This one I’m pretty sure we have not discussed yet. đŸ™‚
The ballot question would allow home childcare workers who provide state-subsized child care services either in their own homes or the homes of the parents to “organize” (read: unionize) and collectively bargaining with the state.
This question is being proposed by SEIU (Service Employees International Union) (implying, I suppose, that this is the union that would want to represent MA state-contracted child care providers) and Jobs with Justice.
There doesn’t seem to be a formal opposition but certainly there are individuals out there with strong opinions.
So, my opinion? First, I’m confused about why we need this question. I thought the right to organize for any worker was already a protected right. (Granted, I’m reaching pretty far back to 11th grade History and Civics). Maybe it has something to do with forcing the state to negotiate in good faith with the appointed union rep(s)? But I’m not clear why this needs to be an issue for the entire electorate to consider, rather than a routine matter for the legislature or the labor comission or whoever usually handles these things. Anyone want to educate me here?
But in general, I’m more or less pro-union. I’m also more or less pro-childcare-worker. It is my observation that child care workers do hard work for little pay and I think that kind of sucks. Based on those facts alone, I’m leaning toward supporting Question 3.
The arguments against seem to be: it will end up costing the state more money to subsidize childcare (but as a noted tax-n-spend liberal, this argument doesn’t move me much); the “rising tide lifts all boats” effect will raise the cost of all childcare (this does give me pause when I think of the many struggling families I know…but then I think that the childcare workers themselves are often struggling, and I think they should get a fair wage too); that exclusive representation by the union would require agreement from only 30% of the workers (this last one does give me pause — what about the remaining up-to 70%? They will lose the ability to individually negotiate their contracts with the state. I don’t know enough about the business to say for sure that the union-negotiated contract is sure to be better than what some individuals may be able to negotiate; but it seems to me in general that 1000 people speaking together carry more strength in negotiations than 1000 individual voices, and that’s the whole rationale behind unions, eh?)
So as with Question 2, I find myself leaning generally in favor but I hate making a decision without hearing a cogent argument for both sides.
First most family child care providers work for themselves.
<
p>
There are early childhood standards , licensing , and accredidation standards to raise the quality of early childhood education.
<
p>
A degree in early childhood education is the one of most influential improver of quality. Will family childcare providers be required to attain degrees in early childhood education?
<
p>
The commonwealth of Massachusetts uses a non negotiated unit rate price . The set a rate and if one chooses to accept it thats it. As far as I can tell there is nothing to negotiate.
<
p>
I am pro labor and definately for increasing quality of early childhood education. I am not sure this is the way to do it.
<
p>
That being said Massachusetts is and has been on the road to improving and providing quality early childhood education and something has to be done about their reimbursement rates .
Oh, thanks for those links!
<
p>
It is interesting to me, as the mother of small children of day care age, that the state is paying way, way less than us private folk would. The state rates for a single worker caring for an infant are $3.50 per child per hour (assuming an 8 hour day which is actually not realistic). There’s not a nanny or home based day care or day care center that would take care of my infants for less than $5 an hour, and most were more in the vicinity of $7-9, some going up to $11.
<
p>
The state has very strict limits for the numbers of certain ages a single home provider can care for. I believe no more than two infants and three toddlers. If that’s true, the maximum a home care worker could get from the state would be about $130 a day. That seems ridiculously low to me, especially given that as an independent contractor, she has to provider her own setup (room, toys, bedding, etc.).
<
p>
Given that the same provider could make double that on the open market, which sort of providers would work on the cheap? It makes me wonder…
Actually when you contract with the state, a full day is for up to 10 hours per day!!!
<
p>
It is sad that this commonwealth pays more per hour for a snowplow driver than it does for a DAY of childcare/early childhood education.
<
p>
You are correct about ratios, they are not allowed to have more that 2 children greater than 2 years old, a maximum of 6, they can add 2 school age children ( 6 +20) or get licensed for a large family home of up to 10 with an approved assistant.
<
p>
The sad reality is that private paying parents are further subsidizing the state.
Given these low rates, I am not surprised there’s a push for collective bargaining.
<
p>
Will it be effective? These workers will be forbidden from striking. (Not that I’d be in favor of them striking…) Where’s the teeth?
<
p>
And will we see picketing in front of home day cares who aren’t playing along with the union? I don’t think so.
<
p>
I’d feel better about this ballot question if I heard from some day care providers arguing for it. Hearing from the union who wishes to represent them isn’t the same.
That’s a subsidy based on a sliding scale. See here for the family co-pay amount.
I see the co-pay chart, but I don’t see where it says that money goes to the provider in addition to the reimbursement from the state.
<
p>
As I understand co-pays, the total the provider gets is the reimbursement amount — the co-pay just determines how much of that comes from the family vs. how much from the state.
<
p>
Just as my $15 co-pay vs. your $25 co-pay at the doctor doesn’t mean the doctor gets $10 more per visit from you than me, just that the insurance company pays $10 more for my visit than for yours.
dweir those are the full reimburement rates. if there is a parent fee assessed based in the income eligible guidlines it is deducted from the maximum daily reimburesment rate. If the max rate is 32.50 per day and the parent is assessed a 4.50 per day parent fee the state pays 28.00 per day
My wife is a child care provider, and she said that the current law prohibits collective negotiation because child cares are separate businesses. But they are such small businesses that it’s not like companies bidding on a construction project. As you said, currently the state just sets a rate unilaterally. This would allow negotiation.
<
p> – Dan
Thanks, Dan. So what do you and your wife think of this proposal? Personally I want to do whatever the people most affected by the proposal want, which is home child care providers. Can you offer some insight?
So far my wife has not had any children using vourchers, or whatever the mechanism is. So I’d be happy to hear from anyone more directly affected. But we both plan to vote in favor, feeling that it’s good for the people in the child care industry to have more of a voice in the way the rates are set.
<
p> – Dan
going to ask you this. The state used to negitiate(very unfairly) rates years ago. Now it is a non nogotiated unit rate. The choices are accept it or not, that is the extent of negotiating. Voting yes is not going to get family childcare providers to the table for negotiating rates.
This is an easy question. It’s a zero-sum-game. There’s only so much money in the system to pay for childcare.
<
p>
Vote yes, and
1) SEIU stands to gain more dues paying members
2) the cost of childcare will rise and providers will get more
3) users of childcare (a combo of tax dollars + private pay) pay the cost of the rise.
<
p>
So, who should gain, the providers or the users? Why should it be Government who decides such a complicated question? Leave it to the marketplace.
<
p>
This question will fail. And rightly so.
without answering it.
<
p>
“Who should gain, the providers or the users?” Did you mean this to be rhetorical, answered by me, or did you think the answer was too intuitive to mention?
<
p>
I’m also not clear why the choice is between providers OR users. For users of state-subsidized care, whatever their contribution to care is, if any, would presumably remain the same. For users of non-state-subsidized care, I don’t see how this will affect them. Since they are already paying their own childcare providers way more than the state rate, how will an increase in the state rate affect them?
<
p>
For the providers of state-subsidized care, I don’t know the answer to the question. Will this measure benefit them? What is your opinion?
<
p>
For providers of non-state-subsidized care, I can’t off the top of my head see how this proposal will affect them, but I’d be interested in hearing if someone sees it differently.
<
p>
As to your admonishment that we should “Leave it to the marketplace”, the “marketplace” for state-subsidized care has one single purchaser: the state. That’s hardly a “marketplace”, so I’m not clear how you see “the market” in effect here. Do you mean if the state doesn’t pay enough, then providers will simply stop providing until the rates go up? I think indeed that would happen, but in the meantime, who suffers? The kids getting subsidized care are the neediest kids in the state, such as children in foster care. If there are fewer providers and it becomes harder to get a slot in subsidized care, I think that’s a problem.
<
p>
(As a social worker I helped a couple of my clients get state-subsidized care. That was 10 years ago, and those slots were hard to get. I can’t imagine there are more slots open now.)
<
p>
It is, as I said, a zero-sum-game. If providers charge more, users (taxpayers + users) pay more. How simple is this?
<
p>
So, who should save money? The users or the providers. I have no idea or preference, and simply prefer to allow the current market driven system to work, without interjecting the layer of Union overhead.
<
p>
Any childcare provide will probably vote for the question. I’ll vote no. The question probably won’t carry.
“…users (taxpayers + users)…”
<
p>
Okay, now you are making even less sense.
<
p>
Will raising rates cost the taxpayers more? Yes. D’oh.
<
p>
Will this cost users of child-subsized care more? No. D’oh.
<
p>
So at least phrase your question correctly: should taxpayers pay more for state subsidized care? If your answer is no, that’s reasonable (although not mine) but phrasing it as user-of-subsidized-care vs. provider-of-subsidized-care is disingenous and totally inaccurate.
<
p>
At any rate, you’ve successfully convinced me to vote for this measure.
<
p>
You nor I can possibly know the answer to that question. You can’t possibly forecast how increased costs will affect the subsidy. All we know for sure is that the cost to users (defined as taxpayer + user) will increase.
here if anyone is interested.
<
p>
It really shouldn’t cost the users of subsidized slots anymore money. It may and in some instances will cost non subsidized (private paying) users more money and it definately will cost taxpayers more money. Most of the childcare money is federal dollars through TANF or CCDBG
<
p>
It is very unclear how a yes vote will improve the quality.
<
p>
Dealing with the “market” is very complicated in this instance. The “market” rate is skewed. When the commonwealth pays for a day of care they know it does not equal the market rate and more often than not does not cover costs. The provider (at home or center), child care worker, and private paying consumer subsidizes the state rate right now. If the state is paying 25/day and it costs 30/ day a provider has to either eat the 5 or charge a private 35 for the day to cover the cost
You ask “Why should it be Government who decides such a complicated question?”
<
p>
I’m wondering what complicated question you think the government is being asked to decide. All i see on the ballot is that the government will allow providers to organize if they want to, and will bargain with them collectively if they choose to do so for the cost of state-subsidized in-home care. (The government is already deciding on the cost of such care; this just changes the dynamic of how that decision is made.)
It’s difficult. It’s complicated. It adds a layer of complexity to a subject that is already unnecessarily complex. But, at the end of the day, it will increase the rate for childcare providers.
<
p>
But look, distill the question: if you’re extremely pro-labor, or extremely in favor of higher wages and benefits to the provider, then vote yes.
<
p>
But, it’s a ZSG. The money comes from somewhere. Somewhere means higher childcare provider costs. So, if you seek lower childcare provider costs, and lower government spending thereon, then vote no.
<
p>
Me? Isn’t it obvious I’ll vote no?
Originall you said “So, who should gain, the providers or the users? Why should it be Government who decides such a complicated question?”
<
p>
When I asked how this was relevent to the ballot question you answered that collective bargaining is complex.
<
p>
Um…are you having trouble following a thread of conversation you started?
<
p>
How is this ballot measure asking the government to answer the “complicated question” of “who should gain”?
<
p>
I’m asking you to explain your contention that this measure lets “the goverment decide” the “complicated question” of “who should gain, providers or user”. Your observation that collective bargaining is a complex process is irrelevent.
Why are you so confrontation on this?
<
p>
<
p>
The difference between collective union bargaining relationship and a relationship based on established rates is huge. I’ve collectively bargain plans. It take months. One took over a year.
<
p>
If you genuinely wish to hear why it’s more complex with collectively bargain versus without, I’m happy to type. If you continue to be an ass, then screw off.
but it seems right.
<
p>
In the interest of fairness, I used to work for SEIU and was involved with talking with family providers. A big issue that family providers discussed was that new regulations are being implemented and yet no family providers are part of the committee that are implementing these plans.
Your first contention was that this proposal would put in the government’s hands the responsibility to answer the question “who should gain, the providers or the users?” When I challenged you the premise of the question, you responded as if you had been saying all along that your objection was that collective bargaining would be complex.
<
p>
Okay, we all agree that collective bargaining adds complexity. Fine.
<
p>
But let’s go back to your original assertion/question:
<
p>
<
p>
And I repeat: in what way does ballot question #3 make the government responsibility for answering the question “who should gain, providers or users”? And in what way does it even pit providers against users in the first place?
Or make whatever subsitution is necessary in order for you disconnect from emotion. Because, if this passes, then I don’t think it will be long before other independent contractors file for the same privelege of collective bargaining.
<
p>
This is an easy “no”. It’s not simply about provider rates. It extends “to develop and present a proposal to the state agencies concerning the terms and conditions of child care provider services”, even if that would mean a change in regulations.
<
p>
The ECC board is already comprised of reps from unions and child care providers. It is this board that oversees the sliding scale and regulations (including certification requirements — another scam).
<
p>
as is Gary
<
p>
the seiu is pumping one million dolars into the vote yes why do you think it is so?
<
p>
when.if reimburesment rates do go up one of two things have to happen spedning goes up or the number of slots go down.
<
p>
Dan, did you or your wife have to have a lead inspection done on your home? The answer is no…and children who attends a center or preschool has to be in a lead free environment yet family child care is exempt from this. We all should know what lead does to a developing child. Having lead free homes is improving care for children Do you think the a collective unit will require de lead certification, any idea who will be paying for that.
a family childcare provider that contracts with the state will be subject to the commonwealths terms and conditions for human and social services as well as 808 cmr 1 they may be required to have a yearly audit (gary how much will one of these cost?)and file a uniform financial report (ufr) just out of curiosity Dan how do you think you wife would like following all of those?
It’d be impossible to get an CPA’s audit done for under $3,000.
<
p>
they don’t make it easy to contract with the commonwealth for human and social services
I don’t see how they will be “subject to the commonwealths terms and conditions” any more than they are now.
<
p> – Dan
does not have income eligible slots or vouchers she is not bound by the terms and conditions, she is only bound by the family childcare regulations. Once one becomes a contractor or subcontractor for the state they will have to enter into a contract or subcontract and the contracts have the specific language that the terms and conditions apply as well as 808 cmr 1
But the ballot question is not about who is enrolled in my wife’s child care.
<
p> – Dan
illustration!!! Honestly I have been on the fence on this but the more I think about it I believe it is a ….be careful for what you wish for. There is no doubt that ALL family childcare providers need a unified voice, support and compensation. I am unconvinced a union is the way to go. There is no model in this state, that’s why it is on the ballot, models in other states have mixed results.
The rules necessary to become a state contracted childcare provider won’t change no matter what the result of Ballot Question 3.
<
p>
Therefore I don’t see how your comments about audits and so forth are relevent to Question 3.
<
p>
Question 3 allows those who ARE contracted to organize. It does not change the rules for contractors.
<
p>
I told you that I am confused what is there to bargain for besides reimbursement rates? and the state doesn’t negotiate their rates anymoe it is take it or leave it. IF they contract with the state they will be bounds by terms and conditions and 808 cmr 1 the terms and conditions and 808 cmr 1 are not even set by the department overseeing early childhood education
I think whether to vote yes or no is a tougher question for small providers.
<
p>
On one hand, there would be efforts to unionize following a yes vote, and the promise would be that the Union could deliver more money to providers.
<
p>
On the other hand, enter into collective bargaining and the price to pay would be first, trust in the union to negotiate in her best interests and second, trust that the benefits the union can get you exceeds the cost of union dues and third, expectation that the terms of the contract wouldn’t cost you more than your current operating expenses.
Union members do not pay dues until or operate under a contract until it is ratified by those under the contract.
<
p>
Not many people vote yes on a contract that will end up making the situation worse.
All these conditions that you mentioned are contained in HB4755 which would apply regardless of whether the provider contracted with the state.
show me. You are referring to the early ed for all bill aren’t you? The bill that was passed by every member of the house and senate only to be vetoed by the romney healey administration? The bill that I have been closely working on since the campaign’s inception? In matter of fact it clearly states that it will be delivered in a with a mixed system. Contractors and non, public and private profit and non profit.
Hey thanks for bringing it up another miserable failure of the romney healey administration
<
p>
That’s what I was saying… that the rules that will be applied to the large centers will also be applied to family run childcare centers, regardless of whether they are contractors or not. I’m concerned that this will place a large burden on family childcare centers and result in less choice. Combined with the exemption for centers run in public schools, I think we’ll see the public and large centers taking over a larger share of childcare, reducing choice, driving up cost, and adding to the union rolls.
<
p>
I think the intent of HB4755 is great — more access, better quality. And I’m sure you and others put a lot of work into it, that is clear. But I think it would be improved if you found some opponents (or at least some non-proponents) to give it a critical review. At the very least, shorten it. đŸ™‚
<
blockquote>All these conditions that you mentioned are contained in HB4755 which would apply regardless of whether the provider contracted with the state.
<
p>
this is not the case, terms and conditions and cmr 808 1 do not apply to family childcare providers, they do not apply to centers that do not contract or subcontract with the state they only apply to those who contract or subcontract with the state. In addition early ed for all is for 3 and 4 year old, I am sure you are aware family child care providers and centers have children before 3.
<
p>
Parents choice should be a top priority along with access, affordability and quality. For me the bottom line is, will question 3 improve access, quality, affordability and choice if so how.
<
p>
As I said before there are organizations and standards that help with the quality piece
Unfortunately, there is no opposition opinion on the ballot. So, where to go for that other side of the story? At this point, my concern over a slippery slope of collective bargaining is counterbalancing the limited (albeit all-pro) opinion I’ve heard on q.3. Although my concerns — access, affordability, quality — are the same as yours, I just don’t have the data yet.
<
p>
I think HB4755 will pass once elections are over. And then if Q3 also passes, what is the relation of the two? HB4755 goes well beyond the scope of 3 and 4 year olds. It has language that covers from birth through adolescence.
There is a big divide between the centers and the family providers… at least a year ago, there was no family providers on the board.
on the board. In addition the board has only one male and no other color than white. Imagine the romney Healy administration had a chance to appoin a brand new diverse group that truly represented the children of the commonwealth and they chose an all white board. Institutional racsim??? see
Here is a result of quick search,, but information]
<
p>
AFSCME and SEIU both attempted to organize this group, although they eventually voted to join seiu,. Looking at illinois would be a good step if people are on the fence.
<
p>
However, as democrats I feel it is important to open up the rights of collective barganing, see my user-name, to all. The Bush appointed NLRB recently showed they feel that these rights should be curtailed, Prop 3 is not voting for a union, but allowing family providers the right to make that decision. It is not a vote to raise any rates, but to allow family providers a seat at the table.
<
p>
I will get off my soapbox now.
it doesn’t require the providers to organize or join a union. It gives them an option and then an organization to collectively advocate for fair compensation.
<
p>
God forbid that the poeple taking care of our children in group situations be compensated fairly. After all state government under Romeny and Healey has such a good record of treating working men and women fairly (failure to fund contracts approved by labor and management at state facilities, failure to fund agencies that direcly affect families) So let’s just go on trusting the anti-government folks to have government treat home child care providers “fairly” and then lets be shocked when an overcrowded home has a fatal accident and blame the provide struggling to make ends meet.
<
p>
Could you also outlaw the Chamber of Commerce and those other business organizations that advocate for corporation. They are costing us a lot more then the right to a union will cost for child care.
<
p>
Were I a provider, I’d vote for it, precisely for the reasons you articulate: it gives providers more rights, and whether they choose to use them is the next decision.
<
p>
But, since I’m not a provider, I see the right to collectively bargain as an additional cost to taxpayers and users.
<
p>
Seems like that’s how the vote will split.
<
p>
There’s no prohibition against them forming a group for advocacy like the Chamber of Commerce. There’s one already: NAFCC As you might expect, they support Question 3.
Do you feel the current ratios are not acceptable or dangerous? Or are you referring to providers that have over the regulated number of children.
but I do worry with payment rates being as low as they are now that those who are state-paid providers will be more tempted to “cheat” on the rules.
<
p>
I use a home day care provider and she is beyond scrupulous about obeying every rule for home day care licensing. But during my interviews and visits with other home day cares I saw that not every provider is as diligent as she is.
<
p>
I think in some sense my provider has the luxury of being so diligent in part because she’s very expen$ive. (Trust me, the issue of child care costs is near and dear to my heart.) For providers getting paid more average rates, there’s a lot of temptation to squeeze in a few extra kids/dollars. I can only imagine that providers getting paid the ridiculously low rates the state is offering would be even more tempted.
<
p>
I also worry about quality because of the “marketplace” issues gary references. The state pays so little that there’s no motivation for the very best providers to take state slots at all. My most excellent provider doesn’t, for instance: she charges not only more than state rates, but more than average non-state-rates, and she can do that because she’s so good. If the really best childcare providers are being drawn away from state contracts because the pay is so low, what does it say about those who remain on the state’s rolls?
<
p>
If this ballot measure could make the pay rate for state subsidized care more competitive, then it would be a good thing, because presumably it would encourage more providers to open their homes to children in need.
As a Family Child Care (FCC) provider (and FCC advocate at the state and local level) with a high quality program who accepts subsidies (vouchers & CPC slots – because I live in a low income neighborhood and wish to serve the community.) I know how important it is to have a strong voice for FCC – the rates are truly abysmal. However, I am planning to vote “no” on question 3. My reasons have to do with the organization who is pushing this legislation (who often ignores the wishes of FCC providers,) and the inappropriate timing while not only the public is uninformed about the ramifications, but FCC providers themselves have little understanding of how this will affect them. I would feel differently if the majority of FCC providers were backing this initiative, however, I know many FCC providers are strongly opposing this measure through e-mail and letters to newspapers – and for good reasons. FCC providers are business owners who already have the right to organize and through grass roots efforts are doing so. It is true that we still have little voice at the state level and little influence over rates, and other issues, but we are gaining strength under FCC lead and owned organizations which have the vision of unifying the voices of FCC providers and influencing policy across the state. There is no current need to change the laws or give up the right to strike, boycott or cease services in the process (tactics that FCC would wish to stay away from, but can be effective tools to negotiate if the state will not listen.) It is not necessary to change the labor law for FCC business owners to have a strong voice. This legislation could actually derail a natural process of child care providers gaining a stronger voice through a cooperative association of FCC business owners. SEIU represents center based programs and EEC licensors posing conflicts of interest as well.
Question 3 is on the ballot with little real information available to the public on the issue…just SEIU saying “do it for the kids.” The problem with this ballot initiative is that it is backed primarily by SEIU, not the FCC providers that would likely be forced to become SEIUs significant membership base and pay significant dues as the result.
Because of “exclusive representation” in a “non right to work” state FCC providers could have less choice, because of this proposed law – either they belong to SEIU because they have the money and manpower to get representation cards signed, or they do not have representation at all. In most cases FCC providers are not informed about this law or about what belonging to SEIU means – they only have the information SEIU shares. SEIU has spent a year and a half collecting the necessary signatures to become the exclusive representative, while other FCC lead organizations have been busy actually representing FCC; not preparing for the ramifications of this proposed legislation as it has intentionally been kept quiet.