By way of a disclaimer, I should mention that I _don't_ like unions (and I have never understood how it is fair - or even constitutional - that employees of unionized businesses can be forced to join the union as a condition of employment). That being said, I think I am still being entirely fair in saying that question 3 has been promulgated and promoted mainly by the SEIU and its component unions. If the question is passed (and not rendered invalid by the legislature as so often happens with ballot initiatives in MA) it is a virtual certainty that the collective bargaining agent for the child care providers would be an SEIU-affiliated body - and even though the individual providers would not technically become union members as a result, they would have to pay union dues (or a fee for services rendered by the agent in lieu of dues, but that's functionally pretty much the same thing).
With regards to the "no authorization to strike" provision - are there any unionized sectors of public employment (e.g.- teachers) that are in fact, by law, affirmatively authorized to strike? I don't know the answer but I think it may be "no." This doesn't really mean that the child care providers could not or would not strike, it means that they would be in violation of the terms of their contract and could be "fired"[1][2] for striking - which is already the case for at least a lot of unionized public employees, if not all of them.
[1] "fired" is probably not quite the right term, as, in the strictest sense these child care providers are contractors and not employees. [2] Union-busting is illegal, of course, and there's a fine line between firing employees who are on strike because you (as an employer) can't get any work done - which is usually legal - and firing employees who are on strike in order to break the back of the union - which isn't.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-11-07 05:43 pm (UTC)With regards to the "no authorization to strike" provision - are there any unionized sectors of public employment (e.g.- teachers) that are in fact, by law, affirmatively authorized to strike? I don't know the answer but I think it may be "no." This doesn't really mean that the child care providers could not or would not strike, it means that they would be in violation of the terms of their contract and could be "fired"[1][2] for striking - which is already the case for at least a lot of unionized public employees, if not all of them.
[1] "fired" is probably not quite the right term, as, in the strictest sense these child care providers are contractors and not employees.
[2] Union-busting is illegal, of course, and there's a fine line between firing employees who are on strike because you (as an employer) can't get any work done - which is usually legal - and firing employees who are on strike in order to break the back of the union - which isn't.