Major Issues With Question #3:
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.
Some Historical Context: A state-wide 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.
My apologies for posting some of this elsewhere first as a “comment” as I did not know the posting procedure. I am posting this again as it is a critical and fairly complex issue that I hope will get increased exposure.
I wish you luck with AFCCA. Clearly, on ballot Q3, you are outgunned by the SEIU. If they prevail, I do hope that you can defeat their takeover by not certifying them.
<
p>
And I do hope that you see improvment in reimbursement rates. Most of the available child care spaces exist in family centers, and it makes sense to me that if we want to reduce the waiting list, we need to incent more of those centers to open those spaces for subsidized care.
“I wish you luck with AFCCA.” Thank you.
“And I do hope that you see improvement in reimbursement rates.” Thanks, I hope so too. Any significant increase in FCC rates could make a huge difference in available FCC slots for parents,for a number of complex reasons.
Clearly Family Child Care providers need some kind of association to bargain for parity in voucher rates with Daycare Centers, but it appears this ballot measure may not provide the right solution. I appreciate very much your detailed perspective on the issue.
I’m never going to figure out which way to vote on this issue, I’ve heard compelling arguments from both sides. Can’t the legislator just figure this out – it is there job right? I’m a “no” on one simply because corporations are behind it. And I’m “don’t care” on fusion voting. Instant run off is what would really make a difference. And I heard there is a question 4 and 5? Its all way too much for the average voter to figure out imo.
… but there may be additional non-binding advisory questions in some legislative districts. Many districts have such a Question 4 about bringing troops home from Iraq. In my part of Somerville, we’re unlucky enough to have Questions 5 and 6 sponsored by an extremist anti-Israel group, the Somerville Divestment Project.
I’ve never heard of the Somerville Divestment Project.
<
p>
However, I will say that some of us boycott Israel not because we’re anti-Israel, but because we’re anti-occupation.
<
p>
I was in favor of boycotting South Africa back in the aparteid days, but I’d like to think that’s because I was against the policy of aparteid, not anti-some country.
The best argument I’ve heard against Question Three is that this is a complicated issue best solved by the Legislature. The main reason it’s on the ballot at all is that the Legislature have not accepted the SEIU arguments.
….and your arguments mirror those I have heard from provider friends.
<
p>
http://capecodporcup…
As someone else mentioned the Legislature passed it, so why did you use that as an argument
The Governor pocket vetoed the bill approved by the House and Senate. While some people keep saying providers need some “organization” no one but SEIU 888 has stepped up to the plate at all.
<
p>
I am voting YES on Question #3. It is better to have the right for collective bargaining and decide as a group not to utlize it then it is to have this tool outright denied to them as it currently is under the law
“While some people keep saying providers need some ‘organization’ no one but SEIU 888 has stepped up to the plate at all.”
Actually, American Family Child Care Association (AFCCA) has done quite a lot for Family Child Care (FCC) providers in the last 5 years in spite of the low budget, and obstacles we have overcome in the beginning stages of organizing.
AFCCA Accomplishments Include:
* Winning retroactive pay of $114,000 for providers in a system who were not being paid the correct amount
* Winning retroactive holiday pay for providers in systems who were not being paid for 12 holidays/year
* Addressing overbearing regulation changes
* Bringing public and political attention to the needs and concerns of FCC including: inequitable funding, the need for contracted slots and supportive services, the need for representation
* Setting evening FCC meetings with the commissioner and her staff
* Offering countless free training on pertinent issues
* Offering grants for program supplies
* Campaigning for state health care reform
* Gaining the right to access contracted slots
* Gaining representation on the Department of Early Education & Care’s (EEC) change team, on the EEC rate committee, several voting voices on the Boston Community Partnership for Children’s Governing Counsel and local representation
* Plus lots more Basically all the things SEIU is promising are things that AFCCA has been actually working towards with significant, though not yet sufficient wins. It would be nice if EEC were mandated to actually listen and negotiate with FCC providers, however, FCC providers can have tremendous influence by uniting as business owners without changing the law.
Rhode Island FCC providers won complete health care benefits and increased voucher rates as an association before they affiliated with SEIU.
Part of what makes our organization effective is the tremendous commitment from member/owners.
<
p>
This is an interesting comment. “I am voting YES on Question #3. It is better to have the right for collective bargaining and decide as a group not to utlize it then it is to have this tool outright denied to them as it currently is under the law” I have struggled with this idea, yet it really does not seem the right tool in this instance. Without consistant and compelling information, I am not willing to vote yes on 3. I do not believe this is the last we will see of this issue. It is likely to be taken up again perhaps in a slightly different form if it does not pass. While giving the right to collective bargaining it also seems this proposed legislation denies FCC providers several effective tools – the right to strike, boycott or cessation of services. These have not been touched upon as FCC providers are so glad to care for children it is hard to consider these options, yet they can be effective tools.
<
p>
As I see it, Question 3 would be used compel home providers to join a union. That is, if 30% vote to unionize, then it would happen. Just seems wrong.
if 30% support the union, then they hold an election. A majority vote is then needed to unionize.
<
p>
Nonetheless, the fact remains that we could still have 50%-1 of the providers vote “no” in the election and still be compelled either to join or pay a “service fee” that amounts to the same as union dues. That, I take it, is your basic point, and it’s a fair one IMHO.
The union doesn’t need to get a majority vote? Please elaborate.
If 30% of the providers authorize exclusive representative in collective bargaining then the SLRC holds an election to certify that representative.
<
p>
It takes 50% + 1 to certify.
<
p>
That’s my take anyway. Unionizing (IMHO) isn’t a democratic choice to be made by a majority, it’s a personal decision. That’s why I say ‘no’ to 3.
There does need to a majority vote 50% plus one.
<
p>
Why is it a personal decision not a democratic decision. People who want to unionize can’t choose to have a union certified. Why all this concern for the minority who are anti-union, who are members of a bargaining unit… (NOT compelled to join a union) However, surveys show a majority would like to be in a union, but can’t. What about them, they can’t make that personal decision.
<
p>
I work in an office. I can’t just decided to join a union.
<
p>
Why not let the family providers decide. As I have mentioned before I used to work for SEIU 888 and I spent a couple weeks talking to family providers (My job was a negotiator, so I only spent a little time doing this) and the vast majority I spoke to were excited and enthused about building a union.
You will concede that this argument is wrong.
IF 30% of the folks who receive EEC subsidies vote for a specific union to become their representative, THEN that union would then have the opportunity to become the exclusive representative of all family child care providers.
<
p>
Then, a 50% + 1 would certify the rep.
<
p>
Right?
Let’s go over it. You stated “That is, if 30% vote to unionize, then it would happen.” No, if 30% sign union cards then there would be an election. At which point if 50% plus 1 vote to unionize it would happen. Therefore if 30% vote to unionize it wouldn’t happen.
<
p>
On your concern about the people who against unionizing, once again that could not be compelled to be members of the union. The union could negotiate a contract in which they would be required to pay a fee for the costs of contract negotiation and representation, which is less than membership dues. However, the both sides in negotiation would have to agree to that and then it would have to be ratified by all members of the barganing unit, union members and non-members.
<
p>
Now lets say that 49% vote to unionize. None of those people would be able to make the “personal” decision to unionize them, they would have to abide by the majority decision. Why do you have less sympathy then them. Your point would be consistent if the state mandated minority unions. Your argument would be consistent if you allowed that any percentage of employees could gain the rights of unionization. As it is you seem really concerend about the plight of anti-union people in a unionized workforce than pro-union people in an nonunionized workforce, and not to sound like a broken record, but the later group is much larger.
I don’t understand how unionizing is even applicable in this instance. These aren’t employees were talking about, they’re businesses– employERs. How do employers bargain collectively?
<
p>
If my business and all of our competitors “unionized” in order to negotiate better prices from our customers, that Antitrust division of the DoJ will be giving us a call.
<
p>
How do employers, business, unionize? Makes no sense to me.
about this being a proposal for businesses to collude in a way that might otherwise be illegal–perhaps this would hold up if challenged in court? Really interesting perspective.
I’m going to read through the comments now.
<
p>
Your point seems to be that home daycare providers (or FCC, which you seem to use collectively or to mean individual providers) do need to have more voice, representation and clout in the process and in decision making, but that this question #3 does not create that “voice” because the “FCC” does not own it. This make sense to me as a legitimate criticism. You are confirming that the “institutional” providers have been successful in getting higher rate and more favorable regulations, resulting in a nearly impossible situation for FCC that would be a part of the voucher system. I did not know about the “kith and kin” exemption, which is interesting, but I dont’ know how that figures in the question about whether or not question 3 is a good thing. I’m so glad you weighed in here. I’m still thinking about this.
Economic Justice as well as economic growth. Question 3 is a simple tool to give some power to child care providers who take state subsidies. Go to the website at [http://www.yeson3for…] and check out some information and the fact that our entire Congressional delegation has endorsed the intitative. It seems like a true blue thing to do.
I’ve been watching the rather–sorry to say this–bizarre over-analysis of this ballot question with amusement.
<
p>
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. This question is a no-brainer. Support labor; support child care workers who are working very hard on this issue. Vote YES on 3.
It gives a group small business owners the right to collectively negotiate with the state. It says nothing about the relationship between those business owners and the child care workers they may employ–what wages and benefits such employees receive.
family child care providers. I wasn’t clear. Family child care providers don’t typically employ anybody.
Bizarre over-analysis? Folks here have been asking for explanations of Question 3 because of its opacity: few people know who is pushing it and why, the arguments against it, the way the state reimbursement system for childcare works, and a number of other arcane issues. There have been several cogent explanations of the implications of a yes vote and why people, including several people like waltzing who are very familiar with the issue, are opposed to it. I have yet to hear an explanation of why voting yes on 3 does anything to ameliorate the current problems faced by family childcare providers.
<
p>
Knee-jerk support for unions is just as bad as knee-jerk support for any other political cause.
This just landed in my mailbox:
<
p>
The right of working people to organize and bargain collectively is a human right recognized throughout the world. Except in places that oppress people’s aspirations for freedom and self determination.
<
p>
In fact here is an Article from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights…
<
p>
Article 23.
(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
<
p>
(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
<
p>
(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
<
p>
(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.
<
p>
What is wrong with the “knee jerk” protection of this right? Even when it is not convenient for you.
Progressiveman:
<
p>
I’m not worried about my own convenience and I’m certainly not trying to “oppress people’s aspirations for freedom and self determination”. I’m also not going to be swayed by arguments which are the equivalent of singing “The Internationale”.
<
p>
As waltzing and others, including myself, have tried to show, this issue is far more complex than the SEIU would have you believe. This is a ballot question that has been funded almost completely by the SEIU for the benefit of the SEIU. It is unclear to me how the SEIU can deliver on its promises. When it comes to care of children, I’m willing to cast my ballot to support an organization created by family childcare providers (which, incidentally, reflects “people’s aspirations for freedom and self determination”) who understand the issues and problems far better than the SEIU–just read what waltzing wrote.
<
p>
Finally, and this needs to be said over and over, family childcare providers are small businesses. They are not employees of the state. This is why an act of the legislature or a ballot question is necessary in the first place–because what the SEIU is asking for goes against all traditional notions of collective bargaining which involves a relationship between employees and an employer.
<
p>
As I have said before, I support unions and the work they do. In this instance, a union is the wrong tool for the job.