What's This With Unions and Daycare?
- Login to post comments
Thanks JSN, you are right.
E. Unless prescribed or controlled by federal law or regulation, the State and the collective bargaining agent of family child care providers may agree through negotiations to deduct membership dues and service fee obligations from child care subsidy payments. Service fees may be remitted to the collective bargaining agent of family child care providers from subsidy payments without authorization from the provider as long as the fee obligation arises from a lawfully executed collective bargaining agreement.
Again i do't understand...how does one have a collective bargaining agreement when the government mandates it???
There is no bargain, just extortion.
JimV: As someone that has fought against the union charging state employees a "fair" share fee, it is only just beginning. Any one that takes subsidies from the state better watch legislation closely. MSEA-SEIU is always looking to stick claws into someone elses money. The legislature seems perfectly willing to help.
Do you have any knowledge of the day care industry?
What it costs to comply with state mandates?
No, I didn't think so.
laMaine,
Although I'm sure that industry has major challenges, just like most others in Maine, the individuals involved are about to be taken for a ride. It's a shame they didn't do more research, but the following information might be useful for you to see what's really happening.
SEIU rhetoric vs. reality: The SEIU loyalty oath
Click Here for "What's the reality in SEIU?"
laMaine, do you have any knowledge of the bureaucracy industry? What it costs when you subsidize an entity that works to elect people who vote to impose expensive mandates, not just for the day care industry but for every industry? I didn't think so.
The local papers have decided to run a story on this today...
Lawmakers approve child care union bill
Click Here for the full PPH story.
Does anyone know if this includes a "fairshare" or excludes it!
The way I read it it does not exclude it but leaves it up to
the collective bargaining agent?
Final Disposition: ENACTED, Fri Apr 18, 2008
Governor's Action: SIGNED, Wed Apr 23, 2008
C. "Issues of mutual concern" means and is limited to:
...
(5) Member dues deduction;
(6) Representation or service fees for nonmembers; and
Why does the State negotiate fees and dues and not members?
3. Representation of family child care providers. The collective bargaining unit for the purpose of family child care provider representation is described in this subsection.
A. For the purposes of this section, the collective bargaining unit consists of all family child care providers in the State.
All providers in the state, whether they receive state subsidies or not.
E. Unless prescribed or controlled by federal law or regulation, the State and the collective bargaining agent of family child care providers may agree through negotiations to deduct membership dues and service fee obligations from child care subsidy payments. Service fees may be remitted to the collective bargaining agent of family child care providers from subsidy payments without authorization from the provider as long as the fee obligation arises from a lawfully executed collective bargaining agreement.
The reason child care providers needed a collective bargaining agent is they could not "work" with the state. But the state will negotiate on their behalf with their bargaining agent concerning their dues and fees, and the state will deduct them (service fees) automatically, without authorization?
I do not have a stake in this, but if I did I would have to wonder.
I compare it to having a dispute with my boss. So we agree to hire a arbitrator to resolve it. But the arbitrator and my boss will negotiate the dues and fees I will have to pay for the service. No thanks.
I hope it works out for those involved.
Keep it simple.
This is just another way to steal from people w/out sticking a gun
in their face.
Instead a not so gentle grab of the back side is done reaching for their wallets!
I would suggest providers send there fees/contributions to gov. 38,
wrapped in a soiled diaper!!
Disgraceful.
Representation or service fees for non-members.
Sounds like extortion to me.
That is the union for you. I guess I am not sure how the state can force day cares that don't take subsidies to pay. I am not sure on what grounds. The union is doing no work for them. (Of course, that is the kicker, the union works for no one but themselves)
Political payoff.
Disgraceful. But not enough to have prevented the MSEA from having a prominent booth at the GOP convention.
JMckane: MSEA sent out automated phone messages to all members who are registered Repubs saying they would be there.
Being there in MSEA speak does not mean doing anything :!:
I did not go near that booth Mr. McKane...I was told I would get cooties if I did :wink:
LePage calls for child care staff unionizing ban
Okay, let's see if our GOP delegation will stand with the governor on this one.
Four years ago when we discussed it on this thread, we recognized it as a political payoff to the union bosses.
Let the day care homes - like other small business owners - hire a lobbyist if they need representation before the legislature that their own senators and reps won't give them.
And take a look at what must be avoided, this story from Michigan:
In Michigan, many disabled people receive public subsidies, which they can then use to hire caretakers. Very often, those disabled people are cared for by their parents,... back in 2005, the SEIU was able to rope these caretakers into a union in an unpublicized election in which 80 percent of the caretakers didn’t vote...The SEIU simply wanted to unionize these folks to allow them to extract forced dues. Those dues are skimmed off of Medicaid payments, and handed over to the union. The result: $29 million poured into the SEIU’s coffers since 2007.
Medicaid payments intended to help disabled persons instead buys homes, cars, and political power for SEIU bosses.
Updated: 1:12 AM
State calls for child care staff unionizing ban
Gov. LePage's counsel says it's unfair to give some who receive state subsidies those rights but not other independent businesses.
By Susan M. Cover scover@mainetoday.com
State House Bureau
AUGUSTA — Gov. Paul LePage's chief legal counsel told lawmakers... it's not fair that some child care providers have the right to unionize while other workers who receive state subsidies do not.
.... L.D. 1894...would repeal ...2008 law that gave nearly 300 child care providers the right to unionize, even though they are not state workers.
"This really is not about collective bargaining," said Dan Billings, the attorney for LePage. "It's about independent businesses trying to use that process to their benefit."
Mainemom - thank you for resurrecting this thread, and for the details from Michigan. This bears repeating:
Medicaid payments intended to help disabled persons instead buys homes, cars, and political power for SEIU bosses.
It would be enlightening to know how much the Maine unions have reaped since 2008, from the daycare providers.
LePage bill would end collective bargaining for child care businesses
By Eric Russell, BDN Staff
Posted March 27, 2012, at 11:20 a.m.
AUGUSTA, Maine —... bill offered by Gov. Paul LePage would take away...ability of independent, in-home child care providers to unionize and engage in collective bargaining.
During ...public hearing...on LD 1894, the governor’s chief legal counsel, Dan Billings, said the bill’s goal is fairness. No other self-employed workers that receive state subsidies have the right to unionize....
“This is the only group of service providers that allows them to come together to bargain for subsidy rates,” Billings (said)...
********
It should be noted these providers are not public employees. They receive some state funding as subsidies, but they are not public employees per se. They are private providers, and self-employed.
At the time this coincided w/ SEIU/MSEA knowledge that they would be loosing members due to fairshare for state employees and if administration changed their gravy train would be off tracks.
Will they stand against this? Well how steadfast was their stand on doing away w/ forced membership for state employees?
At least at sometime in past state workers got to elect a union. This appears to be star granting a union something w/ out input from providers!
Mainelion have the dog on standby!
It will be interesting to see what happens, Bruce.
From PMSMRM's other thread:
**************
Vic Berardelli wrote:
I have yet to understand how self-employed business people could be unionized. They could have formed a voluntary trade association to represent their business interests and have a lobbyist in Augusta to represent them. But it seems odd that individuals can claim to be small business people and their own bosses (within legal guidelines for the type of business) on the one hand and then claim to be employees entitled to union representation on the other.
Senate passes bill that repeals union rights of independent child care providers
By Eric Russell, BDN Staff
Posted April 05, 2012
AUGUSTA, Maine — The Maine Senate approved a bill.. that removes an exemption in state law allowing independent, in-home child care providers to unionize and bargain collectively.
.... all 19 Republicans voted for LD 1894 while all 15 Democrats and independent Sen. Dick Woodbury ....voted against it.
It now goes to the House.
Sen. Chris Rector, R-Thomaston, said it was inexplicable that this exemption exists in the first place and...bill corrects a problem that has existed for years.
- Login to post comments
Question - what business group is next to be targeted by big labor?
A more basic question...where does the legislature get off demanding one join a union, much less a private company?
Sounds like it is time to ingore the legislature again...