Left In Lowell

Yes On Question Three

12 Responses to “Yes On Question Three”

1. Peter Porcupine Says:
   October 24th, 2006 at 12:02 am

   Most day care providers have 2 - 3 kids for whom they receive state reimbursemnt, and 1 - 2 who are private pay.

   So tell me - when the SEIU calls strike - just ditch them all?

   Do you know how slender the margins are on home care?

   How many will simply drop out of that system to avoid mandatory union dues for negligible benefits?

2. Lynne Says:
   October 24th, 2006 at 2:07 am

   Since the collectivity is not manditory, each provider can assess for themselves if they want to join or not. Surely even a Republican like you can get behind them being able to decide?

   The fact is, that in an industry which heavily regulated, it’s unacceptable to force individual tiny service providers to keep their voices small and unable to win any battles of any sort. I would feel the same way if my industry were treated like that, as illustrated. It’s hard enough to be an independent small business without the regulations, but since the regulation is needed in this case then it should also be the case that these providers should be able to band together.

   Or are you FOR rampant government regulation without adequate representation for these businesses?

3. waittilnextyr Says:
   October 24th, 2006 at 8:27 am

   Can a union of these independent contractors actually save the State some money by ensuring standards that require less oversight by the State? Or does the union provide no real benefit to the public?

4. Josh Says:
   October 24th, 2006 at 11:42 am

   No regulation or collectivization.

5. Mr. Lynne Says:
   October 24th, 2006 at 3:50 pm

   If collectivization isn’t mandatory, then prohibiting it would be a violation of the freedom of assembly.

6. Josh Says:
   October 24th, 2006 at 6:09 pm

   I wouldn’t prohibit it, but I’m not going to force the government to deal with them collectively.

7. John M Says:
   October 24th, 2006 at 7:08 pm

   Come on Lynne you can’t compare software to anything thats human.Bad analogy. We dont need colective bargianing here.

8. John Says:
   October 24th, 2006 at 8:35 pm

   At least you linked to the site, but your cut and paste was very misleading. We need to talk about this.

   Question Three reads:

   IN FAVOR: Your “yes” vote will help working families have better access to affordable, quality child care by giving home-based child care providers the ability to work with the Commonwealth to improve the services they provide our children.

   No, that isn’t what it reads. Here is what it reads: http://www.sec.state.ma.us/ele/elepip/piph.htm

   I understand this is your blog, but for Pete’s sake try to be balanced.

   That said, I’ll be voting yes.

9. Renee Says:
   October 25th, 2006 at 12:36 am

   As someone as a child who was in licensed home child care, and put her own children in home day care it is easy for these child care professionals to be abused intentionally and non-intentionally. I hope there are secondary effects to this law, allowing employers who have employees who have their in children in daycare to be more flexible in the work day. There is nothing more upsetting then getting to work before the boss, working through lunch, then having to leave at 4:45 so you can pick your children by 5pm (a little after is ok) and be told “We work until 5 here” by your supervisor.

10. ArtisFun Says:
    October 25th, 2006 at 2:11 pm

    I just got a computer call from John “The Gigolo” Kerry supporting yes on three. Here’s two no votes just because they were dumb enough to recruit Kerry to call me.

11. Waltzing Says:
    November 5th, 2006 at 8:27 pm

    In spite of its possible and much needed benefits of collective bargaining, I plan to vote no on Question 3. Family child care providers need a strong state wide association not an employee organization - we are not employees and can have a strong united voice without a change in the law that would allow a union to take over.
    I am a Family Child Care (FCC) provider who has been in business for 18 years and accepts subsidies (voucher and community partnership slots.) I am a leader in the field and belong to many FCC organizations through which I am in touch with hundreds of FCC providers by e-mail, meetings & phone. Providers are still looking into all aspects of this proposed legislation and the views stated here reflect the current views of a significant number of providers.
    Question 3 has been pushed to the ballot by Service Employees International Union (SEIU) under the premise of being good for children. It primarily effects Family Child Cares (FCC) which are small child care businesses licensed for a maximum of 6-10 children in residential homes regulated by the Commonwealth’s Department of Early Education & Care (EEC.) Currently Family Child Care (FCC) Providers receive very low voucher and subsidy rates which often leave them with earnings below minimum wage. I want to make it very clear that FCC providers want and need to collectively negotiate subsidy rates, regulations and other issues with the Commonwealth. Yet, most FCC providers that I have communicated with across Mass. are against this proposed legislation.
    Here are some major issues:
    1. FCC providers are business owners, not employees - many FCC providers are employers of assistant teachers posing complex issues for a union designed for employees. An association of providers would be a more appropriate bargaining entity. FCC providers can and do currently affect change through associations without this legislation, however, FCC does need much greater influence. This legislation was tailored specifically for, and favors the “employee organization” that pushed it through (SEIU) with little or no FCC input.
    2. FCC providers wish to retain their right to choose an organization which best meets their needs. This legislation requires one exclusive bargaining entity and mandates 2 years before it could be removed. FCC providers should have the right to choose whether they wish to belong to a collective bargaining entity, and which organization they belong to. It could be nearly impossible to decertify or get rid of SEIU if they become the exclusive representative and under perform. They are a very large organization that is willing to fight for a new national membership base of FCC providers.
    3. The timing for implementation of this legislation allows little time for an alternative FCC lead and owned organization that could better serve FCC needs. SEIU has been gathering signature cards in preparation for pushing this legislation through - many FCC providers have complained about SEIU’s high pressure card signing tactics. FCC providers want a choice.
    4. If a Union becomes the exclusive bargaining agency it is very likely that all costs (FCC provider costs, taxpayer costs, and costs to the families providers serve) would increase to support the Union. An organization lead and owned by FCC providers would likely place funding back into resources and benefits for the FCC providers and families they serve.

    The “in favor” argument on the voter pamphlet is deserving of the included disclaimer - “The Commonwealth of Massachusetts…does not certify the truth or accuracy of any statement made in these arguments.” This legislation is good for SEIU! However, this legislation could negatively effect FCC providers and the children they serve. FCC would have to foot the bill and be subject to additional labor organizing laws. There are about 12,000 licensed and 8,000 active FCC programs state wide who could be required to pay union dues whether they wanted to be in the union or not, with no guarantee of additional benefits, and no way out. This legislation could also significantly reduce the number of FCC programs willing to accept subsidized funding to those that wish to belong to a union. Child care costs would almost surely increase.
    This legislation also affects “Kith & Kin” which are licensed exempt child care arrangements for subsidized care of relatives - I am not familiar enough with “Kith & Kin” to speak on their behalf.

    A little history: A statewide cooperative association of FCC providers AFCCA (of which I am a member) has existed for about 5 years and is growing in membership and influence. It originated from a similar organization The FCC Alliance which won Large Family Child Care licence rights for FCC providers allowing 10 children with 2 teachers in a home setting. SEIU Local 888 leaders came to the AFCCA board about 2 years ago asking for our membership. SEIU 888 had just formed and knew little about FCC. AFCCA was willing to talk and negotiate some type of partnership with SEIU if it would benefit providers, however, the talks ended and we were told by ACORN (an SEIU affiliate) to join the union or loose our organizational funding. We chose to be independent and have continued to operate essentially with volunteer services and donations. Advocacy and services are strongly linked for FCC with limited funding sources. FCC providers need to own the organizing entity to provide both services and advocacy from any revenue produced from dues. I feel strongly that FCC leadership, including control of funding are essential for a strong FCC voice. SEIU is pushing for this legislation which would significantly enhance their membership base nation wide and require providers to fund a large organization which would likely decrease overall available funding for services to children. This could easily decrease the actual leadership and control that FCC providers have built as it is a top down strategy by an organization that knows little about FCC. The natural process of building grass roots effort for change takes time- I am concerned that this may dismantle those efforts at great cost.

    The Department of Early Education & Care (EEC) was also formed recently merging OCCS and part of DOE. EEC is charged with creating a more universally available quality preschool system. There is currently no seat reserved on the EEC Board for FCC providers- but one seat that can be filled with either a FCC provider or a parent (a parent was appointed in spite of the fact that many FCC representatives applied, and several other board members are parents.) FCC voucher subsidy rates have lagged far behind other types of care growing even farther behind with the implementation of straight percentage rate increases the last two years. Current rates for FCC are $29.80/day/infant in comparison with $51.62/day/infant in centers. Rates for preschool children are $26.35/child/day for FCC and $34.76 for Centers. These lower rates are compounded by lower ratios in FCC of 2 adults to 10 children as opposed to 2 adults to 20 children in centers. FCC not only makes less /child, but also can serve half as many preschool children per adult. FCC’s superior group sizes, adult to child ratios and continuity of care allow for very high quality programs. FCC is rewarded with disgracefully low rates which have put many programs out of business. Regulation changes also have little or no input from FCC providers until time for public comment. A system change is needed to include FCC providers in the process, yet, the voting booth this November is not the time & place for these decisions to be made. Though FCC desperately needs representation and significant rate increases it is critical that this be an effort truly lead by FCC providers.

12. Joe’s Amazing Technicolor Weblog » Blog Archive » The rest of the upcoming election Says:
    October 16th, 2007 at 10:01 pm

    […] example of how it’s worked in New York here. Also voting yes on question three, for these reasons. This entry was posted on W […]

Leave a Reply