Post-Gazette Editorial – 7/10/07

This page was last updated on July 10, 2007.

Family value: Home health-care workers deserve a decent wage; Editorial; Pittsburgh Post-Gazette; July 10, 2007.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“Some of the country’s unsung heroes are the health-care workers who go into the homes of the elderly and infirm to provide them basic care. Most labor long hours for little pay. Unfortunately, they got a collective slap in the face recently from the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled unanimously that businesses are not required to pay them the federal minimum wage or overtime pay.”

[RWC] The Supreme Court didn’t slap anyone in the face. It simply made a ruling based on what the law said. As I mention elsewhere in this critique, it’s not legal or appropriate for courts to make policy changes.

“The decision again reveals a high court that can be worker-unfriendly. Thanks to home-health care workers, thousands of people are able to stay out of institutions and maintain a sense of independence in familiar surroundings.”

[RWC] Courts are not supposed to friendly or unfriendly to anyone. Their sole role is to rule on a case based on laws passed and signed by the legislative and executive branches of government. They must not rule based on emotion or their personal policy preferences. I know liberals don’t believe this, but rulings not based on what the law says hurt everyone regardless of their economic, political, and social positions.

I think the following quote from Chief Justice John Roberts during his 2005 confirmation hearings says it well. “I had someone ask me in this process, I don’t remember who it was, but somebody asked me: are you going to be on the side of the little guy? You obviously want to give an immediate answer, but as you reflect on it, if the Constitution says that the little guy should win, the little guy is going to win in court before me. But if the Constitution says that the big guy should win, well, then the big guy is going to win, because my obligation is to the Constitution.”

Finally, though the ruling was unanimous, the editorial would like us to believe the ruling is because of so-called conservative justices. The fact the ruling was unanimous means the law had to be fairly explicit and left no wriggle room.

“There is a remedy. Congress or the U.S. Labor Department can amend the Fair Labor Standards Act to improve the pay status of home-health care workers employed by companies.”

[RWC] I’m not saying I agree with changing the law, but this is how laws must be changed. Courts cannot be in the position of setting or changing public policy. That’s the role of the legislative and executive branches.

“The law was passed in 1938 and has been amended once, in 1974. The Labor Department has looked at this issue three times in the last 15 years. Now it’s time to act on it.

“Justice Stephen Breyer described the exclusion of home health-care workers from normal wage standards as reasonable, which might have been true in 1938 but not today. People are living longer, and it’s an insult to consider their caregivers as baby sitters.

“Members of the administration or Congress who are reluctant to amend the Fair Labor law should consider that some day they may be dependent on a home health-care worker. Will they want to depend on one who does not make a living wage?”

[RWC] Hmm, what about the free market determining the compensation for home healthcare employees? As noted in previous critiques, the PG opinion pages FAQ alleges, “it wouldn’t be unfair to describe the Post-Gazette’s philosophy as generally liberal on social issues and more conservative on economic issues.” This is yet another editorial baring the falsehood of “more conservative on economic issues.” As we see time after time, setting a minimum wage is an exercise in futility.