If ever people needed anything to tell them what lengths unions were willing to go to establish day care unions, this quote says it all:

Day care provider Sharon O’Boyle of St. Paul Park said she and other union supporters see want a union in order to have a stronger voice when it comes to streamlining government oversight of day care facilities. O’Boyle also said she wants a stronger voice advocating for higher day care reimbursements from the state.

“I want a union to work with me on issues that concern myself and other licensed family child care providers,” she said. Those issues include licensing rules and regulations, and adequate compensation for services to families.

What’s interesting to me is that Ms. O’Boyle thinks that the best vehicle for “streamlining government oversight of day care facilities” is AFSCME or SEIU. When have unions streamlined anything?

Additionally, Rep. Mary Franson said that she knew of at least 2 lobbying organizations while she was a day care provider. Does anyone think that unions would be better advocates for these businesses than lobbying organizations would be?

It’s apparent that SEIU and AFSCME want these businesses unionized so their political influence doesn’t diminish. That’s SEIU’s and AFSCME’s worst nightmare, the thing that worries Eliot Seide and Javier Morillo-Alicea the most.

The political reality is that AFSCME and SEIU wouldn’t be better advocates for in-home day care businesses than lobbying groups are. Furthermore, forced unionization of these in-home businesses isn’t likely to lower costs to parents. It’s likely to cost more.

That matters considering the fact that many of the children receiving day care from these in-home businesses are recipients of state aid. The last thing we need right now is to give AFSCME and SEIU another reason to argue for more of the taxpayers’ money.

This is a union power play. It’s beyond Gov. Dayton’s ability to force unionization of these in-home businesses through an executive order:

What is the status of home-based child care providers under the Public Employment Labor Relations Act (PELRA)?

Answer: Minnesota Statutes Chapter 179A defines a public employer as the state of Minnesota or other local political subdivisions. The law also defines public employees as those appointed or employed by a public employer. Under current law, a self-employed, home-based child care provider would not be a public employer or a public employee. Here is the link to the law; the relevant definitions are in subdivisions 14 and 15: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=179A.03

It’s time for AFSCME and SEIU to drop this charade. Contrary to what SEIU and AFSCME say, they didn’t find the support they needed to start a day care union. If they had, they wouldn’t need Gov. Dayton’s executive order. They’d start the unionization drive by filing with the NLRB.

It’s telling that they didn’t file that notice. In fact, it’s all you really need to know about the situation.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

One Response to “Unionized day care & streamlined oversight?”

  • Chad Q says:

    “I want a union to work with me on issues that concern myself and other licensed family child care providers,” she said. Those issues include licensing rules and regulations, and adequate compensation for services to families.

    Basically she wants the union to do all the leg work of making sure she is running a legit business and then wants to make lots of money doing it. Typical misguided liberal.
    Why exactly is the state subsidizing daycare anyway? If you can’t afford to not work, don’t have or stop having kids. It is not your right to have kids so others can pay to have them taken care of.

Leave a Reply