Question 3 Viewed From the Trenches
Nov. 7th, 2006 09:36 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
brynndragonAs 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).
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-11-07 06:09 pm (UTC)"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.