There has been a lot of media attention on early care and education in Connecticut over the last week or so. First, Connecticut officials received the bad news that our state’s application for Race to the Top funding was denied. The Malloy administration had hoped to land $50 million to implement a variety of initiatives to try to improve early education in the state. In a statement, Malloy called the application “strong” and plans to use the nearly 289-page application as a “road map as we move forward on education reform.”
Just days later, Governor Malloy sent a letter to the leaders in the General Assembly outlining his principles for education reform. Those principles will serve as a “roadmap” for the upcoming 2012 session of the General Assembly, a session in which the Governor has repeatedly said he will focus on education.
Family Childcare providers also made the news last week, voting 1,603 to 88 to join the CSEA/SEIU Local 2001 union. There are about 4,000 Family Childcare providers in CT, covering all 169 cities and towns. They all participate in the Care 4 Kids program, the state’s primary child care subsidy that is managed by the state Department of Social Services. It is the Governor’s hope and the hope of many advocates that being able to unionize will give Family Childcare providers a collective voice to effect positive changes to the Care 4 Kids program.
Finally, CT Voices for Children released their 2011 Early Care and Education Progress Report. Key findings of the report indicate that funding for early care and education has been stagnant and is more than 10% below 2002 levels; Connecticut is not serving many of the children who need help with over 86% of infants and toddlers, and at least 25% of preschoolers living in struggling families unserved by any state or federal subsidy for early care and education; and Connecticut’s patchwork of early care and education programs needs reforming in order to streamline multiple funding streams and multiple agencies with varied reporting and eligibility and data requirements.
Many family childcare providers are opposed to SEIU’s unionization efforts and believe that it will only increase costs with nothing to show for it. Adding union dues and, for those who do not wish to join, agency fees, to the cost structure of childcare means that someone has to pay. Will it be providers, or will the cost be passed on to low-income parents? Unlike a normal union, this union has no right to strike or a grievance procedure; it can do nothing more than a good childcare lobbying organization can, except for the forced dues and forced representation. As noted by a diverse coalition of family childcare providers organizing against SEIU and AFSCME in Minnesota http://www.childcareunioninfo.com/ , the experience of other states has been quite poor. Indeed, on March 1, 2010, the DHS Director in Michigan ended the unionzation contract citing “The union council has not delivered on its original goals to enhance and improve the delivery of quality care for children whose parents receive assistance from the department. That’s why we will stop all funding and, because these providers are not state employees, we will also cease collecting union dues.”
Supporters of unionization are typically unable to answer basic questions from providers, to the point that many (including staunch progressive Democrats) initially inclined to support unionization have turned against it. They have also engaged in deception and intimidation, going to providers at the busiest time of day and claiming that union authorization cards were merely for providers to get more information. A public hearing before the Minnesota Senate produced some stunning testimony from both providers and union organizers: http://www.childcarefreedom.com/unions-exposed/
Here in Connecticut, unionization came about through of a pair of executive orders issued by Governor Malloy after bills to unionize both childcare providers and personal care attendants failed in the General Assembly, where many Democrats opposed SEIU’s unionization efforts, especially after vocal opposition from the disability community. Normally an issue as controversial as this would be fully vetted before being implemented. Many childcare providers, who either do not take Care 4 Kids children and were not eligible to vote (but who will still be affected), or who treated their ballots as junk mail, as about 70% did, will be very angry once union dues are withheld from Care 4 Kids reimbursements. A significant number still do not know they are about to be forced to either join SEIU or pay the equivalent in agency fees.
As co-administrators of the Facebook group, Stop the SEIU from Hijacking Care Providers in Connecticut http://www.facebook.com/groups/185712171462620/ , Cathy Ludlum and I would be glad to discuss this issue further, especially in a public forum. Family childcare providers, parents, personal care attendants, their employers with disabilities, and taxpayers all deserve answers to how the unionization efforts of SEIU will affect them.
Stephen–thank you for the thoughful post. We are working with advocates for family childcare providers and providers themselves to ensure that the SEIU unionizing improves conditions for all of Connecticut’s childcare providers, not just those now a part of the union. Childcare providers are extremely underpaid. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, only 20 of the 821 occupations reported have lower average wages than do child care workers. I look forward to keeping the lines of communication open as the union efforts unfold.
If providers are underpaid, IT IS THEIR OWN FAULT! We are SELF-EMPLOYED small business owners and set our own rates, working conditions, vacations, etc. We do all of that without a union and, as providers in the 12 other states that have childcare unions will tell you, the unions have NOT followed through on their promises. That’s why Wisconsin and Michigan RESCINDED the unionization order as they did not benefit providers and families.. Providers in Connecticut DID NOT choose to be unionized. The decision was FORCED on them by Governor Malloy and SEIU through an undemocratic and illegal vote. Your Constitution DOES NOT allow governors to make laws and the vote wasn’t even given to ALL providers in Connecticut, only those who have kids on the Care 4 Kids program (your article erroneously claims that all CT providers have kids on subsidy and implies that they all had the opportunity to vote). Nonetheless, it doesn’t matter if all of them voted as the rights of an individual SHOULD NOT be trumped on by a vote of a minority (or even a majority). Every idea does not merit a vote and this vote was not fair. Childcare providers choose how to run their own businesses and are not eligible to be unionized as they are self-employed and federal law prohibits employers to unionize. I’m happy to e-mail you tons of facts from other states and the duplicitous tactics with which union organizers (AFSCME and SEIU) in Minnesota have conducted themselves while trying to unionize us. For the record, I am NOT anti-union as I support my husband’s union, but I am very much against childcare unionization because I know how much it will HURT children, providers, families, and taxpayers. The only groups who benefit are the unions.
There have been several attempts through the years to get family child care providers in Connecticut to unionize. There wasn’t the support for it 20 years ago and there truly isn’t suuport for it now. It has been mentioned several times that there are about 4000 family child care providers in Connecticut. The last time I checked there are less than 2700 licensed family child care providers in the state of Connecticut and I believe the majority do not accept Care for Kids money. This means that the people that are being that the majority of the 4000 individuals being tauted as family child care providers are in fact not. They are relatives or friends who are exempt from licensing or individuals providing child care or babysitting services who are providing child care illegally. So who is it that will actually be unionized and what will it accomplish? Family child care has always had a voice in Connecticut through associations. Whether or not those providers chose to exercise that voice is another matter, but many actively do and they belong to local associations that pay attention to what is happening in the legislature that affects them. I believe it was 25 years ago that a group of family child care providers in Orange County, California joined the local Teamsters Union to be able to have access to affordable healthcare insurance. They had no delusions about any type of protection that belonging to this type of union would afford them. They did it only for the health care insurance. The SEIU does not seem to be able to answer any direct question with a direct answer. Saying providers can get pay increases says nothing. As sole proprietorships family child care providers set their own rates. The only thing that raising or lowering fees associated with what is paid for child care affects the families who have qualified for the program. If the fees are are reduced then it will cost the families more out of pocket. If the fees child care providers receive are raised it will mean that less families will be able to participate in Care for Kids. Again who does this affect? The families, then the providers, and then the state as a whole because who is paying for this. Saying providers will have access to more training says nothing in this state. There are plenty of opportunities for all child care providers, working in all types of settings, including the family-friend-neighbor category to participate in training opportunities. Training is offered by local family child care associations, local AEYC’s, director’s groups, etc. Again, who pays for this? Saying providers will have more input into legislation and regulation affecting child care says nothing. The political voice of family child care providers is held within themselves as well as within the groups cited previously who will band together when necessary to fight for what makes sense for child care in this state. One of the biggest issues we face in this country as a whole is the way special interest groups can lobby and get something enacted that affects the whole. Who is this special interest group here because it does not truly appear to be the licensed family child care providers at this point? If this unionization is allowed to happen it will affect more than those receiving Care for Kids dollars – the mistaken belief that it is the “family” child care providers. The trickle down effect of unionization and its related costs for this group is something to be extremely wary of.