Recently, I got an email from MoveOn, as I’m sure did many BMG regulars, asking me to vote on whether the organization should support Question 3. As a matter of principle, I support organizing and collective bargaining rights, and in practice I come down on labor’s side on most particular struggles. But ballot questions take us into the messy businness of legislating. On such matters I try to base my votes on more than habit or broad predispositions–and I realize that I have only the dimmest undestanding of the specifics of this proposal. I’ve read the materials in Galvin’s official ballot guide, but that tells me little about where this proposal comes from, how the new law would compare to practices elsewhere, etc. I teach political science, am active in campaigns, and still have a child in occasional daycare. So I figure that if I’m unclear, many more typical voters must be as well. I imagine this might even extend to BMG: while people probably arrive at this forum already having opinions or inclinations about fusion voting, I bet even some hardcore political junkies don’t know much about # 3. So I post this to recommend that the BMG Czars will present a forum like the one on Question 2. I also invite commentary from BMG denizens who know enough to make informed arguments for and against.
See a statement on their homepage: http://www.eec.state…
<
p>
Here is the website of one of the proponents: http://www.yeson3for…
You’re for Healey and you’re implicitly advocating against Q3. By citing a state agency that is staffed with Romney/Healey appointees.
<
p>
If I knew nothing about this question, that alone would be enough to make me in favor of it.
<
p>
As it happens, I was in favor of it before I read your post. Thanks for confirming my opinion.
The fact that EEC has published a position statement against Question 3 is the strongest reason I can find to vote for it. This seems to imply that without this legislation EEC has no intention of allowing FCC at the table. However, I think this is not the case. I believe that with some political pressure applied as FCC business owners united under one FCC owned and lead organization FCC already can have the influence needed to make necessary changes without changing the law. EEC has not yet made any significant increase in FCC rates, and in fact have allowed the disparity of rates between FCC and Centers to get even greater with the application of straight percentage increases – those that have the lowest rates get the smallest increases. FCC wants and needs collective bargaining, however, a union is not the right tool for business owners. A state wide FCC owned and lead association of providers can have the necessary influence to make needed changes.
EECs reasoning that the health and safety of children would be jeopardized also is very unlikely – all changes still must go through the public review process, and the welfare of children is highest priority for FCC providers.
This legislation is made by and for SEIU who wishes to organize FCC business owners to increase their nation wide influence – however I am afraid this will be at the expense of FCC providers who cannot afford, and do not want an additional bureaucratic layer.
…is the SEIU
This is an important step in trying to provide union support to a labor sector that is sorely underpaid and underrepresented at all levels. I know a few home daycare providers who are hoping that this ballot question passes so that they can start to have a voice in matters that concern quality childcare in the Commonwealth. Their signs are cropping up around town and there is strong support for this question among the progressives in town. As far as I’m concerned, this is a no-brainer.
<
p>
In general, as a current MTA member and a former SEIU member, I support any and all efforts to union workers, so there’s that to consider, I suppose.
I know people who are active in this campaign, and they only turned to the ballot init when Romney vetoed the bill at the state house and it wasn’t overriden.
<
p>
Basically, it allows the individual caregivers who are all individual business organize together to have a larger voice when advocating with the state. Why does this matter?
<
p>
Well, as an independent contractor graphic designer myself, I do NOT need collective bargaining or organizing to deal with the state (and this ballot init is NOT collective bargaining, BTW, I’ll explain). However, my job isn’t regulated by the state. But if they did, say, they told me I MUST use Corel products because they were better and Adobe products were banned from use by independent contractors, I’d want to band together with my peers, other independent graphic designers, in order to have a voice and say in those regulations that are going to affect me drastically (in the case cited, I’d have to buy lots of software I don’t have and give up a few thousand I had bought, say).
<
p>
Independent home child care businesses ARE regulated by the state, and indeed they should be, we need a strong standard of care for our itty kiddlings. However, individually, they have tiny voices to advocate for what they think is needed, to protest unneccessary or arbitrary decisions by a distant state regulatory body. Collectively, they might be able to effect changes they need to do their jobs better, like any other large business with lobbying clout. Right now, they are clobbered and run over by that process.
<
p>
Now, this init does NOT change how much they get paid in the private market – they are still negotiating with their clients as any business would. However, reimbursements do come from the state for low income voucher holders, and they SHOULD have some collective bargaining for that.
I turned this comment into a post, thanks for reminding me, because I’ve been wanting to do it a while.
<
p>
So why would you want to require the state go through collective bargaining in order to set those regulations?
<
p>
<
p>
Can you provide an example of something “needed” that can only be obtained through collective bargaining? Union leaders are no less distant than government. What is to stop corporate childcare centers from taking on the union leadership positions and pushing through regulations that favor the centers over home-based care? Ask a new teacher how well the union does in protecting theme vs. the tenured members. Unions are not without their own problems.
<
p>
<
p>
The scope of the initiative goes well beyond setting reimbursement rates:
<
p>
An exclusive representative, if certified, could then communicate with providers to develop and present a proposal to the state agencies concerning the terms and conditions of child care provider services.
<
p>
The unions will be representing the workers. Am I to believe that they will also be representing the children and parents? How does that square?