Letter: Family should take care of family

"Eighty-year old Olga Romo is paid by the county to care for her nephew, a 7-year-old with muscular dystrophy who can’t walk and doesn’t trust others to care for him. Yet, when the clock ends, her job doesn’t. Is she going to not help him just because she isn’t getting paid?,” she asked. ("Home workers join court rally” letter in the Jan. 21 edition of the Daily Journal).

Well, yes! Family should take care of family because they aren’t getting paid. A family’s moral imperative should be one of our first orders of business by virtual of their progenitors ancestry and who follows. There is little doubt that paid home workers who are taking care of their extended family should not be getting paid through taxpayers funding. Ms. Romo offers the perfect example of what is wrong by some funding programs. When she is no longer able to care, then the other family members should step in and assume their moral responsibility to care for the young and elderly in their family even if that has to be in shifts while others work or sleep and managing their other family responsibilities.

Home care workers should not be extended or related family members. It is morally reprehensible that nepotism is allowed to take the home worker employment away from another on a merit based system; the same is true for those hired under a patronage system — politicians hiring family members, unions intervention affecting employment in the auto industry or the many other examples — it also smells of financial insider trading and adds to the family’s gross income!

Jack Kirkpatrick  

Redwood City