Voting yes will give child care providers the ability to unite and speak with one voice in favor of improvements including:
* Higher safety standards to protect children;
* More training for child care providers to raise the quality of care ; and
* Measures to reduce turnover and stabilize the child care profession so children get the consistent, quality care they need.Without raising taxes or costs to Massachusetts residents, it will ensure that public resources invested in child care help make quality child care services more accessible and affordable for working families.
Unfortunately, that doesn’t really tell you all you need to know, but I can explain a little more that I have learned about this situation.
This law will affect independent home childcare business owners, and you might be asking, why do they need any sort of collective anything? The answer is, they are fairly unique in being independent but severely regulated by the state. Of course, those regulations are important, as we need a strong standard of care – these are our kids, after all. However, it’s hard as independents to advocate for yourself. Not only can the group of caregivers help make better regulations to keep your kids safe, since they are the experts, it’s also the case that they need that strong voice against a sometimes-distant state regulating agency. However, they are constantly told they cannot do this as they are “independent contractors.”
I myself am an independent contractor (in graphic design). I don’t need collective bargaining, but my work is also not regulated by the state. But if the state did…let’s just say, the MA Department of Graphic Design told me that I must use only Corel software and not Adobe, I can tell you I would be upset – I’ve invested a few thousand dollars into my Adobe products, so this change would cost me money, and time too since I don’t know Corel very well, and also might not be the best thing for my industry in the first place (Adobe has better products). I would want to have the right to advocate with my fellow independent designers to make sure that the best regulations are kept and the bad ones thrown aside.
It’s also the case this will not raise your rates with the caregivers for your kids, generally. Those rates are still negotiated in the marketplace with the private customers. However, the state does subsidize care for the working poor with vouchers, and the caregivers ought to be able to collectively bargain with the state on that reimbursement. So far, these small home-based daycare businesses have been rolled over by the process, and the only reason they are turning to the ballot question is because a similar bill was passed by the legislature but vetoed by Romney, and was not overridden. This is a good sensible solution to a major problem for these very important members of the business community, those who take care of our children. They will be able to get better training by negotiating with the state for it, retain regulations that make sense and toss out the ones that don’t, and the reimbursements from the state will be more fair.
I endorse Question Three without reservation and ask that you vote yes.
very helpful. as i wrote earlier, i don’t think very many people understand what this question is proposing, so any patient exposition is a real contribution. your basic take on the implications and consequences seems good, too.
Analysis and Position Statement Against
Statewide Ballot Question 3
2006 General Election
<
p>
Background/Summary of Provisions
Allows family child care providers to unionize and collectively bargain with the state if they accept state subsidies;
Negotiations would include all terms and conditions of the provision of child care providers services, including child care financial assistance program and regulations; and
If 30% of the family child care providers who receive subsidies from EEC give written authorization for a specific union to become their representative, that union would then have the opportunity to become the exclusive representative of all family child care providers.
EEC Key Concerns
Health, safety, and educational standards and regulations would become part of negotiations with licensed providers. Regulations governing child care programs need to be driven by research and best practices, and are currently subject to thorough public review and comment before being finalized.
Family Child Care providers are self-employed small business owners who are free to make decisions that are best for their business. Collective bargaining takes place between an employer and employees. Since FCC providers are private business entities, not employees, this initiative would create an unprecedented collective bargaining right between a private business and a government agency.
This would jeopardize EECs ability to achieve and maintain a careful balance of access, affordability and quality, a fundamental guiding principle of early education and care. In fact, it has the potential to do great damage to that balance if, for example, state rates are negotiated above the rate that private parents pay, forcing programs that accept both subsidized and unsubsidized children to charge higher rates to all parents. It could also put such critical safety standards as program ratios on the collective bargaining table, making that decision more a matter of what is good for the providers business rather than whats safe for children.
To view EECs official position in opposition to Question 3 please visit: http://www.sec.state…
<
p> © 2005 Commonwealth of Massachusetts Privacy Policy Contact Us
I renew my objections to most ballot questions as a matter of course. I can read up on this but I’m not sure I understand all the implications. It seems like the main issue is that these providers want to be able to bargain with the state collectively for higher reimbursements for vouchers. This seems like a reasonable idea. I would say the down side is that the state will have to pay more for these services which means less money for other things or fewer vouchers available.
<
p>
I can’t possibly hope to understand all the implications of this so I leave it to the legislature. Rather than bringing this as a ballot question which a very small minority of voters will even vaguely understand I suggest that this group take it back to the legislature in January when there will be a new governor.
<
p>
Vote for representative government and against governance by initiative. Vote NO on 3.
There’s no way to vote “leave it to the legislators”. If a ballot initiative is defeated, the legislators will look at the results and assume that the no votes were opposed to the content.
<
p>
I’d suggest a referendum on adding this third choice to referenda, but the people for it might vote against it on principle.
<
p> – Dan
Don’t take your case to the ballot, keep working in the legislature. A no vote is the only tool we have to prevent more and more groups from bringing ballot initiatives. And legislators have never been particularly shy about ignoring the vote on a ballot question.
I agree. The issues being pushed for referendum are rarely simple, even the above-average voter can’t decypher the rhetorical language they are written in.
<
p>
I think at the very least, there should be a third choice called “no change”, which would simply keep things at the status quo. Or maybe something like “let the legislature sort this one out”.
They didn’t override because the veto came after the legislative session was out. Romney did this so he wouldn’t have to face an override. This in no way implies that the legislature didn’t want this bill to become law. But rest assured if question 3 goes down at the ballot, it will not resurface in the legislature next year and the opportunity will be lost to do something real that will help several hundred thousand kids and parents in Massachusetts.
THAT will be a formal session – and Traviglini PROMISED, right? /snark
I agree with Dan Seidman (above): Voting NO will send the message to the Legislature that people don’t want this.
<
p>
The real way to “vote for representative government and against governance by initiative” is to not vote on initiatives at all!
<
p>
If they look at the initiative results and say “Hrm, 3 million people voted for governor but only 500K voted on the initiatives… I wonder what that means?”, I think that would (in the long run) do more good than shooting down perfectly good ideas.
I’m voting YES on 3, too. I commented yesterday on theoryhead’s diary, so I won’t repeat, but it’s enough to say this is good for children and good for childcare providers.
Massachusetts is not a right to work state. Home day care providers who do not WANT to be forced to join a union, and who perhaps have only 1 – 2 out of 5 – 6 state subsidized children may eliminate them from the slots, making it harder for mothers with day care vouchers to find care.
<
p>
Most women doing home day care WANT to be independent contractors – if they didn’t they would probably work at a Center instead. They want flexibility in their operation and pay for it with a reduced margin. Why would they want to pay dues to the SEIU, and cope with ANOTHER behemoth bureaucracy, who may opt for the needs of urban providers over suburban ones? What happens when they call for a strike, for something they don’t even want?
ditch their private pay clients? Far better to eliminate the state slots.
<
p>
Also, legally, this is a questionable precedent. What’s next – barbers, because the state regulates them? Veternarians, who are ALSO closely regulated for practices? Face it – the only real presence in unions anymore is government employees who are forced to join. Will forcing those who must hold state licenses restore the labor movement to its tattered glory?
A ZERO rating is to indicate that a post is offensive and should be deleted. I’m sorry, but MANY posters here at BMG also oppose this measure, some for the reasons I’ve stated.
<
p>
A ‘3’ rating of Worthless is for disagreement – but Mr. Hersh, where is the obscenity or lie connected with this post? I AM allowed to raise germane issues from a competing point of view.
<
p>
You helped get my comment that Deval was “Dancing in the End Zone and Measuring His Drapes” deleted with another Zero. That, I did not contest, but I DO decry the Zeros you have put on my other comments.
<
p>
I often wonder similarly
Charley, David – We are you loyal and raillery-prone opposition. The ‘3’ is appropriate, but this new trick of Zero smacks of censorship.
<
p>
What say you, gentlemen?
In travelling down the thread, I see that Mr. Hersh has given even BMG stalwarts like Stomy and DSchol a Delete Comment zero too – for having the temerity to disagree with him!
<
p>
I have counterbalanced these with a six (although in DSchol’s case, it was really more of a four – the blank vote sending a message thing doesn’t really work, IMHO).
<
p>
Charley et al – what can be done about such censorship?
That 0 was completely undeserved, even if completely disagree with your argument 🙂
The last paragraph of the proposal states that “activities carried out under it would be exempt from federal anti-trust laws”.
<
p>
I am not sure exactly what that means, but I am not in favor of handing out new anti-trust exemptions. (BTW, how is it that states can exempt themselves from federal anti-trust laws?)
<
p>
I also don’t think that I can fully understand the ramifications of this proposal, so I am going to vote no.
I’d been planning to post something about Q3, but you did a much better job than I could have. Thanks.
the only reason they are turning to the ballot question is because a similar bill was passed by the legislature but vetoed by Romney, and was not overridden.
<
p>
So, since I believe that the Lege won’t change much in 06 but that Deval will win the corner office, I can vote no* and still feel like these folks will get a fair shake with the lege.
<
p>
I generally vote “no” as a rule, unless the proposal is directed at the lege itself, a la campaign law, election law, ethics law, etc.
Stomv,
<
p>
This is just wrong. No legislature or governor are going to take up a bill that the voters already did not pass.
<
p>
If you support the principle of improving child care for Massachusetts kids, NOW is the time to cote YES on 3.
This law would allow child care workers to organize. These are some of the lowest-paid, most marginalized workers in society. And the union doesn’t get to represent them unless a majority vote for it.
<
p>
What’s wrong with with that?
I sat on the board of my daughter’s day care center when the UAW blew into town.
<
p>
Before negotiations were over, they had voted to decertify, because other than dues checkoff, there wasn’t much in the way of benefit they offered.
<
p>
Whole lot harder to get OUT of than into….
It IS actually easier to get out of a union. To win union representation, a majority of workers have to vote for the union and then successfully negotiate a contract (often times a lot of work). To get out of a union, you simply have to have a tie vote or better of workers voting to decertifiy the union.
…and almost two years to leave.
I wish the laws were written so that, in almost all industries:
<
p>
1 – Unions could not be prohibited.
<
p>
2 – You were never forced or coerced to join a Union.
<
p>
In other words, it would be up to the individual to join, create, or not join any Union they wish.
<
p>
I dunno, that doesn’t sound so controversial.
<
p>
In any case, in keeping with this, I’ll be voting in favor of #3, on the theory that anyone who wishes to form or join a Union should have that right.
Jeremy – if unions relied upon enticement, and worked hard to encourage people to join, I would have no problem with them. Instead, in Mass., 50% plus 1 FORCES everybody to join. And geting another vote just to review the idea is a nightmare. You may check in, but you can’t check out.
Peter Porcupine,
<
p>
You are really misinformed. No one is forced to join a union. Ever. Period.
<
p>
However, if a union exists the law requires is to represent all workers within the bargaining unit regardless of membership. Those who opt out of the union therefore get the benefit of the union (i.e. better wages, health care insurance, retirement savings plans, etc.) without having to pay as much as union members do, though they do have a service fee. Anyone who has been in a union that is worth its weight in salt knows that a few bucks a month pays back hugely. Hugely.
They make me think of the guys who wash your windshield at stop lights and demand money – whether your windshield was dirty or not.
I just got a robocall from someone named John Kerry who said he’s voting “yes” on question 3.
Question 3 has very little downside. In fact, the Secretary of State’s office couldn’t even find anyone to write the “no” summary for the ballot and voter information mailer!
<
p>
YES on Question 3 is a vote to improve the quality of child care in Massachusetts. It will allow family child care providers to have a voice to work with the state to:
*make child care more accessible to working parents
*improve training opportunities so kids get the quality care and early learning they need to start strong
*raise health and safety standards by creating incentives (rather than the disincentives of the current program) for providers to become licensed
*and stabilize the child care profession to retain and attract the most qualified providers.
<
p>
If it sounds good, that’s because it is. In fact, a bill to do just this passed the legislature overwhelmingly earlier this year. The only people who opposed giving family child care providers a voice were Lt. Gov. Healey and Romney, who pocket-vetoed the bill after the legislative session so that lawmakers couldn’t override him.
<
p>
To those who oppose ballot initiatives on principle, recognize that this was the legislative process that denied providers and Massachusetts kids this opportunity. It’s there, it’s good, so vote for it!
<
p>
YES on 3 is a great thing, and Massachusetts D’s shouldn’t let this slip away because of misconceptions.
<
p>
GO NOW to YES on 3 For Kids to read more.
<
p>
Then GO TELL YOUR FRIENDS AND FAMILIES.
<
p>
And let’s go kick some but on 11/7!
The argument in favor of Question 3 is a whole lot of spin from SEIU advocates IMO that warrants the disclaimer “The Commonwealth of Massachusetts…does not certify the truth or accuracy of any statement made in these arguments.” They could not find a “No” argument because most people in the state house probably would not go on record against SEIU. My guess is they do not actually look for people to write these arguments and this legislation has been intentionally kept quiet so as not to get opposition. However, those who will be affected most by this legislation, FCC providers, are not pushing it to the polls, this is legislation tailor made by and for SEIU. Many FCC providers are campaigning against this as they are business owners who can already organize and are doing so, and they do not want to be forced to join SEIU. A union is not the proper mechanism for FCC to organize under, and it would have considerable cost to the providers themselves – which would be passed on to the families they serve. This is from an informed FCC provider point of view – other comments throughout site.
Economics 101: Any time people gets collective bargaining rights, they will use those rights to get more, not less, money for themselves.
<
p>
<
p>
<
p>
<
p>
Obviously, pretty much the only way to reduce turnover is to give the workers more money in a form of bigger salary, better benefits, tax breaks, or something else.
<
p>
<
p>
“More accessible” means “more children getting child care”.
“Affordable” means “parents paying less for child care”.
<
p>
If the taxes and costs are not raised, and more children are getting child care at lower price would mean either voluntarily reducing the money child care providers receive or reducing the number of child care providers. Do you really believe they are going to collectively bargain for either of these?
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 1.) The use of a union to represent business owners at the request of the union, not FCC business owners – as well as concerns with SEIU who is the union pushing this legislation, and 2.) The inappropriate timing while not only the public is uninformed about the ramifications, but FCC providers themselves have little understanding of how this law or union will affect them. I might 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. Changing the laws to allow FCC under an employee organization caters to SEIU and giving up the right to strike, boycott or cease services in the process could give up the strength FCC has. These are tactics that FCC would be reluctant to use, 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.
<
p>
Just for general information the daily voucher subsidy rates for infants are FCC $29.80/day Center $51.60/day. Preschooler rates are FCC $26.35 Centers $34.75. This leaves a FCC provider with all subsidized slots making less than minimum wage after business expenses are deducted – this is far less than the average center based wages of $14/hour. FCC systems or agencies get a per/child rate of over $10/day for paperwork and limited support requirements.