benndragon (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
brynndragon) wrote2006-11-07 09:36 am
brynndragon) wrote2006-11-07 09:36 am
Entry tags:
Question 3 Viewed From the Trenches
As some of you know, my mom runs a day care out of her home. As (I hope) all you know, question 3 on today's ballot is about how people like my mom can bargain with the state. So I called her up this morning and asked her what she felt about it.
Her initial reaction was to say no, because she doesn't like unions and feels that she is running an individual business. She doesn't like the idea of someone else getting to decide if the government should give her more or less money for the single mom she is providing care for (the deal in MD is the state pays half of the child care costs), and the law would (if she was up here) force her to do so if less than a third of her fellow providers said it was OK. Then I read her the text of the proposition, and I got to this line: "The proposed law would not authorize providers to engage in a strike or other refusal to deliver child care services." To which she said, "Wait, I'm no longer allowed to strike or even say that I don't like the deal and won't be giving child care to someone? Oh hell no." She feels strongly that this proposition would take power away from her, not increase it.
I know some of you have already voted, but I thought those that haven't yet would like an opinion from someone who has been an "authorized provider of child care in [a] private home" for over 25 years. Furthermore, you get to have that info without trying to hear my mom talk over several yelling kids, occasionally turning away to get them to hush (it would've made an amusing NPR interview ;P).
Her initial reaction was to say no, because she doesn't like unions and feels that she is running an individual business. She doesn't like the idea of someone else getting to decide if the government should give her more or less money for the single mom she is providing care for (the deal in MD is the state pays half of the child care costs), and the law would (if she was up here) force her to do so if less than a third of her fellow providers said it was OK. Then I read her the text of the proposition, and I got to this line: "The proposed law would not authorize providers to engage in a strike or other refusal to deliver child care services." To which she said, "Wait, I'm no longer allowed to strike or even say that I don't like the deal and won't be giving child care to someone? Oh hell no." She feels strongly that this proposition would take power away from her, not increase it.
I know some of you have already voted, but I thought those that haven't yet would like an opinion from someone who has been an "authorized provider of child care in [a] private home" for over 25 years. Furthermore, you get to have that info without trying to hear my mom talk over several yelling kids, occasionally turning away to get them to hush (it would've made an amusing NPR interview ;P).
no subject
no subject
Reading the whole text of the proposal this morning, I easily found two things to object to - that you didn't need anything near a majority of providers to force all of them to accept a representative rather than remain independant (I like unions, I don't like people being forced into unions), and the whole "no striking for you!" thing (the ability to say "do this or we won't work" is a large chunk of a union's power, and taking it away makes a union into a paper tiger). I didn't tell my mom about those issues however, she objected to them on her own. So she and I were in agreement, even though I'm generally favorable toward unions while she's generally negative toward them.
I'm also dubious of what looks like a goverment-organized union to bargain with the government. Sounds like a conflict of interests to me. The more I think about this proposal the less I like it. . .
no subject
no subject
"Under the proposed law, these family child care providers who provide state-subsidized child care would not be considered public employees, but if 30% of the providers gave written authorization for an employee organization to be their exclusive representative in collective bargaining, the state Labor Relations Commission would hold a secret mail ballot election on whether to certify that organization as the exclusive representative."
The only thing I'm sure of is they couldn't have used more confusing language if they'd tried.
no subject
It is possible that conditions for people in this field happen to be much worse in MA than they are in MD. (I've seen people claiming that if you're an employer who doesn't want a union, all you have to do is treat your employees well.)
The actual text of the law regarding strikes is ``Section 7. Strikes Not Authorized
No provision of this chapter shall be construed to authorize family child care providers to engage in a strike, boycott, or cessation of the delivery of child care services.''
I don't see anything in the law that looks like it would prevent a provider from saying ``I'm getting out of the business of providing child care to people who get state subsidies.''
no subject