactics that would be illegal in any election for city council, state legislature or Congress, but which are permitted under current federal labor law.  The report ends with a call for Congress to enact new federal labor law that makes the right to collective bargaining a reality rather than an illusion for American workers.

Persistent Unpredictability

A new LERC and UO Sociology study on the impacts of the first statewide Fair Workweek law reveals “Persistent Unpredictability” in Oregon retail, food services, and hospitality workers’ schedules, as employers find ways to continue changing workers’ schedules at the last minute and avoid  predictability pay obligations.

Scheduling report cover

While the law is a first step in addressing unstable scheduling practices and increases advance notice and ensures workers have the right to rest between shifts, certain provisions, such as the voluntary standby list, leave room for improvement.

This study also reveals the need for adequate funding for BOLI as more robust resources for education and enforcement are necessary. For more see full report here: Persistent Unpredictability: Assessing the Impacts of Oregon’s Employee Work Schedules Law

#foreveressential

In a follow up study to the “Predictable Unpredictability: Assessing the Impacts of Oregon’s Employee Work Schedules Law” LERC and UO Sociology researchers conducted 52 in-depth interviews with Oregon retail, food services, and hospitality workers about what it means to be an essential worker in the service sector under COVID-19. This study reveals that workers have no choice but to be essential and continue working despite facing new physical and emotional hazards in their workplaces. See the brief here.