Board OKs Suit to Block Wage Measure

The county Board of Supervisors will sue to block an initiative to increase the salaries of health aides who care for the elderly and infirm in their homes, arguing that the measure illegally interferes with the board’s ability to set its budget.

The move was contrary to a written opinion by the county’s lawyer, who has told the supervisors that fighting an initiative before it appears on the ballot is a difficult legal maneuver.

The measure is due to appear on the November ballot.

“We’ve known all along that there are serious constitutional issues involved and that it totally removes the supervisors’ ability to manage our budget,” said Supervisor Yvonne Brathwaite Burke.

“If every employee group puts on the ballot what salary they want

Tuesday’s unanimous vote was the second attempt by the board to stop the initiative, which would increase the aides’ hourly wages from $6.75 to $11.50, costing the county about $245 million a year.

An earlier closed-door vote to kill the measure led to a protracted controversy about the board’s secret dealings and eventually to new policies increasing public access to county government.

“We would not circulate a petition if we thought it was unlawful,” Tyrone Freeman, president of Service Employees International Union 434B, said Tuesday.

“Our intent here is to increase the wages and the quality of care for seniors and people with disabilities.”

The proponents have gathered enough signatures to put the measure on November’s ballot.

Despite their opposition to the measure, to satisfy a legal requirement supervisors voted Tuesday to place the initiative on the ballot.

But Supervisor Gloria Molina also asked the county’s outside legal advisors to testify about whether the measure was constitutional.

Richard Jones, of the O’Melveny and Myers firm, said he did not believe that it was legal.

The supervisors then went behind closed doors to discuss whether they should sue to block it.

Molina said she believes that the workers deserve better pay, but that the burden should fall on the state, not the county.

The state saves millions of dollars on hospital stays by hiring the aides to help dress, feed and perform other basic tasks for low-income elderly and infirm in their homes, she said.

The aides are paid by a mix of federal, state and county funds and have battled with the county for years over higher wages and health insurance.

The state has approved raises for the aides, but local governments have to agree to pay their share for the raises to take effect.

“The problem that some of us have is that we believe the state has full responsibility--not partial responsibility,” Molina said.

Another concern, however, is that powerful unions will resort to initiatives to set salaries and benefits when they are unhappy with the county’s offers.

Indeed, the union representing county sheriff’s deputies filed an intention Monday with the registrar-recorder to circulate a petition for an initiative for better retirement benefits.

“When you set salaries by initiative, when you have benefits set by initiative, you have the unsettling specter of having salaries set by the voters that exceed the government’s ability to pay,” said Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky.

“It’s not about the home-care workers. This is about how the county is going to govern itself and how salaries are going to be set.”

He said that the county was willing to offer a modest raise, bringing salaries up to $7.50 an hour, but that the union chose to take the issue to the voters.

The supervisors have wanted to stop the initiative since the union served notice of it in December.