Patty Busse | Stillwater Patch | February 14, 2012

Rep. Nora Slawik announced introduction of the Child Care Affordability Act Tuesday in the home of a St. Paul day care provider.

“How can we look at funding the Vikings stadium for $300 million and we can’t find the money for kids down at the Capitol?” said Slawik (DFL-Maplewood). “We need to make sure there’s high quality, affordable childcare.”

The bill, HF2219, would restore the 2.5 percent rate cut made to subsidized child care providers in the 2011 legislative session and eliminate the waiting list for child care assistance, which is now 7,000 families long, Slawik said.

Child care provider Sharon Born, of Waseca, said she’s had to start working evenings and weekends to make up for the money she lost due to the child care assistance cuts. Despite the hardship, she said her primary concern is what’s happening to the children in the 7,000 families on the waiting list for assistance.

“Who’s watching these kids?” Born said. “My experience is a lot of these kids are not safe.”

The reforms set forth in the bill—which also include reinstating funding for professional development of child care providers—wouldn’t come cheap. Its estimated cost would be between $300 million and $500 million, which Slawik noted, is about the same as the proposed state contribution toward the Vikings stadium.

“There’s a cost to taking care of kids,” Slawik said. “I think kids should be the priority in this state.”

Sen. Mary Jo McGuire (DFL-Falcon Heights) authored the Senate version of the bill.

There’s a new push to help Minnesota parents pay for child care.  Rep. Nora Slawik (DFL) and Sen. Mary Jo McGuire (DFL) announced the Child Care Affordability Act Tuesday.

It would restore funding to child care providers, money that was lost last year in order to balance the budget.

It would make sure providers are reimbursed at 75-percent of the market rate. It would also reinstate funding for professional development of child care providers and get rid of the waiting list for child care in the state.

Daycare providers at Tuesday’s announcement say they’re making their own incomes go as far as possible to care for these kids. They say it’s not fair to keep raising rates on parents.

The proposal would cost between $300 million and $500 million dollars.

Slawik and McGuire want to pay for the bill by taxing the rich or attaching it to a Vikings stadium bill.

ST. PAUL (WCCO) — Two state lawmakers say before the legislature focuses on a Vikings Stadium, they should make up for big cuts to child care.

Rep. Nora Slawik and Sen. Mary Jo McGuire introduced the “Child Care Affordability Act” Tuesday, outlining a plan to help parents, especially those living paycheck-to-paycheck, pay for child care and help child care providers who are now receiving less money from the state.

Child care providers who are licensed through the state, mostly those who provide care to low-income families, recently took a 2.5 percent cut in the amount of funding they receive.

The proposed child care act would help bridge that gap in funding, and help more than 7,000 Minnesota families that are currently on a waiting list for child care assistance.

Lawmakers say the cost to help these families would range between $300 million and $500 million.

The authors of the bill also announced two plans to help pay for child care costs. They say they’d like to either tax the rich to come up with the funding or pass a bill that could be attached to a proposed Vikings stadium plan — one where the revenue could come from gambling. They say the money could fund child care, as well as the new stadium.

“How can we look at funding a Vikings stadium for $300 million when we can’t find money for kids at the Capitol,” said Rep. Slawik.

Day care providers stood by as the Child Care Affordability Act was announced, including Sharon Born, who works nights and weekends to try and make up the money she lost because of state cuts.

“I don’t want to work seven days a week, 16 hours a day. I am a single mom, you have to do, what you have to do,” she said.

By Catharine Richert

Two Minnesota unions want to organize Minnesota’s in-home child care workers, and the effort has sparked a heated battle between the Dayton administration and Republicans in the Legislature.

Among those who oppose the effort is Rep. Torrey Westrom, R-Elbow Lake, who sent a letter to child care providers encouraging them to reject unionization.

On Dec. 2, he wrote that, while only some day care providers will be able to vote on whether to unionize, “the other 7,000 providers will be forced to pay full or ‘fair share’ union dues, and will be subject to additional regulation, even though they were denied the right to vote in this election.”

Westrom’s claim is false.

The Evidence

Two Minnesota unions – American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees and the Service Employees International Union – are trying to unionize the state’s in-home day care providers.

On Nov. 15, Gov. Mark Dayton issued an executive order that would allow Minnesota’s day care providers who are licensed and registered, and who participate in a state program that subsidizes child care to vote on unionization. That’s roughly 4,200 providers out of the approximately 11,000 in the state.

If the majority of those 4,200 agree, it would give the union the right to hash out issues, such as regulation and subsidy rates, with the administration. At this point, a court has put a restraining order on Dayton’s executive order but Dayton plans to contest that order.

So, Westrom is correct that only some child care providers will be able to vote on whether there should be a union. But he’s wrong that those who don’t want to be in the union would have to pay fair share union dues.

A Frequently Asked Questions document on the executive order from Dayton’s office is clear on this:

“The Minnesota Fair Share law (Minn. Stat. § 179A.06, subd. 3), which requires all public employees to contribute ‘a fair share fee for services rendered by the exclusive representative,’ would not apply to these family child care providers.”

Dayton’s executive order makes clear that, “nothing in this order shall be construed to require participation, or the involuntary payment of dues by any family child care provider.”

As for additional regulation, Westrom is off the mark there as well. At this point, unionization doesn’t come with additional regulations, let alone regulations that all of Minnesota’s 11,000 in-home child care workers would be subject to.

Westrom conceded that given the complexity of the issue and the amount of context needed, the sentence may have been better written as: “The other 7,000 providers may be forced to pay full or “fair share” union dues, and will be subject to additional regulation, even though they were denied the right to vote in this election.”

The Verdict

Under Gov Dayton’s order child care providers who are not allowed to vote on unionization will not have to pay fair share dues.

Westrom’s claim is false.

SOURCES

Letter, Rep. Torrey Westrom to constituents, Dec. 2, 2011

Office of Gov. Mark Dayton, Governor Dayton issues executive order calling for union election among child care providers, November 15, 2011

Office of Gov. Mark Dayton, Frequently Asked Questions about Child Care Collective Bargaining, accessed Dec. 13, 2011

Associated Press via Minnesota Public Radio News, Dayton to contest child care unionization ruling, December 8, 2011

By Tim Pugmire

St. Paul, Minn. — Opponents of a campaign to unionize in-home child-care providers have boasted that their lawsuit that stopped the union vote is backed by a broad coalition of like-minded organizations.

But only one of the six conservative political groups that make up that coalition has actually spent any money on the legal fight.

A coalition called Childcare Freedom is paying part of the legal bill. The coalition is made up of six organizations with conservative fiscal or social agendas. They are Education Liberty Watch, Minnesota Family Council, Minnesota Free Market Institute, Minnesota Majority, Minnesota Voters Alliance and the National Federation of Independent Businesses.

During a November news conference announcing the lawsuit aimed at halting the unionization vote, attorney Tom Revnew laid out his clients’ contention that Gov. Mark Dayton exceeded his authority by ordering the election. But Revnew declined to say who was paying for his services.

“I’m not at liberty to discuss who or how or why,” Revnew said. “I simply state that we represent 11 plaintiffs currently, and that there may be others that we may represent.”

Dan McGrath, executive director of Minnesota Majority, said opposition to the unionization effort is a good fit for the group. Minnesota Majority is mostly known for supporting a proposed photo ID requirement for voters.

“When we discovered what was happening, we felt that we had to intervene, because it was so outrageous,” McGrath said.

“Minnesota Majority has been concerned about monitoring government overreach and trying to fight it back,” McGrath said. “This was clearly a case of government overreach, with the governor issuing an executive order the judge has now said he has no right to issue.”

McGrath says Minnesota Majority has “tens of thousands of subscribers,” but won’t specify their numbers. Under federal law, groups structured like Minnesota Majority don’t have to disclose their donors or how much they give. However, they must report how much they spend on legal costs and lobbying. McGrath said his organization has put about $20,000 toward what he expects to be an expensive legal battle against the unionization effort.

“The unions and the governor have the luxury of using taxpayer-supported attorneys, and a whole bunch of them,” McGrath said. But these child care providers don’t have any money to spend on giant legal fights. So, these non-profit organizations have had to step in, otherwise they would be on their own with no defense against this unionization effort.”

To help pay legal costs, the Childcare Freedom Coalition is conducting an online fundraising drive, with a goal of $50,000. While all six member organizations share similar concerns about daycare unions, they have not followed Minnesota Majority’s lead with similar donations. Representatives of the five other groups told MPR News they have not yet provided any money in support of the lawsuit. Tom Prichard of the Minnesota Family Council said his organization has lent only its voice to the cause.

“We don’t have any plans from our own budget to fund it. But obviously individuals will be involved I’m sure,” Prichard said. Dayton said he wonders about the source of the money to fights his executive order in court. He said the public deserves greater transparency. Dayton’s campaign for governor was backed by unions, and his critics say the order on child care was a form of payback. The DFL governor denies that claim, but he says anti-union forces are driving the opposition.

“It’s not about my executive authority. It’s about they don’t want to give the child care providers a chance to vote on whether or not they want a union,” Dayton said. “They want to impose their own view, which is no union, on them by not permitting an election, and I just think that’s fundamentally wrong in a democracy. But we’ll see how it unfolds next month.” Dayton is contesting Judge Dale Lindman’s temporary restraining order that stopped the election. A hearing on whether to expand the order is scheduled January 17th in Ramsey County District Court.

By Sabrina Tavernise

BALTIMORE — With states under pressure to cut their budgets and federal stimulus money gone, low-income working parents are facing a paradox. Just when they have to work longer hours to make ends meet, they are losing access to the thing they need most to stay on the job: a government subsidy that helps pay for child care.

The subsidy, a mix of federal and state funds that reimburses child care providers on behalf of families, is critical to the lives of poor women. But it has been eaten away over the years by inflation and growing need and recently by state budget cuts, leaving parents struggling to find other arrangements to stay employed.

“States have dropped their investment in child care substantially,” said Linda Saterfield, vice chairwoman of the National Association of State Child Care Administrators, who oversees child care for the state of Illinois. “We’re being expected to do more with less.” Her state has toughened eligibility for the subsidies and raised co-payments from families to cover the growing demand.

Sheontay Smith, a single mother in Baltimore, and her son are among nearly 8,000 families on a waiting list for the subsidy in Maryland. Pennsylvania’s list doubled since last year to more than 10,000 children, and Arkansas’s quadrupled to 11,000, according to the National Women’s Law Center.

At least two states, Arizona and Utah, are no longer appropriating state general funds for child care at all.

According to a recent report by the law center, families in 37 states were worse off this year than last year as waiting lists grew, co-payments rose, eligibility tightened and reimbursement rates for providers stagnated.

“We recognize that this is a tough time for states,” said Shannon Rudisill, who oversees the subsidy program at the Administration for Children and Families, which is part of the Department of Health and Human Services. “They have a hard set of choices that they have to negotiate.”

She said that President Obama had recommended an increase in the subsidy in the 2011 budget, but that it had not been approved by Congress. Stimulus money, which had raised financing by a fifth in 2009 and 2010, is now gone.

Christian Griffith, chief consultant of the California Assembly Budget Committee, said the state cut $335 million in child care financing this year, and with hundreds of millions in cuts to other public services — courts, schools and the public university system — “there aren’t many good options at this point.”

The nonprofit Child Care Resource Center, which determines eligibility for the subsidy for thousands of families in northern Los Angeles County, said it had noted a 13 percent decline in licensed child care centers since June 2010 as budget cuts reduced the numbers of families on the subsidy.

The reduction is prompting advocates for poor women to question whether the implied social contract that emerged during the federal welfare overhaul in the 1990s — that women go to work in exchange for help with child care — is fraying.

“There’s a long history of recognition that child care is essential to helping low-income women work,” said Helen Blank, the director of public policy at the National Women’s Law Center, who helped shape child care policy in the 1990s. “That commitment is being eroded.”

For children in families waiting for the subsidy, life becomes a kaleidoscope of caretakers. Women interviewed for this article said they left their children with grandparents, neighbors, cousins, siblings, and colleagues at a nail salon. Such ad hoc arrangements hinder early-childhood development, state administrators say, just as states are trying to make it a priority.

One mother on a waiting list in Virginia said her 11-year-old daughter rode around in a city bus after school, watched over by the driver, who is the girl’s grandmother, until the mother got off work. The smaller safety net comes as the share of working Americans under or just above the poverty line — the target group for the subsidy, which is linked to income — is the highest in years. And while demand for the subsidy declined with the recession, it has shot back up in many states as employment has returned, putting new strain on child care resources.

“We’ve seen quite a steep increase in demand,” said Elizabeth Kelley, director of Maryland’s Office of Child Care.

Ms. Smith, who works full time at the Baltimore Housing Authority, has been on a waiting list since summer. She applied because her son’s father stopped paying child support, and the monthly $520 she needed for her 3-year-old’s day care was more than her $22,000 salary could support.

She took her son out, but ended up losing half her paycheck in unpaid days off because her regular baby sitters, among them Ms. Smith’s grandmother, who is on kidney dialysis, fell through. The only way to get the subsidy, her caseworker told her, was to stop working and go on welfare. (In Maryland, someone on welfare is automatically eligible.)

“Is the system set up for me to fail? Because that’s what it feels like,” said Ms. Smith.

For the entire story, click here.

By Catharine Richert

St. Paul, Minn. — When day care provider Sue Winn was first approached about joining a union, she was skeptical.

“We didn’t know if they were going to come in and force us to do things that we didn’t want to do, whether the dues were going to be really high,” said Winn, who takes care of kids in her home north of Seattle, Washington.

But eventually, Winn came around.

“We set our own dues, we make our own decisions,” she said. “But we have the support of paid union workers who have lobbying powers, we have numbers. It’s given us a whole lot of power we didn’t have before.”

Winn could be any one of the providers in Minnesota who have found themselves at the center of a battle over whether to unionize. It’s a debate that has pitted the state’s executive branch against the courts, Republicans in the Legislature against DFL Gov. Mark Dayton and the unions against some of the very workers they seek to represent. It’s prompted issue ads, a lawsuit, a restraining order meant to block a unionization vote, and several legislative hearings.

Some say child care could cost parents and the state more. Others believe that unionization will lead to better child care options, and will give providers a unified voice in St. Paul.

But for all the strife, it is unclear precisely how organizing Minnesota’s in-home day care providers would affect the state. A look at how unionization has played out elsewhere provides some clues.

UNION WOULD LIKELY PUSH FOR HIGHER STATE SUBSIDIES

Fifteen other states have organized child care provider unions, and each has different rules. Some include only workers who participate in taxpayer funded programs that assist low-income parents. Others encompass all providers, and those who would rather not participate must still pay a fee.

Union officials say their primary goal is to work with the state to professionalize a disparate industry that doesn’t benefit from a strong presence among lawmakers.

Dayton’s executive order mandates licensed in-home care providers who participate in the state’s Child Care Assistance Program to vote on unionization. That’s about 4,200 workers; the roughly 7,000 remaining providers who don’t collect subsidies from the state would not be allowed to vote.

An affirmative vote would grant the union the opportunity to meet with the state to hash out changes to rules, to negotiate better subsidy rates, and lobby for better training. The providers would not be considered state employees. The type of day care union Minnesota providers are mulling would be unusual compared to those in other states: Dayton’s executive order does not require workers who take subsidized kids to join the union, and those who don’t want to participate would not have to pay a fair-share representation fee, despite the fact that Minnesota is a fair-share state.

In the last legislative session, the state cut child care subsidies by 2.5 percent to save $6.6 million over two years. Reinstating that funding and increasing rates would be a top goal for a potential day care union, said Jennifer Munt, spokeswoman for American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) Council 5, which would represent providers in the northern part of the state.

“A 2.5 percent pay cut for providers and for people who are operating on a very thin margin makes it more difficult” to adequately prepare kids for school, she said.

Boosting subsidies would come at a cost to the state.

In Washington, for instance, the state appropriated $86 million in 2007 to fund the union contract, which included a subsidy bump, according to a report by the National Women’s Law Center, which supports unionization. And the Oregon legislature approved $39.9 million to support higher rates, training and other aspects of its agreement with the new union.

Unionization proponents say that it’s become difficult to negotiate more money given leaner state coffers. With a projected deficit of $1.3 billion in the next two year budget cycle, Minnesota is no different.

But they argue it’s worth the investment.

Bigger subsidies mean poorly-paid providers will make more; others will have a stronger incentive to take low-income children, they say. And in some states, negotiations have resulted in allowing more low-income parents to take advantage of subsidized child care, and better training for providers who might not otherwise have access to such instruction, said Helen Blank, director of leadership and public policy at the National Women’s Law Center.

[...]

TO JOIN OR NOT TO JOIN

Jennifer Parrish, who takes care of kids in her home in Rochester, Minn., and who opposes unionization, said she’s worried the cost of union dues will be passed along to parents, ultimately driving up the cost of day care.

There’s scant evidence that would be the case, though. Dues in other states range from $25 to $50 monthly and other providers – pro-union or not – say they haven’t raised their rates to cover the cost. In Minnesota, those dues would be taken out of the state subsidy checks providers receive for taking care of low-income kids.

But that’s a minor concern compared to what could come, Parrish said. She points to the possible addition of pre-school curriculum or higher provider-to-child ratios in the home as things that could make child care pricier – decisions she may have no say in, even though Dayton’s executive order allows any organization to weigh-in on child care issues.

Rose Grimes is a provider in Kansas who said her choice was between joining a union she opposes for a voice in state-level negotiations or swallowing new rules she disagrees with.

In her opinion, her local union has so far tired to dumb-down child care rules because the people who need union representation most aren’t very good workers to begin with. And she’s frustrated that regulation changes don’t reflect the variety of in-home providers in her state.

“That’s what’s so great about family child care,” she said. “We’re all different.”

The above is an excerpt of the article. For the full version, click here.

By Julie Rustan

Since 2005, family child care providers throughout Minnesota have been working to join together in a union. This wasn’t a decision that was made on a whim; it was a response to a growing crisis facing our industry. Unfortunately, in the years that followed, especially in the recent past, the crisis has worsened.

It is because of this worsening crisis that I decided to stand up and publicly support the movement of my fellow providers to form a union through SEIU Kids First Local 284. In order to improve our industry and the care we provide to the children and families who count on us each day, we need a strong voice at the state capitol.

This need for a strong voice has become even more apparent in the public campaign that has been waged against our desire to form our union, and against Gov. Dayton’s executive order calling for a vote of providers. In the process, we have seen unbelievable distortions, personal attacks and partisan grandstanding directed at us.

All we have asked for is a vote to decide whether or not family child care providers want to form a union. It is a decision that should be made by us — not by political operatives in St. Paul who clearly have no interest in improving our industry or helping working families access child care today.

I’m not a politician. I don’t even like politics. But I’m passionate about the work I do.

The children I care for deserve an honest discussion about the challenges that I face in operating my business. Unfortunately, those against forming a union have decided instead to provide child care providers and the general public with a series of lies and distortions. Most of these are related to decisions that haven’t been made yet, choices that we will make together in a democratic process once the union is formed. When speculation — like the amount of union dues a provider will pay, the membership of the union or the possible scope of activities — is presented as fact, providers receive false and deceptive information.

These decisions will be made by those of us who gather at the table in a democratic process, not by radically partisan politicians in St. Paul who are seeking to deny us any form of democracy, including the vote that was scheduled to begin Dec. 7.

Time and again, family child care providers have seen what happens when we allow others to speak for us. Family child care associations, for instance, do great work providing information and other services. However, they have failed us when it comes to advocating for our industry at the capitol.

Without this needed help, we’ve had to go it alone. That simply hasn’t worked. Today, more than 7,000 Minnesota families are on waiting lists for child care assistance. As a result, each of these families who qualify for the program are unable to access it, making their work or school lives even more insecure then they are now. At the same time, the Legislature continuously cuts funding to the child care assistance program.

Instead of finding a solution to the soaring waiting lists, politicians in St. Paul worsened the problem by cutting funding by 2.5 percent in the most recent budget. Family child care providers are the experts about their industry and have not been at the table. It’s time for that to change.

For far too long, we’ve trusted politicians and associations to represent us in St. Paul. They have failed us. We want and need a voice for our industry, our kids and our families.

I planned to enthusiastically vote “yes” for SEIU Kids First Local 284 before radical special interests orchestrated a lawsuit to block the democratic election process. My desire to form a union hasn’t changed. The future of Minnesota’s children is dependent on high-quality care and early learning.

I remain committed to making sure our industry continues to improve through a stronger, organized voice. I remain committed to a union.

Julie Rustan is a child care provider from Rochester.

SEIU Local 284 released the following statement from Executive Director Carol Nieters:

“Minnesota’s family child care providers have been asking for a voice in St. Paul since 2005. Now, on the eve of their opportunity to choose a representative for meetings to support vital and threatened state programs, conservative corporate interests from the Freedom Foundation of Minnesota and their lapdogs in the Minnesota state legislature have succeeded in throwing a wrench into the wheels of democracy.

“This sham lawsuit and their entire campaign of misinformation is just another example of the vicious attacks on working families by national corporate interests and the politicians who do their bidding.  From Ohio to Wisconsin and New Hampshire to Minnesota, the story is the same: they will stop at nothing to deny working people the right to form a union for a voice in our democracy.

“Minnesota’s family child care providers, and the children they care for, deserve better than to have their voices muted by corporate zealots like the Freedom Foundation of Minnesota. We are disappointed that Judge Lindman did not take this opportunity to stop this lawsuit in its tracks.”

For an entire report on the child care crisis in Minnesota, click here.

-30-

SEIU Local 284 released the following statement from Executive Director Carol Nieters:

“In just two days, the Minnesota Bureau of Mediation Services will comply with an executive order signed by Governor Mark Dayton on November 15, 2011. There is no doubt — the Governor’s order and the coming election are well within his authority and are in the best interest of Minnesota’s family child care providers who have been asking for a voice in St. Paul since 2005.

“The lawsuit filed and later joined by the Republican-controlled Senate committee are attempts to prevent Minnesotans from having a voice in their industry and their government. Those who have signed on as plaintiffs are pawns in a partisan game designed to remove the rights of Minnesota’s workers to bargain collectively, a right won over and over again throughout this state. The leaders of this game are not family child care providers themselves, but political operatives who have time and again failed to convince Minnesotans of their radical rhetoric.

“In this partisan grandstanding and courtroom theatrics, it is Minnesota’s children who are hurt. Today, family child care providers throughout our state will open their doors and their hearts — working hard from the moment the first child walks into their home until the last one goes home. Those children deserve the very best. They deserve a voice in St. Paul working for a child care industry of highest quality.”

For an entire report on the child care crisis in Minnesota, click here.

-30-