Tuesday, November 07, 2006
An editorial from the Boston Globe about the unionizations of family child care providers. Thought this was interesting because it seems that they are going through the same thing as Minnesota. What are your thoughts and opinions?
No on 3: Unionizing child-care providers
October 31, 2006SUPPORTERS OF this initiative say it would improve childcare across the state by letting family child-care providers form a union that would negotiate with state officials. But that's not a straightforward claim.
Family child-care providers offer care in their own homes. It can be a personal setting with very flexible hours, including nights and weekends -- a real boon for busy parents. Family child-care providers are small businesses. Some belong to family provider associations that represent their interests. They do not have a labor/management relationship with the state. Some of their clients come with state subsidies, others pay privately.
An exception would have to be made to let them unionize. In Massachusetts, the Legislature passed a bill to do this, but Governor Romney vetoed it. Advocates should try again through the legislative process and not enact delicate collective-bargaining structures by ballot initiative -- a blunt instrument, at best.
Also, officials at the state's Department of Early Education and Care have raised legitimate concerns about whether necessary regulations would end up on the collective bargaining table.Family providers have formed unions in Washington state and Illinois. But it's too soon to judge their effect on the quality of childcare.
It is true that family child-care providers earn low wages, and many feel isolated and powerless. Massachusetts must invest more in early education and care programs, teachers, and providers to improve quality for children. But unionizing child-care workers is in the early stages, so it isn't clear that this is what's best for children -- and that is what voters should insist on.
