AFSCME Council 5's statement is so filled with spin that they should go into hiding after releasing their statement. This is the part that's most laughable:
“Providers who chose to join together in a union will gain a strong voice to work with the state to increase the quality of child care, to improve access for working parents, and to stabilize our profession,” says Clarissa Johnston, a child care provider in Mounds View. For example, providers want to increase the quality of care by improving access to critical training, including first aid and CPR, child abuse prevention and child nutrition.
That sounds nice but it isn't reality according to Heather Falk:
Falk admits that one of the reasons she is opposed to unionized child care is because of the “bullying and lies” she and others have experienced over the past six years that the union debate has been under way, saying past experiences have led to an overall lack of trust in the union and its motives.
“The union and Dayton claim this will help stabilize the industry,” said Falk, “but the other states where the union has taken over have lost providers by the thousands. Many providers here in Minnesota have also stated they would leave child care if this goes through.”
It doesn't sound like voting for unionization has stabilized situations in other states. In fact, it sounds like unionization would destabilize in-home child care in Minnesota while shrinking access.
It's likely, too, that union-negotiated rates would get passed onto Minnesota's already overburdened taxpayers.
In fact, it's likely that Gov. Dayton's EO isn't legal:
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.
In short, Gov. Dayton doesn't have the authority to call for a vote because in-home child care providers are independent contractors, not government employees. The only time Gov. Dayton would have the authority to issue an EO to hold a unionization vote is if the people are public employees.
In fact, all other unionization attempts must be monitored by the NLRB, not the Bureau of Mediation Services, aka BMS.
That's why it isn't likely that this vote will happen. It certainly won't happen on Dec. 6.
The main reason why Gov. Dayton issued this executive order is to appease his union thug allies so they'll be energized for the next election cycle.
Comments