Parents should be exempted from the SEIU’s money grab. I-1163 diverts money from direct care at a time when dollars are scarce. The least expensive place to care for a disabled individual is in their family home.

The Service Employees International Union is pushing the requirement without regard for the expense of the self-serving imperative. Pay for this, cut something else.

I agree with what The Columbian had to say about I-1163. It’s nothing but a blatant attempt by a union afraid of losing clout.

The state already has proper background checks and mandated training in place, and certainly does not in these tight budget times need to switch funds from core services to auditing and oversight. Vote no on I-1163.

Centralia-Chronicle_Our-Views.pdf

That's some trade-off union is pushing.

Lewiston-Tribune_That's some trade-off service union is pushing.pdf

NEW Initiative 1163 too expensive -- reject it

WALLA WALLA Union Bulletin.pdf

Instead, the measure, promoted by the Service Employees International Union, would force the state to come up with an estimated $80 million for additional programs, much of which would go into the pockets of the union which administers the training. This measure would have an additional negative impact on an already-desperate state budget situation.

Seattle Times on Initiative 1163: Leadership means having the courage to say we can't afford it.

We think voters should say no to Initiative 1163, the timing for which couldn't be worse. It would cost about $18 million over the next two years, just as another $2 billion in state budget cuts are ravaging other programs, including health care, education and corrections.

Any family member who cares full-time for an elderly or disabled person needs a break. This law reduces their chances to find someone to watch their family member and give them a break.

The governor’s budget office says costs would be about $32 million over the next two years, with nearly $18 million paid by the state and the rest by federal funds or new fees. “It’s just the wrong time; it’s the wrong vehicle,’’ said Cindi Laws, executive director of the WSRCC and the chairwoman of the opposition campaign. She said that without a tax increase to pay for the training, the state would have to cut other care for seniors and disabled adults to pay for it.

Our state does not have money to spend on a special interest training program while cutting essential services to our citizens. It is more important to restore these services than to spend millions on additional and unnecessary training and background checks for long-term care workers.

This measure comes with an estimated price tag of $80 million with no designated funding source. Without such, this is an exercise whose futility in itself warrants a no vote.

With the budget crisis, the state is considering eliminating state-subsidized health care for the working poor, cutting services for the elderly and disabled and reducing supervision of violent-crime parolees. Implementing I-1163 would cost tens of millions of dollars, and we're rather see that money spent on the needs mentioned above than on a program that's already in place for 2014. We recommend a "no" vote on I-1163.

How does the union propose to pay the $80 million price tag of I-1163? Its selfish, cavalier approach to the current budget crisis is unconscionable. Whose medical services will be eliminated to pay for I-1163? Whose school lunches do they intend to cut? Whose taxes do they intend to raise?

Story about state initiative and impact it may have on long term care workers.

The The goals of this initiative are worthwhile, but at the moment, I don't think the state can afford them.

Were the state economy still growing, and the state budget in surplus, this proposal should get serious attention. But, in the present financial and economic environment, it is a non-starter largely devised to benefit the union sponsoring it.

"House Ways and Means Chairman Ross Hunter, D-Medina, said he will probably vote no on the measure (I-1163) because of the gaping budget hole. State agencies have prepared a long list of potential cuts, such as eliminating supervision of parolees convicted of violent crimes and ending state-subsidized health care for the working poor

So now the SEIU is back with I-1163, with additional training requirements along with the proposal for criminal background checks. Taxpayers would be on the hook for training, a situation that exists in very few areas outside of public safety. This measure comes with an estimated price tag of $80 million. Oh ... and no funding source.

McKenna said he will also vote against Initiative 1163: Sponsored by the Service Employees International Union, the measure would require training and background checks for care workers. A similar initiative, passed by voters, was put on hold by the Legislature due to the state’s financial crisis.

It should be clear to voters that I-1163 is not about protecting vulnerable adults; it’s about promoting the best interests of SEIU.

What’s really going on is an attempt by the Service Employees International Union to force the state to come up with an estimated $80 million for such programs while it already is facing another $2.8 billion deficit. There’s no reason to gut other programs or raise taxes for such a questionable measure.

State Superintendent Randy Dorn says he won't support more cuts to public schools to balance the state budget. We talk with Dorn, and go into the pros and cons of I-1163, the long-term care initiative.

This initiative will cost taxpayers an additional $80 million over the next two years. The way to pay for it is by cutting other social programs or by raising taxes.

PAS-Port for Change, a statewide, grass-roots organization that seeks to improve the quality, reliability and availability of personal assistance services in Washington state opposes I-1163.

a stinker wrapped up in pretty paper with a bow on top

trying to siphon millions away for the sake of consolidating its hold on long-term care.

The Seattle Times opposes Initiative 1163. It is a grab for public money at a time when there is no money.

The Association of Washington Business (AWB) announced it opposes Initiative 1163 because taxpayers cannot afford a new multi-million spending program with the state in a financial crisis.

The Deficit Means Voters Can’t Afford Initiative 1163.

Our state is in its worst financial environment since the Great Depression. And here we have a union, a special interest, that wants to pay for a training program with money that should rightly be going to home health, hospice, private pay and Medicaid home care, adult family homes, assisted living facilities and developmental disability agencies. "These vital programs all took cuts already this year and could face even more cuts if I-1163 somehow passes.

Watch Protect our Seniors - No on I-1163 Campaign Committee Chair Cindi Laws win the endorsement of the Olympian Editorial Board on TV.

Click here to watch @ TVW.

It's obvious that the real motivation behind Initiative 1163 has absolutely nothing to do with improving long-term care. It is intended simply to swell the rolls of dues-paying union members, and provide taxpayer-paid employment for unqualified union members to ‘train' our caregivers.

The requirements in I-1163 will cost taxpayers an additional $30 million on top of I-1029's $49 million dollar price tag.

Enough With SEIU’s Self-Serving Political Power Grab – Time to Call It For What It Is.

Read More:_Centralia-Chehalis Chamber of commerce.pdf

INITIATIVE 1163, which will be on the statewide ballot in November, is bad policy and cynical politics combined.

The bad policy we have commented on before. The new initiative is almost a copy of another that passed in 2008 to increase the training required of long-term-care workers. While agreeing that training is a good thing, this page opposed that measure because it was an example of a special interest writing law for itself.

Read More @ SeattleTimes.com

Well, this initiative is troublesome. Initiative 1163 is special interest training program benefiting only the SEIU with absolutely no funding mechanism. My colleagues and I work with seniors every day, we care for thousands of seniors, we employ thousands of caregivers and this expensive union-sponsored initiative is not necessary. The costs will be passed on through higher taxes and small businesses like mine will be forced to raise their rates to compensate for non-funded training.

Read More @ TVW.org

Click here to listen to a radio interview.

The Washington Legislature should defer implementation of Initiative 1029 for two years, write guest columnists David Lawrence and Doris Visaya. The extensive training for health-care workers is not set up, and some people might lose their caregivers who can't get, or afford, training.

Although caring for the elderly has the appearance of sweetness and light, the initiative will make long term care more costly without any real improvement.

Read More @ Washingtonstatepolite