Will Management Walk the Walk?

December 2000

by Richard Bermack

Ironically, California may be the world’s leader in producing computer technology, but when it comes to developing computer systems for health and human services, it has been the big state that can’t. During Governor Wilson’s administration, the state produced one disaster after another. Major computer systems like the ones for the Department of Motor Vehicles and child support collection had to be scrapped, wasting hundreds of millions of dollars. Two of the remaining human services computer systems, ISAWS and the notorious CMS/CWS, are marginal at best.

The state is now embarking on a new welfare computer project. The good news, according to the welfare- computer experts we spoke with, is that the team selected to build the CalWIN computer system, EDS, Deloitte Consulting, and Renaissance Government Services, is capable of producing a state-of-the-art, user-friendly computer system. The bad news is that the experts were skeptical about whether the California administrators overseeing the project will act in an enlightened way. As one of the experts stated, “You can have a tremendous work group, but if the administration on top doesn’t listen, it doesn’t matter.”

All the experts we spoke with stressed that the users of the system must be involved in all stages of the process in a meaningful way. However, workers who have participated in the early stages of the project are sounding the alarm. They claim that although they have been invited to sit at the table, management’s attitude is that workers are to be seen but not heard.

Santa Clara is one of the counties farthest along in the development process. Chapter president Maggie Bilich made a point of making sure that eligibility workers participated in all the CalWIN work groups. “We had a meeting with members on each of the 15 committees, from clerical staff to supervisors,” she states. “Forty of our members participated in the process, and what we heard from each of them was, ‘Whenever I say something, the facilitator, who happens to be a program manager, turns around and says something absolutely different.’ They are not even considering us. We are not going to used as pawns so they can go to the board and say we were there, when we were not able to get our point in.”

Santa Clara supervisor Terri Perez agrees with Bilich. “I made sure that we had a supervisor on each of these committees,” she says. “We thought the process was to get input as to what we are doing now, so that it can be incorporated into CalWIN. Well, after attending those meetings, everyone is very unhappy. We feel that we are not being listened to by management or by Deloitte Consulting.” According to Perez, the supervisors participating in the committees wonder what they are doing there. “There is so much resistance from management to our input,” she complains. “We want to know how supervisors will function and they say, ‘Oh, don’t worry about it,’ and walk away. We feel patronized.”

Ben Toney, chair of the Local 535 Eligibility and Employment Services Committee, believes the only way the computer project is going to work is if the union gears up for a fight with management. “Many of the counties are not including union members in the planning process,” he reports. “Workers in those counties need to approach their management and let them know that they understand that the process will be implemented and that they want to become a part of the planning process. That is what I had to do in my county.

“Management always feels like they are in control. They will agree to allow us on the team. But when it finally comes down to it, they are going to want to exert their power and control over the process. This is just another type of negotiation. We have to expect that and keep pushing and demanding that our viewpoint be given as much credence as theirs. And even if we are present in the planning process, that doesn’t mean we have given up our right to meet and confer on the whole process prior to implementation.”