Page 191 | Bohemian | Sonoma & Napa Counties

Workers and residents fight Providence healthcare cuts

Will Carruthers

Feb 21, 2023

Workers and residents fight Providence healthcare cuts

Employees of one of the North Bay’s largest healthcare providers are fighting against service cuts which could impact patients from cradle to grave.

According to its website, Providence operates 52 hospitals across five western states. In the North Bay, it owns three hospitals and provides birthing and hospice care to hundreds of patients a year.

Recently, citing nationwide worker shortages, the nonprofit healthcare giant has begun cutting back on local services. Last month, Providence announced plans to close a birthing center in Petaluma, the only such facility between Santa Rosa and San Rafael. Three months earlier, with less public outcry, the nonprofit fired about 15 hospice workers and shortened the length of health aides’ visits with patients from 90 minutes to 60 minutes.

In recent weeks, the cuts—both enacted and proposed—have been met with resistance both inside and outside Providence.

Birthing Center

In January, Laureen Driscoll, chief executive of Providence’s Northern California region, sent a letter to the Petaluma Health Care District, a public agency which sold the hospital to a Providence subsidiary in 2021. Driscoll explained that, due to staffing struggles, Providence intended to close the Family Birthing Center at Petaluma Valley Hospital, consolidating services at its Santa Rosa hospital.

“Despite the best efforts by Providence and the local physician community to support the Family Birthing Center at Petaluma Valley Hospital, recruit new physicians and secure anesthesia services, it has become clear that the program cannot continue to sustain itself and meet our high standards of safety and patient experience in the coming years,” Driscoll wrote in part.

Petaluma Valley Hospital protest signs — Protest signs in the hallway outside of a Feb. 15 meeting of the Petaluma Health Care District’s Board of Directors.

The letter prompted swift pushback from the community, workers and the district. The district maintains that, in a contract signed at the time of the sale, Providence agreed to keep the birthing center open until Jan. 1, 2026.

In a public statement in January, health care district CEO Ramona Faith wrote, “Contrary to a statement issued by Driscoll that Providence is working with the District to ensure a smooth transition, the District Board has not agreed to this outcome or made a decision… Per the [Petaluma Valley Hospital] sale agreement, the closure of the Family Birthing Center without the approval of the majority of the Directors of the District Board will be a default under the agreement.”

If the Petaluma birthing center is closed, it will create a 41-mile gap between similar service centers in Santa Rosa and San Rafael.

Despite public pressure, at a tense public meeting on Wednesday, Feb. 15, Driscoll told district board members that Providence planned to continue with its plan.

At a curb side rally before the meeting, workers and supporters from the community waved signs condemning the closure plan.

“They’re saying that they need to close because they can’t find anesthesia coverage but, if they would pay market rate, it would not be a problem finding coverage,” said Denise Cobb, a labor and delivery nurse who has worked at the Petaluma Valley Hospital for 25 years.

Janice Cader Thompson, Petaluma’s vice mayor, joined the protest as well.

“Women’s health is on the line in the United States and I want to make sure that, in my hometown, women are able to get the services they need. Not having an OB ward is dangerous for the mother and the child,” Cader Thompson said.

Though critics aren’t convinced, Providence has maintained that closing the birthing center, which it says lost over $900,000 in 2021, is not a financial decision. Instead, the nonprofit cites safety concerns brought on by pandemic-fueled staffing struggles.

At the district meeting, Driscoll revealed that Providence had received two responses to a Request for Proposals seeking help continuing to provide obstetric anesthesia coverage in Petaluma. Driscoll said staff are still evaluating the documents, some of which were received the day before the district’s meeting.

Petaluma Health Care District - Feb. 15, 2023 meeting — Residents, workers and a Providence executive spoke at a tense meeting of the Petaluma Health Care District’s Board of Directors on Feb. 15.

District board members took turns criticizing Providence’s plan and the way it was announced. After reading Providence’s response to questions from the district, board member Dr. Jeffrey Tobias said, it did not seem that the healthcare provider was trying its hardest to keep the birthing center open.

“I did not walk away from the response getting the sense that there was any willingness to maintain the services… and the discussion about collaborating with the district is [about] collaborating to close the unit. There’s really been no attempt to collaborate [on keeping the center open] so far—hopefully we can moving forward,” Tobias said.

After a closed-door discussion, the board announced that it had voted to reject Providence’s request due to a lack of evidence of “meaningful efforts to solve the lack of anesthesia services.” The board also created an ad hoc committee to work with Providence to keep the birthing center open.

As of the end of the week, it remained unclear how Providence would respond. A spokesperson declined to comment on the board’s vote, instead providing a letter to the editor by Driscoll published in the Press Democrat on Feb. 5.

Hospice Care

While workers at Petaluma Valley Hospital help to usher babies into the world, other Providence employees work to keep North Bay residents comfortable in the last months of their lives.

In 2021, hospice workers cared for 1,375 patients, a federal report filed by Providence states. Most received services at their homes scattered throughout Sonoma County, along with a few in Marin County.

Aidee Garcia, a home health aide who has worked at Providence for six years, says the demanding yet rewarding job involves a combination of “physical, mental and emotional work.”

“Some of the patients, they don’t have family around or they don’t have any relatives, and we are the only ones who come to see them,” Garcia said.

In October, employees received a series of disheartening announcements from management. First, workers were informed that in-home health aides would be required to serve five patients per day, a 20% increase in workload, requiring aides to spend 30 minutes less per patient.

Two weeks later, management fired around 15 employees. Hospice workers say the unceremonious layoffs impacted a range of support workers, causing a chaotic reorganization.

But, instead of taking the cuts lying down, workers used them as motivation to unionize. On Thursday, Feb. 9, despite opposition from Providence, hospice employees voted 105-6 to join the National Union of Healthcare Workers, which already represents many workers at Petaluma Valley Hospital.

Asked for comment on the impact of cuts and union campaign, a spokesperson stated that “Providence is committed to ensuring we continue to provide the level of hospice services at the bedside that every patient needs and their family is counting on at a sacred time in their lives.”

The nonprofit opposed the union campaign because “We believe that we can better work out issues and resolve caregivers’ concerns when we work directly with each other. However, we respect the right of caregivers to explore union representation and the decision our hospice caregivers have made to join a union,” the spokesperson stated.

In an interview, Garcia and three other workers said their concerns about the impacts further cuts would have on patient care fueled the union campaign.

“One of my patients said, ‘When you come, you bring me love,’” Garcia said. “I feel like we’re not losing that love because it’s something that we have [inside], but I feel like Providence [by cutting back] is going to take away our ability to protect our patients the way we used to.”

Sonoma Valley hotel workers accuse company of ‘union busting’

Will Carruthers

Feb 14, 2023

Sonoma Valley hotel workers accuse company of ‘union busting’

Last Thursday, roughly 250 workers and their supporters gathered in front of the tony Fairmont Sonoma Mission Inn, lighting white candles as the sun fell.

Attendees gathered to condemn the hotel’s efforts to discourage workers from joining Unite Here Local 2, which represents 15,000 hospitality workers in Sonoma County and throughout the Bay Area.

Last May, Toronto-based investment giant Brookfield Asset Management purchased the 226-room Mission Inn as part of a $3.8-billion purchase of 25 hotels across 14 states. On the weekend of Feb. 18, rooms at the luxury hotel cost $560 per night and up.

In a press release, Unite Here claims that Fairmont and its consultants “have engaged in threats, intimidation, and coercion” to fight the union effort.

In November, the hotel hired Quest Consulting, a Las Vegas-based union avoidance consulting company. Federal filings don’t show how much the company has paid Quest and other subcontractors so far.

Fairmont Unite Here protest - February 2023

Union discouragement efforts are quite common, with companies nationwide paying consultants roughly $340 million per year to avoid union votes, according to a 2019 Economic Policy Institute report. In 2021, Sonoma County-based frozen food manufacturer Amy’s Kitchen, which Teamsters Local 665 is attempting to organize, hired Quest and other consultants, according to federal filings.

Unite Here claims Fairmont’s anti-union efforts were too aggressive, violating the workers’ right to decide whether or not to join a union. In January, the union filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board, alleging the hotel threatened and surveilled employees involved in the union effort. The NLRB has not ruled on the case.

Regarding the hotel’s “union busters,” Erik Baumgartner, a driver and valet at the hotel, said: “I want the hotel to know that we’re not afraid. They shouldn’t try to mislead us or confuse us, because it’s not going to work. My coworkers and I are going to make the best decision for ourselves—and that’s the union.”

In an emailed response to questions, Michelle Heston, a Fairmont spokesperson, stated, “Our team members are the most important asset we have, and we are proud of the positive, open and trusting relationship we have with them. Our top priority is to create a superior employee experience that enables, motivates and inspires our team to deliver the best possible guest experience. We value the contribution our employees make daily to the hotel and the community in which we operate.”

Heston did not address direct questions about Unite Here’s NLRB complaint or why the hotel hired Quest Consulting.

Sonoma County studies pension policy as retirement benefits lose value

Will Carruthers

Feb 14, 2023

Sonoma County studies pension policy as retirement benefits lose value

With inflation eating away at their pension benefits, some Sonoma County employees and retirees are feeling the squeeze.

At a Feb. 7 Board of Supervisors meeting, current and former employees urged the county’s top elected officials to help.

During the meeting, Bill Robotka, a member of Sonoma County Association of Retired Employees’ board of directors, who retired from a county job in 2000, said that, of the roughly 5,200 current county pension recipients, over 2,000 receive less than $2,000 per month.

Inflation has many workers and retirees struggling with high costs these days, but former employees of Sonoma County have a unique problem among Bay Area public servants. That’s because, unlike all other nearby county pension funds, Sonoma County Employees’ Retirement Association does not offer a baked-in inflation protection. Many other pensions offer a 2% per year automatic cost-of-living-adjustment—COLA—which helps pensioners keep up with rising costs.

Over the course of a worker’s retirement, the lack of an automatic inflation protection adds up to a lot of lost value.

According to a UC Berkeley Labor Center report released in late January, “Current SCERA retirees who began to collect benefits in 2000 have lost 42% of their pension to inflation. Between the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020 and November 2022, SCERA retirees saw their purchasing power decline by 13%.”

“It puts a large number of our pensioners or retirees under a lot of pressure, and it’s gonna get worse… We’re facing ever increasing prices. And frankly, a large number of our folks just cannot keep up,” Robotka, the retired county employee, said at the supervisors’ Feb. 7 meeting.

Instead of an automatic COLA, the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors, under certain conditions, has the ability to pass a one-time increase to SCERA benefits in order to match changes in cost of living. However, because of the way the current COLA rules are written, the supervisors have not done so since 2008. That’s leaving some retirees struggling to get by and likely causing some current workers to question whether they should stay with Sonoma County.

In an email, SCERA’s CEO Julie Wyne said that, “SCERA has been unable to recommend a COLA [to the Board of Supervisors] since 2008 and is unlikely to be able to recommend one in the future unless some policy changes are made.”

In December, with pressure mounting to revisit the issue, Wyne presented information about the history of the COLA at a meeting of the SCERA Retirement Board and announced the formation of a committee to study the history of the COLA policy and, possibly, recommend changes.

It is unclear when the committee will finish its work. Any changes will be made by the Board of Supervisors.

Asked about the possible policy changes allowing for more COLAs, Chris Coursey, chair of the Board of Supervisors and a member of the COLA study committee, said in an email, “[The decision to grant COLAs] would have significant financial implications for the county, and such a decision would need to be made in the context of understanding the fiscal impacts throughout the county budget. I support retiree COLAs, but a lot of fiscal study needs to be completed before I would be able to vote on this issue.”