An email to Roy Dyson

[Dymphna]

I have a question... just as a side I guess... may I ask..

In terms of the best interests of the childern... can you tell me just how bad would it be for the kids to stay home for a day while there is no daycare... because y'all are all arguing about representation. Better the parents take off one day and spend it with their children, than this bill go through and thousands of providers refuse to accept certain children. Plus, none of my parents took off. They all could make other one-day arrangements with family, except one schoolager, and my husband took off early to meet the bus

Meanwhile... part timers... you know the mom around the corner that doesn't have a job and stays home... no license... are going to wind up taking care of the children because parents have to work For the record, it's illegal for such a person to care for children more than "occasionally," which is defined as 20 hrs per month. If you know of any, you should report them to the Office of Child Care. They have not subjected themselves to the required inspections by the OCC or the Fire Marshal, they do not have CPR or First Aid training, as required by the state and they have not had a criminal background check, as required by the state.

If you take this argument into the Senate, who's watching the children... why don't you take the children to Annapolis... with you... Took my own, because I had no one else to watch them. Didn't take the other children because I didn't know how long it'd take. (I didn't get home until 7:30pm)

My understanding is that in the House, the week before, they kicked out any children who made so much as a peep. My kids were the only ones in the Senate and they were quieter than the side conversations in the audience and the union reps cell phones. (actually, they were perfect angels for 5 hrs straight, but I don't like to brag )

Then all of the Senators can take the time to hash this out... along with the other huge problems we are taking on this year....

Why not take the kids and make the Senators babysit and while the licensed daycare providers work it out in Senate Chambers...Believe it or not, there was a child care provider in Baltimore City, who often did that. She has retired and does lectures now, but she routinely took 8 children into committees, handed them off to the committee members and told them, "Give him this bottle, keep him quiet and amused, and listen to everything I have to say." When the reps would question her, she'd say, "I do it everyday, you can do it for a short time." She would have been there last week, but her husband had a seizure that morning.

Just a thought

....

 

[Dymphna]

You mean a Senatorial Candidate missed a chance to have his picture taken with children?

Yep, some of them didn't even notice they were there. :shrug:

 

[Dymphna]

Another child care provider forwarded the following email to me, from her delegate:

Thank you for your email. I also found the title very deceiving, one would think by reading the title the bill would provide reduction in the cost of child care for parents of children in a child care setting. I have received many phone calls on this in support of this issue.
Friday, I randomly selected a number of people to call amd ask "why are you supporting this legislation?: Their reply, ""Someone called me and said the bill will lower child care costs", "Who called"?, "'t really don't know: When I tell them it was the union people that want this bill and that the bill was not about saving money on their child care costs, they then had a different view.
Although I am signed on as a co-sponsor I will not vote for that legislation, I also was lead to believe it would help give relief to parents with children in child care, which I have always been a advocite for.
Delegate Minnick

 

[Lenny]

Maryland is NOT a Right to Work State. If the Union come into your workplace you are required to join or give up employment.

...and in this state, the unions would try to legislate parenthood into a union shop....which would pass in this dipsh!t legislature!

 

[residentofcre]

Yep, some of them didn't even notice they were there. :shrug:

What's the bill number again... I want to look it up and read it myself... maybe get a letter out from my desk too...

Must have been really good kids for them not to notice...

Have you called Dyson's office? I usually talk right to his office about bills to get the real scoop. It's an election year and sometimes what you think is happening and what is really happening may be two entirely different things.

I would also fax over a letter. If you fax a letter to the senators and the delegates you must fax one letter for each with the names on them so that they do get to them. You must also put your name, address, and phone number on the letter as well.

There's some kind of law or practice that if you just fax a letter to "Dear Senator... " it goes no where... but Dear Senator Dyson would go to the right place....

[I worked in the fax & mail room once... ]

 

[huntr1]

What's the bill number again... I want to look it up and read it myself... maybe get a letter out from my desk too...

http://mlis.state.md.us/2006rs/bills/sb/sb0809f.pdf

 

[residentofcre]

An email to Roy

So this law sets up the union and non-union representatives and calls the POC & NON-POC ... right?... and every licensed provider is union or non-union... and if someone gets more than 30% of the vote of either POC or NON-POC they get to have their name on a ballot to see if the others will pick them to represent them or choose to have no representation at all... so if you vote for no representation at all what happens to you?

Another question is this............ Who's watch and teaching the children while all this representing and voting is going on?

I want my daycare provider to put the children first. If you ask me they have plenty to do to keep up with all that energy... I don't know how they do it...

Great Daycare providers shouldn't have to worry about politics...

Another question... they are talking about the single parent on assistance needing to have the ability to choose to place their preschooler in quality daycare. I can see how this would be impossible in some cases if the parent has no income to qualify for a tax break... is this bill about negotiating with the state to provide that type of daycare?

Final Question... in the beginning of the bill it talks about the number of providers dropping from 11,000 to 8,000 by next year... what's that about and who's keeping that number?

 

[huntr1]

My answers, I don't say they are correct, just what they are.

Another question is this............ Who's watch and teaching the children while all this representing and voting is going on?

All licensed daycare providers are required to have an alternate provider to watch the kids in an emergency or when they take leave. Most also have personal leave written into their contracts. Thus they take leave or have their alternate watch them.

Another question... they are talking about the single parent on assistance needing to have the ability to choose to place their preschooler in quality daycare. I can see how this would be impossible in some cases if the parent has no income to qualify for a tax break... is this bill about negotiating with the state to provide that type of daycare?

If this BS bill gets passed, a bunch of providers are going to drop POC clients and refuse to take on more due to being forced to pay dues to a union they don't support or want to be a part of. They currently have an excellent and powerful voice in Annapolis, but you know how it is in MD politics, Unions win, and the voice of the people doesn't matter.

 

[residentofcre]

Do you have a form letter you are suggesting that concerned people send in?

 

[Dymphna]

So this law sets up the union and non-union representatives and calls the POC & NON-POC ... right?...

First, let me explain what POC is. It stands for "purchase of care." It is a program administered by the Department of Social Services. It is a benefit for low income families to pay for childcare so that they can afford to work instead of being on welfare. There was a freeze on new cases of POC that was just lifted on July 1, 2005. In order to take advantage of this benefit, the family must be using legal child care. Legal means one of two things: 1. a licensed child care provider or 2. a family member who, because they are family, doesn't have to be licensed.

Right now, ANY child care provider can choose to take POC. There are about 3000 of about 10,000 who do. There are about 2000 unlicensed people taking POC to care for family.

The bill, as written, will create two groups, those who take POC, licensed or not, and those who don't take POC. Right now, the non-POC group would include ANYONE, licensed or not who cares for children, but that is a glitch in the language that I'm sure will be amended out. (Dyson and the unions have already proposed amendments) And in the end I'm sure it will only include licensed providers.

In my opinion, this is the main problem with the bill. Right now, I could take a POC client if one were to show up, assuming we reached an agreement. If this bill passes, I would be in the non-POC group, because I don't have any POC kids. I would not be able to affect legislation or negotiations affecting POC because right this minute, I don't have any POC children. AND the second I do accept such a child, I'd have to pay a "service fee" for the privledge of negotiations done at a time, when I wasn't allowed any say in those negotiations. As soon as I accepted a POC child, I would have to change my union affiliation, if any, in order to change from non-POC to POC status.

In short, if this bill passes,I WON'T be taking in any POC children. There are thousands of other providers who feel the same way. Now you may say, that's no big deal because there aren't that many POC families, anyway. But with the lifting of the freeze this past year, there will be more and more of them. There is no telling how many, because the freeze had been in place for years and the word is just getting out that it's been lifted. If they can't find childcare, they will be back on welfare.

Let me give you some numbers as a example. When my first child was born, I called my local child care referral agency. I got about 20 names of people, who supposedly had openings. Of those, many had filled the openings (as any parent looking for infant care has discovered). Others didn't like the hours I wanted care for. In the end, I interviewed 3 people. One, I wouldn't leave my dog with, and the others were way out of our way. I ended up going with illegal care. A neighbor, mother of 4 and highly recommended, but just never got around to finishing the process of getting licensed (so she claimed). Well, let's just say that if someone is not licensed, there is usually a reason. Looking back, it was only divine intervention that my child never came to harm. Six months later, I found licensed care where my son stayed for 2 years.

But imagine, that I were a POC client. Those original 20 names would be reduced to about 6 who will accept the subsidy. What are my odds of finding quality care or any care at all for that matter? So much for a bill which is entitled "Quality Child Care Access and Affordability"

and every licensed provider is union or non-union... and if someone gets more than 30% of the vote of either POC or NON-POC they get to have their name on a ballot to see if the others will pick them to represent them or choose to have no representation at all... so if you vote for no representation at all what happens to you?

Too bad, majority rules. If you don't want a union and the majority says they do, then the union will still have exclusive rights to bargain for you and if you don't join, you have no say in what the union negotiates for. If you are getting money through POC, they will still take out union dues, even if you don't join the union. Only they will call them "service fees." If you aren't getting any money from the state, and the non-POC group still chooses to join the union, at this time, they haven't found a way to take your money against your will, but I can think of one way they can still get some of it, and I work too hard to just let them take it.

Another question is this............ Who's watch and teaching the children while all this representing and voting is going on?

I want my daycare provider to put the children first. If you ask me they have plenty to do to keep up with all that energy... I don't know how they do it...

Great Daycare providers shouldn't have to worry about politics...

I guess it depends on how they do the elections. During the week and providers will have to take off to vote. Many won't do that because we feel guiilty about asking parents to make other arrangements (we already feel guilty, and some parents like to pile on more guilt) If the election is held on a weekend, many providers won't go either, because it's a long distance for some and we already work 50 or 60 hours a week and don't want to give up our time off. If they hold the election by mail, there is too much room for fraud, I don't think that's a good idea in such a violatile issue. In any case, only those providers who feel strongly about the issue one way or another will be voting. Those who don't care, don't know and don't understand won't be voting at all and just might be in for a big surprise.

Unfortunately, great daycare providers DO have to worry about politics. Every politician loves to say they are doing things, "for the best interest of the children." And they LOVE to legislate about the people caring for the children. Who better to let them know what is truly in children's best interests, than the people who care for them every day.

Another question... they are talking about the single parent on assistance needing to have the ability to choose to place their preschooler in quality daycare. I can see how this would be impossible in some cases if the parent has no income to qualify for a tax break... is this bill about negotiating with the state to provide that type of daycare?

The union wants to negotiate higher rates of payment through the POC program. This, however is strictly a ploy to line their own pockets, not for any benefit of the child care providers they claim to want to represent. You see, if I accept a POC client, I get paid the same amount as I would any other client, it's just from a different source. POC pays monthly and it varies a little from county to county, but in St. Mary's I believe it averages out to about $100 a week for an infant. I can still charge the normal $150, but the parent has to pay the difference. In fact, the state encourages the providers to charge the parent more than the reimbursement, so that the parent is in the habit of budgeting for it and having the responsibilty for it. If I am accredited by a national organization, I would get more from the state. So if I go the extra mile, I get paid accordingly. If the union negotiates a higher reimbursement, maybe $120 per week, (I doubt they'll get that much) I still charge $150, but now the union is taking $10 of it. At which point, I might raise my rates across the board to cover it.

Final Question... in the beginning of the bill it talks about the number of providers dropping from 11,000 to 8,000 by next year... what's that about and who's keeping that number?

That is the number of licensed providers according the the Office of Child Care, with predictions based on the trends of the last few years. For the record, Calvert and St. Mary's are currently experiencing a slight increase in licensed providers (I don't know about Charles)

 

[Dymphna]

All licensed daycare providers are required to have an alternate provider to watch the kids in an emergency or when they take leave. Most also have personal leave written into their contracts. Thus they take leave or have their alternate watch them.

If this BS bill gets passed, a bunch of providers are going to drop POC clients and refuse to take on more due to being forced to pay dues to a union they don't support or want to be a part of. They currently have an excellent and powerful voice in Annapolis, but you know how it is in MD politics, Unions win, and the voice of the people doesn't matter.

Just a point of clarification here... providers are required to have a "substitute" not an "alternate provider." The term provider implies that the person has gone through a similar screening process as a licensed provider, but that may not be the case. The substitute hasn't necessarily had a background check, or CPR/first aid training.

 

[Dymphna]

Do you have a form letter you are suggesting that concerned people send in?

No form letter. It's better in your own words, but here are some "talking points" published by the Maryland State Family Child Care Association:

· The bill attempts to divide all family child care providers into 2 collective bargaining units (and only 2).
POC unit: About 3,000 regulated and 2,000 Informal providers would be in this unit because they receive POC payments.
Non-POC unit: The remaining 6,000+ regulated providers who do not receive POC payments would be in this unit.
PROBLEM
Informal providers tend to be “kith and kin” who provide care for an average of 3 months, unlike regulated providers who have chosen family child care as their profession. There are potential conflicts between these 2 groups over issues of quality of care and reimbursement rates, and they should not be in the same bargaining unit.

· Each unit will be able to elect an “exclusive” representative.
POC unit: The exclusive joint negotiating representative will negotiate a union contract with the State, covering POC reimbursement rates, the Family Day Care Regulations and other matters.
Non-POC unit: The exclusive joint rulemaking representative will meet and confer with the State about the Family Day Care Regulations and other matters.
PROBLEMS
¨ Informal providers in the POC unit will have the right to negotiate changes to the Family Day Care Regulations, which they have chosen not to follow.
¨ Regulated family child care providers are split into two units and cannot speak with a unified voice about their regulations, which they have done for years through MSFCCA.
¨ MSFCCA and other advocates could potentially lose their voice on family child care policy issues if provider unions become the “exclusive” representatives.
¨ The bill does not specifically give the POC Unit the right to negotiate changes in POC Regulations, which govern reimbursement rates and other elements of the POC program.

· Providers can refuse to join the union, but non-members will be required to pay service fees.
POC Unit: The service fee will be negotiated in the union contract.
Non-POC Unit: The bill does not provide for a service fee, but it is a common union policy to assess a fee for all unit members because they receive the benefit of any agreement the union makes on their behalf.
Problem
If the service fee is only assessed for POC Unit members, providers may choose to stop accepting POC, rather than pay the service fee, leaving fewer regulated slots for low-income families. If the fee is assessed for both units, providers may choose to close their family child care homes rather than pay the fee.

 

[Dymphna]

They are talking about this on WBAL radio, Right NOW

 

[Dymphna]

This bill was given an unfavorable report from the House of Delegates committee. The vote was 20-3 against the bill. (I'm trying to find out who the 3 were) It'll technically still get voted on by the full House, but it is effectively dead in the House of Delegates.

Thank you to any and all who wrote to your delegates. Two of the members of the House committee who heard this bill, Sally Jameson and John Wood, Jr, are from Southern Maryland, and many of the members of the committee, including Del. Wood, were sponsors of the bill.



BTW, I resent the email to Dyson AGAIN this morning, and so far have not gotten an error message, so maybe he'll get it this time.

 

[Dymphna]

Word on the internet is that Dyson requested this bill be withdrawn from the Senate.