During the debate on the House floor, Democrats accused Republicans of wanting to take a woman's right to vote away. Jenni Branchaw is an in-home child care provider. Here's why she's opposed to the unionization of in-home child care small businesses:
I am normally a DFL voter just in general. I do vary once in a while depending on certain things I feel strongly about. Like I knew Alice Johnson was for the union and she didn't not understand what this union meant to do and not do.
It is rather shocking how many people voting do not know all the facts. They keep saying everyone needs the vote, well then let everyone have a vote. Alice wouldn't not listen even before being elected and so I did not vote for her. I voted for Pam Wolf.
I knew Pam was against the child care union and understood why a lot of providers are against it and how it wasn't set up fairly. But she lost, I thought it was a sign to stick with my party. Boy was I wrong. I did vote (regrettably now) for Dayton. I do not know if I can vote straight party ever again.
This union business has been more than an eye opener for someone that loves to follow elections. I am very much against this forced union for child care providers. I have worked in this field for over 20 years. I quit my center based job 6 years ago and opened up my own preschool under the daycare licensing. I teach 8 amazing students each year.
I got out of the centers because I was tired of it always being about the money and not the kids. I never thought I would find that some problem when I started to work for myself. I pick my hours, my benefits, my rates...etc. This is not something I do while raising my child. My daughter is one, I have been in this field for more than half of my life now.
I do not see what a union can do for us providers short of helping make laws to protect against false reporting. (ie: a parent is mad you won't be their babysitter on the weekends and calling licensing saying you aren't feeding the child to get back at you. Licensing comes out, they will find it silly and untrue. BUT that is on your record for LIFE now. Nothing happens to the parents that lied. That isn't right.)
But honestly, I do not see the unions caring enough to do something like that. They are the same union our "boss" if we had one the licensors have. How can they fight for both sides of the same issue?
As for the rest of the moon they are promising...it can all be done without an union. Why giving all our money to some greedy union that is just lining the pockets of others? How does that help me? How does that help child care providers? How does that help the children of Minnesota? I don't think it does. I think this unionization has nothing to do with helping providers and more about an union trying to tap into another money source.
Rather sad that they are trying to bite the hand that is feeding (and teaching) the children of Minnesota right now. The word "FAIR" gets thrown around a lot. I find this very funny. FAIR would be allowing all LICENSED child care providers to vote on this union if they are taking CCAP children or not. FAIR would be Mark Dayton listening to the people that would be in the union instead of ignoring them to side with the union that helped bankroll his elections.
FAIR would be the papers and news covering both sides of the story. But you know like a teach my preschoolers life isn't fair. You've just gotta do the very best you can with what happens.
Jenni raised some important points that haven't gotten covered before, starting with this:
They are the same union our "boss" if we had one the licensors have. How can they fight for both sides of the same issue?
The cynical answer would be to say that it's possible because they'd fight for the issue with one of their faces, then fight against the issue with their other face. This question deserves a serious answer, though. The simple fact is that it's impossible for the union to represent both sides of an issue with the requisite passion and thoughtfulness.
Here's another important point Jenni raises:
FAIR would be allowing all LICENSED child care providers to vote on this union if they are taking CCAP children or not.
Actually, that point might tank the unionization vote. When he issued his ruling, Judge Lindman expressed concern for Gov. Dayton's and the union's exclusion of child care providers:
Lindman also said he was "bothered" that less than half of the state's 11,000 in-home child care workers were eligible to vote in the election. Eligibility was extended to about 4,300 providers who are currently licensed to receive state subsidies to care for low-income children.
If that part of SF778 gets challenged, it isn't a stretch to think another judge would throw that part of the law out. The worst-kept secret of the executive order unionization was that AFSCME had 2,600 signatures ready to go for unionization. Limiting the vote to 4,300 child care small businesses would guarantee a victory for union organizers.
What shouldn't be lost on anyone is the fact that Democratic women have stepped forward to disagree with a Democrat governor and a Democrat legislature. These women have stepped forward because of their conviction that they know what's best for these children.
They're putting party politics aside for doing what's right for these children. If you think about it, that's pretty inspiring.