Another thing that's particularly onerous about this proposition (apparently) is that it seems like it would only apply to people who provide child care that's subsidized in some way by the government.
If a daycare in a well-off area didn't need or want to work with those parents who received subsidies they could just stop dealing with them in order to avoid falling under the rules of that act.
So conceivably it could reduce the number of good daycare providers available to poorer people.
Something else that comes to mind is that there isn't any language about who would owe union dues if one was established. I'm not sure how unions work in MA, but in TX one reason they've never been able to catch on like they have in other states is that since TX is a right to work state, in many cases, someone can come along and benefit from perks that a union has lobbied for without having to actually join one. Of course that person would have no say in what the union negotiates with the government/employer so it's a toss-up as to whether it's worth it or not, but a lot of times people end up feeling that it's not worth it (if they have a choice in the matter with a given employer).
Like so many proposed laws this one seems like it might have started with it's heart in the right place (or at least a not-bad one) only to end up being committied into a poorly worded proposal where it's possible to do quite a bit of damage to the very people who it intended to help.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-11-07 07:20 pm (UTC)If a daycare in a well-off area didn't need or want to work with those parents who received subsidies they could just stop dealing with them in order to avoid falling under the rules of that act.
So conceivably it could reduce the number of good daycare providers available to poorer people.
Something else that comes to mind is that there isn't any language about who would owe union dues if one was established. I'm not sure how unions work in MA, but in TX one reason they've never been able to catch on like they have in other states is that since TX is a right to work state, in many cases, someone can come along and benefit from perks that a union has lobbied for without having to actually join one. Of course that person would have no say in what the union negotiates with the government/employer so it's a toss-up as to whether it's worth it or not, but a lot of times people end up feeling that it's not worth it (if they have a choice in the matter with a given employer).
Like so many proposed laws this one seems like it might have started with it's heart in the right place (or at least a not-bad one) only to end up being committied into a poorly worded proposal where it's possible to do quite a bit of damage to the very people who it intended to help.