An email to Roy Dyson
- Thread starter Dymphna
- Start date
Dymphna
Loyalty, Friendship, Love
By the way here's the PDF of the bill in question.
http://mlis.state.md.us/2006rs/bills/sb/sb0809f.pdf
It calls for collective bargaining for child care providers regarding issues, regulations, etc. with the state. Specifically the State Dept. of Education which governs licensed child care.
http://mlis.state.md.us/2006rs/bills/sb/sb0809f.pdf
It calls for collective bargaining for child care providers regarding issues, regulations, etc. with the state. Specifically the State Dept. of Education which governs licensed child care.
Dymphna
Loyalty, Friendship, Love
Succinct? not possible, but I will do my best.MMDad said:
There is a union, Service Employees International Union, (SEIU) that represents child care providers in several states and in Maryland represents some Head Start employees, janitors and other "service employees."
The bill and the unions reps claim that family child care providers have no representation as a unit to the State (not true). They want to be the one and only organization to represent child care providers. The bill calls for child care providers to be divided into two groups, ones that receive State subsidies, called "purchase of care" or "POC" and ones that do not.
Child care providers receive this subsidy if they have children in their care who qualify economically for financial assistance to cover child care expenses.
Legally any licensed provider can accept payment from the state to care for these children. But these payments could also be paid to the child's grandmother, aunt, cousin, etc. who cares for the child, so that the parents can work.
The bill calls for these unlicensed providers, to also join the union and be represented in the same manner as licensed providers. Family caring for family isn't governed in any way shape or form by the government (except for child abuse/neglect laws which apply to everyone) But these unlicensed "informal" providers can use their union membership to lobby for regulations which don't apply to them.
If the bill passes, anyone who receives payment from the state will have those payments docked to pay union dues or "service fees" regardless of whether they want to join the union.
I say that it isn't true that we, child care providers, don't have any organization because we do. We have a professional association, Maryland State Family Child Care Association (MSFCCA) which we can join. MSFCCA, along with other organizations, have lobbied in Annapolis for years and have acheived results. All of the lobbyists are actual licensed family child care providers who volunteer their time.
I'll also post the letter I wrote to my reps.
Nickel
curiouser and curiouser
So, in reality, child care providers may then want to raise their tuition rates to account for the union dues?Dymphna said:
I agree with you, it sounds like a ridiculous idea, and is making the assumption that child care providers have no idea how to represent themselves.
Dymphna
Loyalty, Friendship, Love
This is the "meat" of the letter I wrote to my reps in Annapolis a few weeks ago.
I am writing regarding Senate Bill 809, the Quality Child Care Access and Affordability Act. Specifically, I wish to address the portion of the bill regarding provider organizations. This bill could be disastrous for childcare in Maryland.
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comffice
Let me start by taking issue with the bill’s definition of “Family Child Care Provider.” Title 27-101 (B)(2) includes as part of this definition; “an individual who cares for no more than eight children in a family day care home that is exempt from the registration requirements under 5-552 of the Family Law Article.” Section 5-552 of the Family Law Article includes any relative who cares for a child, any friend of the parents who occasionally cares for a child and anyone who has had a child placed with them by an authorized agency. This would include everyone in the entire state who has ever watched over a child not their own. If my kids have a sleepover at a family friend’s house, that person is a “Family Child Care Provider.” If I go out of town for a couple of days and drop the kids at grandma’s house, grandma is now a “Family Child Care Provider.” If I leave my kids with a neighbor while I run a few errands, my neighbor is now a “Family Child Care Provider.”
<o
Now, I know that despite the current wording, the intent of the law is not to include such casual situations as I have mentioned. So, let me also add, that lumping licensed family child care providers in with exempt providers is akin to lumping lawyers together with people who represent themselves. Their priorities, agendas, level of professionalism and scope of interest are radically different. For one thing “exempt” providers are just that, exempt from all laws pertaining to the care of children (with the exception of abuse and neglect laws which apply to everyone). However by including them in this bill, they have the power to affect legislation which won’t apply to them in any way.
<o
I would also like to take issue with the way the bill creates a dichotomy between POC providers and non-POC providers. The way current regulations are, there are two types of people who qualify to become a POC provider. One type is licensed providers. Each and every licensed provider in the State has the potential to be a POC provider. The other type of POC provider would be a relative of POC-eligible families who care for children on an informal basis. Because this bill separates POC and non-POC providers for the purpose of union representation, it will force licensed providers to choose up-front, if they wish to be considered a POC provider or not.
<o
Let me offer myself as an example of why this is inadvisable. I have been a licensed provider in St. Mary’s County for three years. Prior to that I was licensed for a year in Frederick County. In that time, I have never received payments from the POC program. I have discussed with POC-eligible families and have been open to the possibility of caring for their children, but for one reason or another, it never came to be. I consider myself a non-POC provider, but that could change anytime I come to an agreement with an eligible family. However, if this bill passes, I would choose the non-POC group and effectively shut my doors to any POC eligible families. Currently there are in the neighborhood of 10,000 licensed providers in the State of Maryland. Any one of them could choose to care for POC-eligible children at anytime. However, there are only about 3000 of them who actually do. Forcing providers to choose one representation or another would cause approximately 7000 potential caregivers to shut their doors to underprivileged families. A number of other providers of my acquaintance have stated that they will refuse POC families because they object to the mandatory fees, which would be subtracted from the subsidy to support this union that claims to represent them. The introduction to this bill states that the availability of quality childcare is a problem. Yet this bill, if passed, will only make the problem much worse for low-income families.
<o
As a licensed family childcare provider, I feel very strongly about this topic. Although the idea of a tax-break is admirable, the rest of the provisions of the bill would override any benefits. I strongly urge you to withdrawal your support for it.
Dymphna
Loyalty, Friendship, Love
Increased rates may be a side effect, yes.Nickel said:
More than likely, most providers will just refuse to accept children on subsidy. The union can't really find a way to steal the money from providers who are getting it in the form of checks from parents, but they are trying to find a way.
Most providers don't accept POC children anyway, but that has more to do with the fact that there was a freeze on new POC families. That freeze was lifted last year and more needy families will be getting assistance.
Before anyone attacks the idea of the State paying child care for the underprivledged, the idea is to get them off of welfare and back to work. Paying for child care is a step towards doing that. Ehrlich is a great supporter of the POC program.
Dymphna
Loyalty, Friendship, Love
Write, email and call your reps. Dyson is the main sponsor in the senate. Bohanan and Wood signed on as co-sponsors in the House (although I heard Bohanan may have reconsidered) Middleton is the chairman of the Finance committee, which heard the bill today in the senate.MMDad said:
I don't know who the reps are in the House for Charles and Calvert, but if dozens of Delegates signed on as "co-sponsors." You can see the list of Delegate sponsors here: http://mlis.state.md.us/2006rs/billfile/hb1478.htm
One delgate from the Eastern Shore told someone I know from a Yahoo group, that the union reps pushing for sponsors on this bill were focusing on the idea of a tax credit which is included in the tail end of the bill, without mentioning anything about collective bargaining.
Last edited:
Dymphna
Loyalty, Friendship, Love
Oh, I forgot to explain why Dyson left the hearing. I referred to it in my email as his chance to be on television.
After he and the top union execs testified, he got up to leave, explaining to Middleton (who was running the hearing) that there was stuff going on on the Senate Floor and it was being taped for television, so he didn't want to miss it.
After he and the top union execs testified, he got up to leave, explaining to Middleton (who was running the hearing) that there was stuff going on on the Senate Floor and it was being taped for television, so he didn't want to miss it.
ylexot
Super Genius
All I need to hear is "required to join a union". You have my support!
I have no idea how legislators can require someone to join a union. What happened to freedom?
Unions were supposed to protect the little guy from the big guy. Now they seek to hurt the little guy to help themselves
I have no idea how legislators can require someone to join a union. What happened to freedom?
Unions were supposed to protect the little guy from the big guy. Now they seek to hurt the little guy to help themselves
Dymphna
Loyalty, Friendship, Love
Oh Vrai....
I believe Alex Mooney is one of your reps. Although he isn't an official co-sponsor, he blew off some of his constituents who went to talk to him in opposition of the bill.
Of course, that could be just because he is a chauvanistic pig and these were women.
(for those who don't remember me, I used to live in Frederick. I know about Mooney from personal experience)
I believe Alex Mooney is one of your reps. Although he isn't an official co-sponsor, he blew off some of his constituents who went to talk to him in opposition of the bill.
Of course, that could be just because he is a chauvanistic pig and these were women.
(for those who don't remember me, I used to live in Frederick. I know about Mooney from personal experience)
Dutch6
"Fluffy world destroyer"
Maryland is NOT a Right to Work State. If the Union come into your workplace you are required to join or give up employment.ylexot said:All I need to hear is "required to join a union". You have my support!
I have no idea how legislators can require someone to join a union. What happened to freedom?
Unions were supposed to protect the little guy from the big guy. Now they seek to hurt the little guy to help themselves
Dymphna
Loyalty, Friendship, Love
Unions have a place, this isn't it.ylexot said:All I need to hear is "required to join a union". You have my support!
I have no idea how legislators can require someone to join a union. What happened to freedom?
Unions were supposed to protect the little guy from the big guy. Now they seek to hurt the little guy to help themselves
For the record, I am not anti-union. I found out just yesterday that my father has to go on temporary disability for medical issues. If he weren't in a very strong union, he'd likely be out on his ear.
Dymphna
Loyalty, Friendship, Love
This is true. But come on, I'm SELF-EMPLOYED. They are not coming into my workplace (they tried, I slammed the door on them after I called the dog off).Dutch6 said:
Which brings up another point...
Rumors are (I can't verify this first hand) that they tricked their way into some provider's homes, by either pretending to be from the licensing agency or by walking in behind a parent, as if they had every right to be there. And then, refusing to leave until they had a signed statement of support.
One of the Senators in today's hearing said she'd received 1100 emails and letters from providers saying that they'd been tricked into signing the "support" cards.
We're David Brinkley, but it doesn't matter. Consider the letter written.Dymphna said:
