Question 3 Viewed From the Trenches

[brynndragon]

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).

Comments

[tober.livejournal.com]

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.

[benndragon.livejournal.com]

People who run in-home day care are small businesses, not government employees. They are sometimes given money for services as part of a government program (e.g. the single mom who pays 50% for her kid's care while the government pays the other 50%, or the "we'll give you partial reimbursement if you feed kids healthy things" program my mom participated in a while back), but they sign contracts with parents, not the state. So no, they are not a part of the public sector and thus no-public-sector-strike rules should not apply to them.

[tober.livejournal.com]

Right. In any case, the providers in question don't have a "right to strike" today (except insofar as they can individually choose to participate in these subsidized programs or not - and I don't see any attempt in this proposal to change that - such an attempt would possibly be construed as unconstitutional anyways) so I don't see how specifically the "no authorization to strike" provision makes things worse. Without this language, a court might hold that this law (if enacted) creates an authorization for the providers (collectively) to strike. I still don't like this proposal - I just don't think that the "no authorization to strike" clause removes any right or privilege that the providers have now.

[roamin-umpire.livejournal.com]

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" for striking - which is already the case for at least a lot of unionized public employees, if not all of them.

Varies from state to state. I seem to remember the number of states that have such laws is somewhere around 30, but I can't be certain. In New York, this is called the Taylor Law, and it prohibits public employees from striking in exchange for other concessions... most notably that the union gets to collect a "negotiating fee" equal to their dues from anyone who elects to not join their union. To me, this is a lose-lose scenario, but then, I don't have much respect for my current union.