For whatever reason, the Contra Costa Times decided to create news instead of fact checking prior to going to print regarding the Call Center Jobs as part of the Health Benefit Exchange Call Center in their July 25 article where they claim to expose half the call center jobs will be part time with no benefits.
This is simply untrue and twisting of facts—or intentionally ignoring them.
Matthias Gafni of the Times writes the following
Now, with two months to go before the Concord operation opens to serve the public, information has surfaced that about half the jobs are part-time, with no health benefits — a stinging disappointment to workers and local politicians who believed the positions would be full-time.
Wrong, information has not just surfaced, it’s been highlighted and shared on several occasions when discussions began months ago. Gafni isn’t telling the whole story because when the County submitted its bid to the State for the call center, included in that bid was a mix of full-time and part-time employees.
Worse off, Supervisor Karen Mitchoff failed to defend the actions of the Board of Supervisors and decided to play “dumb” by calling the process of dealing with 7,000 applicants a “comedy of errors”.
When in doubt, one should look at the contract which was provided in the March 15 Board of Supervisors Packet where on page 1 of 5 in the contract it states:
The county shall provide, located at the County site, a minimum of (Section A) :One hundred and sixty two (162) full-time equivalents (FTEs) customer support (call center) staff (90 Full Time and 90 Part Time).
In the Board Summary, it states it again the manpower to be utilized:
The HBEX requires a certain staffing pattern at its service centers and this requirement also applies to the County’s Call Center. The prescribed staffing pattern requires that EHSD hire and train employees by July 1, 2013. This includes three managers (one half time), one trainer, 12 supervisors, 180 customer service Agents (both permanent full-time and permanent intermittent), and eight support positions (e.g. Secretary (half time), Personnel Services Assistant, Clerical Supervisor, Exchange Call Center Quality Assurance Monitor, and four Clerk-Experienced Level). While some of these positions may be filled laterally, it is anticipated that the majority will be new hires.
The Call Center will be required to accept calls for 59 hours a week, Monday through Saturday. During the Affordable Care Act’s annual enrollment period, the Call Center will extend its hours to 72 hours per week Monday through Saturday. The plan and budget for the Call Center is to staff the core 40 hours with permanent full time staff and the extended hours, i.e. those past 40, with permanent intermittent employees. Permanent intermittent employees will also be used to ensure adequate coverage and to fill in behind permanent staff during vacation, sick leave, etc.
So if this information about part-time and full-time employees was provided back in March when the Board of Supervisors approved the contract, how can it be August and now there is a problem with half the positions being part-time staff?
Does the Times not have anything else to write about?
Gafni continues:
It’s the latest controversy involving the call center, one of three created statewide to help citizens enroll in various new health care options under President Obama’s Affordable Care Act when it goes live at the start of next year.
Contra Costa was selected early on by the state to run the call center, but the deal mandated the county run the operation itself, with state funding, or lose it to another county. Once Contra Costa secured the call center, Concord and Richmond battled for the right to host it. Unions nearly derailed the project before some last-minute wrangling to ensure workers weren’t transferred needlessly and would receive appropriate benefits.
The state budget allows for 180 customer service agents, half of them part-time, when the call center opens Oct. 1, said Contra Costa Deputy County Administrator Theresa Speiker. The full-time employees, she said, will handle the core 40-hour work week, while the part-timers will handle the extended hours. For the first three months, the call center at 2500 Bates Ave., off Highway 4 and Port Chicago Highway, will be open 72 hours a week. After that, it drops to 59 hours a week.
Again, there is not a new controversy, this is the Times making up that statement by not fact checking the contract which clearly states a mix of full-time and part-time workers—typically part-time workers are not provided healthcare.
In fact, going back to a March 25 article by Lisa Vorderbrueggen in their own paper, Vorderbrueggen states the same thing Theresa Speiker told the Times this week regarding how the exchange will operate. She shared that the center will take calls 59 hours a week, Monday through Saturday, except during open enrollment, when it will operate 72 hours a week—meaning open enrollment will be assisted with part-time employees.
So we have the hours of operation and types of employees stated in the Contra Costa Times in March, the Board of Supervisors Agenda, Board of Supervisors Board Summary, and of course the Contract—I say shame on the Contra Costa Times for making the county look “stupid” to the Nation this week and a national punch line.
Now back to Supervisor Karen Mitchoff who was quoted as saying the following:
“The battle for the call center was over jobs with good working wages and benefits; I never dreamed they would be part-time,” said Karen Mitchoff, who has heard from complaining constituents and expressed her “extreme displeasure with how it was handled” to call center supervisors.
My question to Supervisor Mitchoff is did she not read the contract where these jobs would be located within her District? Did she forget? I’ve just pointed out on several occasions where it’s been publically stated there would be a mix of part-time and full-time employment.
The truth is, this was 200+ jobs that Contra Costa County would not otherwise have and would go to another county within the state—at roughly the same costs and type of employment. Now we have the Times and National Media taking cheap shots at the county for not offering 100% full-time jobs and healthcare benefits.
So my question to the Contra Costa Times and folks like National Review Online is would they prefer to waste taxpayer money in running a call center with entirely full-time employees and offering health benefits? This would be the equivalent of essentially over-staffing and over compensating workers on taxpayer dime—something these folks have advocated against in the past.
Seems hypocritical to me where they claim to be looking out for the taxpayer—now they want it both ways.
To make matters worse, Conservative National Talk Show Host Mark Levin picked up the story on Friday (can be heard at 68:10 minute mark from the 7/26 show) and explained how “Obamacare” is using part-time jobs to get around Obamacare. He suggests just calling the healthcare center and say “hello”.
On the website, American Thinker, Rick Moran makes the case using the Times article that this call center is an example of evidence that implantation of “ObamaCare” is making the US a part time nation.
Since the Contra Costa Times has once again provided lazy journalism to the public–and now the nation–they have given the county a black eye to a national audience when all they had to do was review a public document or read their own paper.
The real shame in all of this is reporters were not paying attention and have simply changed the rhetoric around to make it out like this is something new or that they have uncovered something “hidden” when that is not the case. Unfortunately, national media picked up on a poorly researched article and repeated it.
Part-time or full-time, who cares? Ultimately a part-time job is better than no job in Contra Costa County.
By Michael Burkholder
26 comments
Thanks Mike for again bringing us the TRUTH!
A perfectly good reason why I don’t read the Times and come here for the news. Shame on the Times is right.
It’s pretty bad when the Times has shown clear biased behavior from this center from the start. Thank you Burk for correcting this bogus story in the Times and you are right, its unfortunate national media picked up on it. Another reason to cancel ones subscription as that paper is toast.
Poor Karen Mitchoff, she looks pretty stupid as the truth has been exposed. This is why one should not pander to a paper.
What was really sad was the people that were hired weren’t told that half these jobs were part-time with no benefits. My neighbor was one of them, then two weeks after being hired they dropped the bombshell to 50 employees.
Longtimer,
Did you not read the article??? I have a hard time believing that your “friend” was promised a job that wasn’t offered.
Short of any proof and I have to call B.S.
Burke, can you follow up with the HR person at the County? I just don’t buy that people were told anything less than what was available employment. You pointed out that it was known and reported that many (half?) of the jobs were part time.
So what do you tell the people who were lied to when hired about full time work and is now part time?
Mike, you know elected officials don’t read their “packets”.
Why anyone would subscribe to the Times is beyond belief. Poor reporting and now they attack the county without doing any research, boycott the times.
Not only were the employees not told that half of the jobs would be part time. But there was no set criteria for determining who would be part and who would be full time. Many of the part time people left full time employment for the this exchange because of the benefits, now they’re told that as part time employees they actually have to pay more than double for those benefits. It’s ridiculous.
Dcw,
Your comments are at odds with the article. Did you skim over it?? Burke reported that it has always been reported that many of these jobs were 1/2 time employment. It defies common sense that anyone would interview for full time and be surprised that it was not the case.
Why would any employer pull a bait and switch to a employee who hasn’t been hired? It doesn’t add up.
I’m hoping Burke follows up on this one.
The entire purpose of this Obamacare center is to get medical benefits for all that is less expensive than we already have. It appears this is just another chapter of Obama and his lies. just wait until the entire thing implodes on the weight of itself. This is the scam of all scams. Half of these people who get a job at the call center will have no health care. The center that is opening is for the purpose of getting everyone healthcare. Anyone notice that Obamacare is excluded for the politicians that voted it in? Why? because it’s the costliest most horrible mistake since welfare and the politicians don’t want any part of it. If they did the health care would be for everyone not just the common people. The Supervisors have obtained another debt burden they placed on the county with this trojan horse . Vallejo, Chicago, Riverside, and Stockton have fallen to bankruptsy. This Obamacare center will cost more than it brings in. Then, who will be next?
As usual, there is your opinion and then there are the facts.
Riverside and Chicago have filed bankruptcy? Did anyone bother to tell them?
http://news.yahoo.com/california-reveals-prices-health-insurance-under-obamacare-221300803.html
Even the platinum plan at $500 per for adults is cheaper than anything in the individual market currently in California. In other words, it’s a cut in rates.
Which part of ending recission policies, ending denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions and allowing children to stay on their parent’s plan until age 26 is the “most horrible mistake since welfare” that you stated? Since those are the only provisions of the act currently in place.
What debt burden was placed on the county?
Those part time will seek county assistance in one way or the other. My guess is health care. Most people need health care. That makes this situation ironic. The money that this Obamacare takes from medicare, social security, and all the 90 million full time people paying for the 110 million people on some sort of government assistance at some point will need to be addressed. I don’t see the 16 Trillion in debt getting any better. Someone always has to pay for someone who doesn’t pay. That only last for a certain period of time before everyone doesn’t want to pay and it all comes tumbling down. The debt burden will be seen in just a few years or less. I like how you cherry picked about 20 words out of the 1000 pages of Obamacare to suit yourself. As usual a winger picking only certain words that he can twist. The only jig is on you.
It was 2000+ pages. You forgot your own fabricated outrage talking points again.
So you got caught completely making stuff up and instead of addressing that or correcting yourself, you go on to make up more crap?
Now that’s funny.
Social Security and Medicare are not handouts. They are programs people pay into their entire working lives for use in their retirement years. In other words, they earned it.
With sequestration, you and your tea party buds have managed to cut off meals on wheels for the elderly, knocked out some school lunch programs for poor kids and eliminated healthcare programs for the needy. So who are you planning to kneecap next, Einstein?
Maybe pick up a favorite talking point, like food stamps? Because everybody knows, people are making BANK on the $4.50 per day that program gives out. They are buying fancy cars and living in big ole houses with that major cash. Isn’t that the way your radio fools like Limbaugh and Beck serve it up to you and you continue to buy it?
You’re a classic low information voter and I’ll bet you’ve even got the t-shirt to prove it.
Psssssst….. Hey Jigs, “ECV’sbrother” is a a few quarts low. I’m not even sure he can read! He stripped a few gears and is overheating.
What “makes the situation ironic” is HIS statement : “Someone always has to pay for someone that doesn’t pay”.
If you have been following this knucklehead and HIS statements regarding fire district…..then I shouldn’t have to point out that HE is the “someone that doesn’t pay”. He expects some one else to pay HIS way.
He is a classic low brow information thinker. He doesn’t need the shirt ’cause its written all over his confused face. ECV’brother is more of a helmet wearer on the short bus.
Congratulations “ECV’sbrother” …………..you just beat two trees.
Psssssst……. It is all in the last part of the name Mark. I must have hurt your feelings. I hope that doesn’t scare you any more.
Mark, Even the soloNut you are, I am flattered that you have become my groupie. I feel a new sense of purpose now.
ECV’sbrother,
You hurt my feelings? Don’t flatter yourself little man.
Your only sense of purpose is to entertain us with your chimp like mentality.
Carry on while we laugh right at you. Honestly, are you that fricken dumb?
What’s the problem with having part-time jobs available in the first place? There are a lot of people who are unable or unwilling to work full-time. Limiting all jobs to full-time positions would not only increase costs, it would effectively close the door to these jobs for anyone not looking for full-time work.
Because of the desire to dramatize the news, by framing it as some sort of scandal, the positive aspect of creating a nice ratio of full-time and part-time employment (effectively giving everyone a fair chance at a job), has been completely ignored. Not only is it unfair reporting, it’s completely unethical, if not downright sloppy.
Unfortunately, even if a retraction is printed, it won’t spread with the same intensity of the “scandal,” and will likely be seen as some sort of cover-up of the initial “scandal,” anyway.
DCW, is correct, the major issue that sparked this article is that individuals who have been hired so far have received written offers of full time employment and after working for a short period of time, they are all sweating it out, as they get called in one at a time to be told wether they are full time like they thought or really part time with no benefits. No matter what the plans or original proposals were at whatever level, this type of treatment of employees is unacceptable in any level of government and the government would rain down on any private employer that did the same thing in their workplace. These have evolved from prospective jobs into people’s lives being damaged by false information and promises broken.
Personal friends and members of our community have been impacted by this.
@ Doogie Howser Knowles,
You post is all hearsay (and I believe B.S.).
Can you provide any facts?
Are your “buddies” being forced to take these jobs?
Is the employer breaking any laws or ethics? If so, please cite them.
This “treatment” is unacceptable by who? You? The Government would “rain down”? Please explain how?
Which personal friends of yours are impacted by this? (don’t worry about posting their names-if they really are government employees, then their employment is already public record). Don’t you find it odd that none of them have been interviewed or named here or in the papers?.
The only “false information” I see is limited to your post.
I hear there is a comet passing by the earth soon. You might want to stock up on tennis shoes and reserve yourself a spot!
What an appropriate surname! Mr Solo-Nut, you are a piece of work, you want to discuss or debate an issue, try being more respectful and stay on the issues instead of insulting and attacking the person.. In coming days you will see the facts come out. I have heard that an investigative team on one of the local stations has taken on this challenge. Lets see what they come up with and you can throw your insults their way and see how far you get. Have a great day!
Well Doug……read it and weep.
https://eastcountytoday.net/county-did-advertise-both-part-time-and-full-time-jobs-for-call-center/
Enjoy your crow.
What’s wrong Dougie, someone pee in your Cheerios this morning?? You’re one to talk with a name like “know-less”. What a nasty trick your parents played on you! Why don’t you take some of your own medicine and stay on issue (which is the cc Times screwed up) instead of perpetuating some trumped up B.S.
We all welcome truthful investigative journalism, not just your personal tripe. Too bad that is so hard to come by.
I see you couldn’t answer even one of my questions. Go figure.
[…] On Sunday, we proved that both the contract and the intention of the Call Center for the Health Bene… In fact, in the Contra Costa County Health Benefit Exchange Frequently Asked Questions document, question number 4 states the following: […]
It’s so simple and simply wrong. The county fought for the job center and nearly lost it because they couldn’t agree to terms. At the last minute the call center is approved with a quick hire/start date. The “Help Wanted” ads are posted – but they are all for F/T, permanent jobs with benefits. People are hired and sign the new hire paperwork for HR that states their new job is Full Time with Benefits. A week or so into work and suddenly the county is changing half of those Full Time jobs to part time with no benefits. The basic bait and switch is too good a term for this. The union that was very involved in the process of the county securing this call center should be front and center, supporting those whose new hire paperwork reflects their hiring status as full time permanent. I would think there are several attornies who have handled labor law and contract law who understand the implications of the signed employment paperwork which states Full Time Permanent with Benefits.
This is a matter which should be front and center in the national spotlight even if Contra Costa does look bad. What it did was bad, there is no sugarcoating what was done. The only possible action at this time should be the attempt to make good on their written contracts (new hire paperwork) with these employees. I am outraged by what happened to these people.
Comments are closed.