  |
As a group, Latinos represent about 40 percent
of L.A. County, many of whom speak Spanish as their primary language.
As such a big participant in the health care system,
Latinos need to be able to communicate with the health care professionals
who treat them. Communication
is critical and may promote safety. Health
care—not only in the county but in the U.S.—is not as safe as it should
be or can be. At least 44,000
people, and perhaps as many as 98,000 people, die in hospitals each year
as a result of preventable medical errors. One
of the main conclusions of a recent report is that the majority of medical
errors do not result from individual recklessness or a “bad apple” mentality
but from faulty systems and processes that lead people to make mistakes
or fail to prevent them. Mistakes may be prevented by designing
the health care system at all levels. In
the county, we believe that includes delivering health care services to
patients in the language that they understand. We
hope that the Dept. of Health Services takes into consideration the language
needs of the patient population it serves when making layoffs... Lastly,
welcome aboard to the new CEA board directors!
|
 |
|
We’re waiting for the other shoe
to drop, as they say. And it sounds
like it’ll be a big shoe. The Dept.
of Heath Services may layoff 5,000 employees.
To paraphrase what Supervisor Zev Yarsoslavsky said to the media, the
demand for services exceeds the revenue to pay for them.
We hope that DHS makes the cuts with surgical precision, leaving a sufficient
number of bilingual staff to handle the language needs of the patients to whom
the services are provided…
As long as you have a job with the county, don’t do your best to lose
it. That is, don’t give the county
any reason, no matter how trivial it might seem to you, to give you the ax.
I know most of our members are hard-working, conscientious employees
who begin and end their careers working for the county.
The reason
I mention this is that the county
tends to be unpredictable with regard to allegations about sexual harassment
and violence in the workplace. I say “tends to be” because sometimes
it ignores complaints that involve perpetrators who have connections in high
places.
 |
|
|
|
|
A crowd thousands strong marched through East Los Angeles on April 6 to celebrate the memory and legacy of Cesar Chavez. Check it out next year! |
|
|
|
|
Nuances aside, here’s the short version of what happened to a member. He was older, mid-60’s, and while at work in a parking lot, he allegedly said to a woman who wanted a parking space, “It’s going to cost you.” She said, according to the department, “What did you say?” She said she heard him say, “It’s going to cost you...Your body for 3 days.”
She then repeated her question and he allegedly said, “Just park over there,” indicating a space.
He denied saying it. She made out a statement that he said it. What did the department do? Did it tell him that if he made those statements that it was inappropriate? No, it sent him a Notice of Intent to Discharge. The department claimed he had a prior disciplinary problem dating back to 1999, when he allegedly made a similar statement. But the department never imposed discipline for the alleged prior offense. Because this member was ready to retire, he threw in the towel rather than end a 25-year career with the county fighting a discharge. The moral, if you will, is that an employee has the right to complain about sexual harassment but the level of discipline, if the allegation is sustained, varies. The department might bypass progressive discipline and fire someone who claims he meant what he said only as a joke….
There’s an interesting case before the US Supreme Court. It involves a woman who sued for the right to sue government officials who did not tell her all they knew about her husband’s capture, torture and death at the hands of the Guatemalan military in the early 1990’s. (Christopher vs. Harbury)
The government has taken the position that the Constitution does not “impose any affirmative duty of candor on the government,” as the LA Times reported, quoting the U.S. solicitor’s brief.
Such a bald statement
about the government makes official what a lot of us suspected. Take our own
county Board of Supervisors’ recent efforts to derail a ballot initiative for
a raise for health care workers who take care of senior citizens and people
with disabilities. A Times reporter was inadvertently sent minutes by a high-ranking
board official about a December 2001 closed-door session where the supervisors
voted to block the measure from appearing on the ballot. The vote was supposed
to be hush-hush.
The union for the health care workers intended to circulate a petition to gather
signatures to place the matter before the voters in November. Under the Elections
Code, county counsel must prepare a ballot title and summary of the proposed
measure in neutral language—neither pro nor con—before the petition can be circulated.
But Lloyd Pellman, county counsel, was going to pull a fast one by not writing
the summary. Then, presto! the initiative would’ve been defeated without a single
vote. The union would’ve had to sue to compel county counsel to prepare the
summary.
But Pellman changed his mind and carried out his duties under the law. In March,
The Times reported the closed-session vote and the union claimed the board violated
the Brown Act, which, generally, requires public meetings on public matters.
Later the board, again in closed-session, back-pedaled and blamed county counsel
for the scheme.
The CEA wants to thank Violet Varona-Lukens, the board official, who, according
to the New Times LA (Mar. 21-27, 02), inadvertently sent the Times “a sheaf
of secret documents” that revealed the board’s schemes. Will she be honored
by the board as an employee-of-the-month?
Also in March, the L.A. Daily Journal reported that the board officials referred
health care workers to sue their own union, Local 434B of the Service Employees
International. According to the paper, some workers who complained about their
union dues were told by county officials they might be interested in joining
a class-action lawsuit against the union brought by a so-called right-to-work
group.
At a time when the county is strapped for cash, it seems wasteful that the county
invites litigation by Local 434B over the board’s backroom deals and irresponsible
that it would, arguably, violate the law that prohibits a public employer from
assisting, promoting or deterring union organizing.
|
||||||||||
We will ask the Los Angeles County’s chief administrative officer, director of personnel and department heads to exempt all certified bilingual employees from probable layoffs because of the potentially crippling effect their absence would have on the county’s equal delivery of services to all residents.
Without exemptions, fewer bilingual workers would be employed to respond to an increasingly large non-English speaking population in the county. Additionally, the county’s level of services to the limited and non-English speaking population would be inadequate.
For example, many Spanish-speaking Children Services Workers (CSW) in the Adoptions Program have carried more cases than a non-bilingual employee. The time an employee can devote to each individual case is shortened.
Further,
the absence of workers with bilingual skills could jeopardize the adequacy of
services provided to a large segment of the county’s population. In turn, beneficiaries
of the services could contend that their state statutory rights under the Dymally-Alatorre
Bilingual Services Act are being violated.
The Dymally-Alatorre Act requires that every State department directly involved in providing public services employ bilingual staff or interpreters when a substantial portion of its clientele is limited or non-English-speaking. The Act defines “substantial” as 5 percent of the service population of any local office or facility of a state agency. The Act mandates that materials explaining services in English be translated into non-English languages spoken by a substantial number of the service population.
Departments are not precluded, however, from establishing bilingual positions when a lower percentage of the people serviced do not speak English. Where bilingual services particularly affect the quality of departmental services provided, some departments have set their own standards below 5 percent for determining when bilingual staffing is required. The California Highway Patrol has set a 2.5 percent language contact criteria to determine when bilingual staffing is needed.
The Employment Development Department also employs bilingual staff at higher ratios than the minimum mandated by the Bilingual Services Act. These departmental policies show a strong commitment to equitable service provision and sensitivity to the needs of the limited and non-English-speaking public.
LA County is home to many non-or limited-English proficient persons. 1990 census data show that a large segment of the Latino population cannot communicate effectively in English. Of Latinos over the age of five in the county, 45.2 percent are not proficient in English. This figure does not reflect the true need for language assistance since it does not include estimates for the need of bilingual services in non-English speaking households. Further, the census data may reflect an undercount of residents eligible to receive county services.It is our position that LA County departments need more, not fewer, certified bilingual employees.
Many departments have direct contact with communities with large numbers of limited or non-English speaking residents. In departments such as the Department of Health Services and the Department of Public Social Services more than 25 percent of the clientele need bilingual services. The Probation Department, Children Services Department, the Office of the Public Defender Department, the Sheriff’s Department and the District Attorney’s Office cannot effectively deal with public safety without sufficient numbers of bilingual staff.
In addition, without
sufficient bilingual staff, the safety of abused children and health needs of
a large percentage of the Los Angeles is at risk.
The consequences of not providing these services could be tragic to immigrant
communities.
Further, in the Los Angeles Unified School District the current Latino student population is 70 percent. In 1992-1993, 44 percent of the students in LAUSD were limited-English proficient students. Spanish was the language spoken by 90 percent of the limited-English proficient students or 252,931 students.
In 1995-1996, 46 percent of the students attending LAUSD were limited-English proficient. Of that percentage, Spanish was spoken by 277,505,or 92.2 percent of the students. Approximately, 5 percent of the limited-English proficient students spoke various Asian languages.
Exempting bilingual county staff from layoffs was addressed by a court of appeal in AFSCME v County of Los Angeles. In 1981, the Probation Department enacted exemptions from lay-offs and demotions for certified bilingual staff from the Supervising Deputy Transportation Officer (SDPO) level down in order to meet the limited-English-proficiency needs of the community.
The need for bilingual
services has dramatically increased since 1981.
According the 2000 Census, Latinos in Los Angeles now number 44.6 percent of
the total County population. This increase in population has had repercussions
for numerous county departments where the largest group of clientele is now
Latino. Ten years ago in the Probation Department, in 1992, in the field offices,
56 percent of the juveniles in supervision and 40 percent of the adult offenders
in supervision were Latinos, a high percentage of whom are limited-English-proficient.
These demographic changes have created a need for bilingual services that have
not been met by the Department.
As noted in AFSCME,
in seeking approval from the county director of personnel under civil service
rule 19, the then-Acting Chief Probation Officer Kenneth Fare wrote, “The Department
has historically established a need to provide bilingual series to its Spanish-surnamed
clients…”
In upholding the county’s position, the court of appeal noted that the “record
is replete with evidence documenting the need for bilingual deputy probation
officers…Further, there is uncontradicted evidence that each certified bilingual
specialist occupies a position with a demonstrated continuing need for his or
her services, and that the need would not be met but for the exemptions.”
The county should
exempt all employees who receive bilingual pay. Employees receive bilingual
pay because they use their skills on the job.
Additionally, bilingual supervisors should also be exempt because they play
a critical role in providing services to the language minority population. Bilingual
supervisors are responsible for responding to complaints from the public, often
fill-in for absent entry level subordinate employees and have direct contract
with the public. Not exempting supervisors could discourage non-English speaking
residents from complaining about staff members and could result in Spanish-speaking
clientele and other language minority clientele not having their work processed
in a timely basis. The result would be unequal delivery of services to Spanish-speaking
clientele.
AFCSME v County of Los Angeles demonstrates the operational necessity for bilingual personnel and how it can be met by the application of civil service rule 19.05. Rule 19.05 states that a department my retain an employee despite the need for a layoff where it would be in the “best interest of the service,” which is defined in consideration of the special qualifications possessed by only the employee retained that are important to performance of the department’s work and the loss of the employee’s skills on a particular assignment would adversely affect public welfare.
As noted, under the Dymally-Alatorre Bilingual Services Act, the county must hire sufficient bilingual personnel to ensure the same level of services to non-English persons as is available to English-speaking persons seeking such services. We believe that each department director should evaluate the impact of reductions of bilingual personnel on the Spanish-speaking population and other language minority populations.
In order for the county to provide equal delivery of services to Spanish-speaking clientele and other language minority clientele in compliance with federal and state law we will ask department heads to exempt bilingual certified employees in all departments from layoffs and demotions.
| Welcome to the newly elected CEA board members: John Aboytes, Probation Dept.; Joe Delgado, DPSS; Andy Martinez, DHS and Daniel Zaragoza, Probation Dept. who were elected to the board in May 2002 |
Who Holds Us Back?
By Larry Sandoval
As a child, I always
heard the Mexican story about crabs in a bucket. No matter who told the story,
the meaning was the same. Whenever a Mexican crab tried to reach the top of
the bucket, the others would hold him back.
Growing up I refused to believe it. But today I see that the story is not only
true, it’s alive and well: Other Chicanos don’t help raza get ahead when there’s
no question about an employee’s qualifications.
Too often as a union representative in the Probation department, I have come across the worst kind of discrimination imaginable, and it’s usually at the hands of our own people.
Our Chicano brothers and sisters who have made it are judging us harder and holding us to higher standards in order to appear fair. For example, I represented two employees, an African-American and a Chicano. Both were up for a promotion. Both had 3 “Very Good” PE ratings, a similar attendance history and work ethic.
I met with their directors in order to appeal their scores so they could promote.
First I met with the African-American’s director. After presenting the information to the director she agreed to raise the score, assuring a promotion. The next day I met with the Chicano employee who had a Hispanic director.
I provided the same
information and made the same argument verbatim.
The Hispanic director then, without thinking, said I’d made a great case but
if he changed the score it would look like he was showing favoritism.
After a few choice words and informing him of the other director’s favorable change for the other employee, without batting an eye he agreed to change the Chicano employee’s score.
The Chicano employee had the record that entitled him to a higher score. But some of our people who make it forget about the rest of us.
I wish that this was an isolated incident but it isn’t. It happens all too often and it’s the worst kind of discrimination you will encounter. But there is hope. The CEA is the light at the end of the tunnel. Since its inception, the CEA has fought for equality for Chicanos. I encourage each and every one of you to help one another in order to see that as a people, we all have the opportunity to reach the top. We want fairness among each other. And someday, God willing, our children will tell their children how we always help one another to reach the top of the bucket. ¡Si se puede!
Larry Sandoval is the Vice Pres. for Institutions, Local 685 and a CEA director.
| LACCEA 2200 S. Fremont Ave, Ste. 201 Alhambra, CA 91803 Tel: (626) 458-2314 Fax: (626) 458-2317 www.lacochicano.org |
