Monday, October 01, 2007
More news about the union election in Maryland that I talked about on Friday. There are some statements made that I find astonishing and seem to go against all common sense.
Child-care workers OK union effort... But opponents ask court to block process
by Kevin J. Shay Staff Writer
But state Circuit Court Judge Dexter M. Thompson Jr. in Cecil County issued a temporary restraining order Monday that could nullify the election. Thompson’s ruling stays the executive order by Gov. Martin O’Malley (D) that allowed the mail-in unionization election...
...Under the proposal, only those home-based providers who receive reimbursement from the state through the Purchase of Care program will be eligible to join the SEIU’s Kids First union, Crabtree said.
All 5,818 providers in Maryland will be eligible to join, she said. All told, there are 10,560 registered child-care providers in Maryland, according to a state report in March.
‘‘It wouldn’t affect child-care centers, even those that are reimbursed through the state program,” Crabtree said.
‘‘However, in other states where home-based child-care providers have formed unions, the improvements they’ve made in child care through their union contracts have raised standards for the entire industry and resulted in better funding for child-care centers, too,” she said.
Unionized child-care workers would be better able to negotiate with the state for quicker reimbursements, receive more training opportunities and gain access to affordable health insurance, said Madie Green, a home-based provider in District Heights who worked on the unionization campaign.
‘‘This is all about improving child care for the children,” Green said.
Payments from the Maryland Department of Education, which pays providers to care for children of low-income families, take a long time to get processed and fail to come in some cases, Green said. About 3,000 licensed family child-care providers in Maryland have left the industry since 1994, according to the SEIU.
The pay for child-care employees ‘‘generally is very low,” and benefits are ‘‘minimal” for most workers, according to a U.S. Department of Labor report. The median hourly pay of child-care employees in Maryland was $9.74 in 2006, about 58 percent of the median hourly wage of all occupations in the state, which was $16.74, according to federal figures.
The legal action by the state child-care association is unfortunate, Green said. She said she hoped the situation is worked out.
‘‘We need to work hard to come together and sit down and do what is in the best interest of children,” Green said.
Costs unlikely to rise,organizer says
Unionizing workers shouldn’t drive up costs for parents, because providers control those costs, Green said. Getting more providers to remain in the industry will help increase competition, which, in turn, should eventually lower rates, she said.
Read the entire article...
Okay... first, I do not believe the comment about this all being about improving child care for the children. Unions are a for profit business (not non-profit). Though they may do good things for the members, they are not altruistic and seldom do anything that does not benefit the union first and foremost. I believe that the union is looking at improving two things... membership and dues(money).
Secondly, explain to me how this will not raise costs for parents... If I join a union on the promise of more income, but that will "increase competition, which, in turn, should eventually lower rates", what have I gained, except the expense of union dues? I'm sorry but the mathematics don't work both ways. If child care providers make more, parents will pay more... even if it is only in the area of increased taxes. Also the cost of union dues WILL get passed on to parents. As a business owner, if I have an additional expense, it gets passed on in the form of higher rates. Not doing so, lowers my income... not increases it. And if "providers control those costs", they should already be doing so.... if they are not, they run a poor business.Another rule of economics that we should consider is that the sum of the parts cannot be greater than the whole. If subsidy rates to providers are increased and the overall pool of money from the state does not increase, it simply means that less parents will qualify for a subsidy... less parents able to pay for child care means less child care business. Again, what have the providers gained other than the expense of union dues?
What is your bargaining power? Can you go on strike? Who would a strike hurt? Not the government.. it hurts you by losing income... and it hurts your clients... and it can hurt your business! You may irrepairably damage your business by losing children or making it difficult to gain new ones if you get a reputation of being unreliable. Your reputation is the most valuable asset you have as an early care professional. I realize that no one is talking about family child care going on strike, but again I ask... what is your bargaining power? If it is strength in numbers then become involved and active in your state association and use that strength to affect change. Perhaps pay extra dues so your organization can hire people to lobby for child care issues. Works the same except that you are not paying the wages of union officials.
I am not denying that unions have done good for workers over the years but I have a hard time with the concept of self employed business owners belonging to a union. It seems a little too much like I am negotiating with myself. Remember that in this case, the government is not really an employer. The government is more of a delegation of tax dollars. If you want to increase subsidy pay for providers, put your efforts into being an lobbiest and get politically involved, because the only way things will really improve in that arena is with an increase in tax dollars.Okay... off my soapbox. I really would welcome comments from anyone who can logically explain the concept of unionized child care to me...
