Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Public Records | Contact Us | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS

Childcare Unionization Town Hall Meeting

November 1, 2013

To the editor: The Sibley County GOP invites its Sibley County friends and neighbors to attend an informational meeting on the extremist DFL push to unionize Childcare providers and PCAs (personal......

« Back to Article

sort: oldest | newest




Nov-04-13 5:42 AM

Thank you for the post Kidsrock. Good to hear from someone who is in the middle of this issue.

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Nov-03-13 11:04 PM

This will limit the access to high quality childcare for low-income children and families who need it most. Providers have said they will stop caring for children on assistance because they do not want to pay the union. How sad that we will be forced to make that choice if the election unionizes us.

AFSCME would take more than $4 million/year from funds meant to help low-income children and families and cost taxpayers $1 - $3 MILLION (or more) every single year just to manage the provisions of the new law. Minnesota taxpayers are already struggling to make ends meet.

Child care unionization also creates conflicts of interest because AFSCME would represent providers and the state employees they’d bargain with on behalf of the providers. What if the employees of childcare providers want to join a union?

I apologize that I couldn't post all of these as one comment and that they are out of order, but I tried to keep the topics together. I respectfully welcome any questions or comm

5 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Nov-03-13 11:03 PM

This unionization does not give us anything we cannot already do ourselves, but it forces us to pay the union if the election goes their way. Everything I have accomplished in my childcare, for childcare providers, children, and families, I did on my own and with other providers by talking with elected officials, DHS, etc. Many of us providers have worked with DHS and licensors to promote consistency, fairness, and understanding with licensing rules, regulations, and enforcement, all at no cost to providers or taxpayers. We already have a voice. Providers and MLFCCA have individually and collaboratively worked with other providers, DHS, and legislators to make positive changes (or much less intrusive ones than were proposed). We did all this without the help of a union. We already have state, city, and county child care associations that work solely for licensed family childcare providers and the families they serve. Membership is voluntary and normally only $35/year.

6 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Nov-03-13 11:02 PM

Please note that legislators already have the power to raise the CCAP rate, yet the supposed "labor-friendly" DFL chose NOT to raise it this session, even with majority control and no threat of veto. DFL legislators didn't feel it was important to raise the CCAP rate, yet claimed the reason they voted for child care unionization was to raise the CCAP rate. Why should the money be funneled through AFSCME? Again, providers can already join AFSCME. Why was this legislation necessary?

Providers in Illinois pay up to $900/year; New York providers pay $400-$700/year, but the subsidy rate hasn't increased. The MINIMUM is $300/year in the states with childcare unions, but only a small amount of that would stay in Minnesota, per AFSCME national bylaws. Most providers cannot afford an expense like this, so they will have to pass the cost on to their clients (the ones we choose to enroll because we're our own bosses) by raising their rates or make less than they do now by assuming the

5 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Nov-03-13 11:01 PM

This is illegal and unconstitutional as we are independent small business owners! Many of us are EMPLOYERS and hire independent contractors. We are self-employed and set our own rates, hours, policies, and working conditions. The subsidy payments are a benefit for families, not providers, and providers can charge families the difference between their regular rate and the CCAP rate. Following this so-called logic, they could unionize grocery store owners who accept WIC and Food Stamps, dentists, doctors, and chiropractors who accept forms of public healthcare, landlords of low-income housing, or independent contractors who receive a payment for services from the government. I'm baffled that you can justify trampling on fundamental parts of the Constitution and federal labor law.

5 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Nov-03-13 11:01 PM

AuntyDem, it sounds like you have been spoon-fed lies from AFSCME without reading the new (illegal) law and do not understand the profession of licensed family childcare. Otherwise, you would realize that denying a vote to half of licensed providers on something that will affect them, then requiring them to pay "fair share" fees or union dues to AFSCME if it passes would be, by definition, forcing them to unionize!

5 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Nov-03-13 11:01 PM

Please look through it to find support for denying a vote to people who will be affected by an election. Approximately 50% of licensed family child care providers will be denied a vote on child care unionization, something that WILL affect them because AFSCME has repeatedly stated they want to influence licensing regulations, trainings, and grievance procedures. Yet 6500 unlicensed providers--75% of whom are no longer providing care (fact straight from DHS)--would be allowed to vote on whether or not to unionize our whole industry! You won't find justification for it, but you will find the 14th Amendment supports our Equal Protection!

5 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Nov-03-13 11:00 PM

Those who support child care unionization seem to know nothing about the Constitution or support the trampling of the rights enumerated by it. Please point out where it allows individuals to be forced to be represented by an organization, regardless of whether or not they want that representation. You won't find it, but you'll clearly find the 1st Amendment protecting people's freedom of association.

5 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Nov-03-13 10:59 PM

Since this thread has become more of a thread about unionization in general instead of discussing the unique problems with family childcare unionization, I wanted to chime in. For the record, I am pro-childcare and, therefore, opposed to childcare unionization. However, I am NOT anti-union. I know that puts a dent in the main argument childcare union proponents like to make about people opposed to this.

5 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Nov-03-13 7:58 PM

AuntyDem - based on the experience of my two sons, one worked more hours than the other, they both paid the same dues. Since your original post mentioned SEIU, that was the union my sons worked under to which I made remarks. Your last post changed the platform for which I have no experience with so cannot comment.

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Nov-03-13 11:31 AM

MCW: sounds like everyone should just join a union and then life will be solved!! Then maybe we can stop listening to you constantly tear at the corporations for turning a profit. So, let's get all the unemployed folks and folks on assistance out there into a union of their choice, then, according to your breakdown, we'll all live happily ever after. Perfect- next problem.

5 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Nov-03-13 9:31 AM

I generally stop considering a point of view if the labeling/name calling of others is needed i.e. lying, extremist. If you can't make your point without that........

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Nov-02-13 8:57 PM

My union dues are not cheap, but the terrific benefits and higher pay more than make up for it. I really can't complain.

4 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Nov-02-13 8:42 PM

Avoice - dues vary greatly by union, specific job, and wages earned. Not everyone in a union pays the same dues, even in the same work site.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Nov-02-13 1:40 PM

I'm glad that you asked, integrity. When I quit my non-union construction job in New Ulm, my employer was paying the going rate in New Ulm. I received a $10 per hour pay raise, family health coverage, a great retirement plan, free training, a pension plan, safer work environment, better trained coworkers, I could go on. We do this at a rather minimum increase to our charge out rates. Most Fortune 500 companies only hire union labor because it us done right the first time, they have the skilled manpower to get it done on time and with minimal cost overruns. The complaint I often hear about a competing nonunion contractor is that he often comes in far higher than his estimate.

There is a reason that companies like Kraft, 3M, ADM, Seneca, Target, Emerson, CHS, Holiday, Parker Hannifin, XCel Energy, Taylor Corporation, Mayo Health Systems, etc. continue to hire union contractors.

4 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Nov-02-13 12:35 PM

Unions were created and positively existed when the government had minimal regulation in regards to private business. Over the decades, the government has consistently increased regulation for the "benefit" of the employee. What does a union provide - safety (OSHA), wages (minimum wage, 40 hr week, OT,etc), consistent work (many companies won't hire union due to the huge wages that are required). The government has and looks to continue to be providing more employee benefits through regulation (Obamacare). So again, what does a union provide that the government doesn't require already??

8 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Nov-02-13 11:25 AM

Auntydem, my sons, working part time, were paying $35 a month dues way back in the early nineties to the SEIU to be able to hold their part time jobs. Maybe things have changed but I believe I am close to right on the amount.

6 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Nov-01-13 10:53 PM

I am very much in support of the right to join a union. Unions represent employees and they negotiate with employers. Unions should not be representing self employed daycare providers. I am against the unionizing of childcare owners.

10 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Nov-01-13 10:49 PM

"The lying DFL" Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. I got screwed over with a bad insurance policy thanks to one of the people signed to this letter. Because of your misleading tactics, I give you nor your little club any credibility. Thanks for screwing me over.

5 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Nov-01-13 4:35 PM

I don't recall all of the details, but I remember the editorial letter from numerous day care providers from surrounding areas. They strongly voiced their objections to being forced into a union. They would be forced into a union but would have absolutely no voice in voting on any issues. At that time, I talked to quite a few local providers,& they all said they would have no rights at all but would have to comply with whatever decisions were made by those allowed to vote.

7 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Nov-01-13 1:30 PM

Fair share exists because unions are legally obligated to represent everyone within the bargaining unit, whether or not they are union members. Non-members are covered by the contract, may file grievances, are represented by the union, and are even represented by a union attorney in arbitration hearings. Fair share should not end unless those legal obligations end.

If an SEIU member was paying $70 a month in dues, they'd be making over $4,000 a month. PCA's would love to know where you think they can make that.

2 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Nov-01-13 10:49 AM

AuntyDem, if you really were that supportive about the unionization, then make union dues $5 a month instead of extracting $70 a month. this would leave more funds in their pocket instead of funneling it to the politicians or supporting union boss's extravagant live styles.

11 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Nov-01-13 9:46 AM


The Democrats solution to this inequality as it relates to this unionization scheme can be likened to a dog biting its own tail.

The only winner if this moves forward are big unions getting dues forced out of unwilling members.

10 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Nov-01-13 8:58 AM

Maybe working fathers earning solid wages and benefits would allow families the economic freedom to choose if mothers will stay home with their children?

google "It's the inequality, stupid". (Nothing personal)

2 Agrees | 12 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Nov-01-13 8:41 AM

Because stagnant wages, in fact a decline in working people's share of the nation's income, disappearing benefits from employers, and lack of federal laws allowing maternity leave and sick time have nothing to do with mothers having the economic freedom to choose to stay home with their children? Many of those working mothers are part of the 47% the GOP insists get some more skin in the game.

3 Agrees | 10 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 25 comments

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
Remember my email address.


I am looking for:
News, Blogs & Events Web