Questions and Answers About Union Organizing in Minnesota
The AFSCME union has introduced a bill (Senate bill #778 and House bill #0950) in the Minnesota legislature that would allow family child care providers to vote on whether they wanted a union to represent them. It is currently being heard in committees.
Although this is only an issue for family child care providers in Minnesota, I know that many of my readers are from Minnesota, where I live.
I have always been in support of providers being able to decide whether to create a union or not. S
Family child care providers have asked many questions and raised many issues around the union campaign. I believe it would be helpful to post these questions in one location and try to answer them.
1)Why can’t all licensed providers vote to determine if a union should be established?
I believe in the general principle that those who are affected by a decision should have a voice in the making of that decision. The bill would only allow family child care providers who care for families that receive financial assistance from the Child Care Assistance Program (CCAP) program to vote on whether or not they want to be represented by a union. Many licensed child care providers who do not care for CCAP families are upset that they cannot participate in this vote. The reason for this opposition is that they believe it is unfair for the union to be able to negotiate on issues that would affect them. I am sympathetic to this position.
There are two bills going through the legislature. In the original language of both bills the union could negotiate on issues regarding quality standards, training, licensing and more.
Here’s the original language:
“Meet and negotiate. If the commissioner certifies a labor organization as the majority exclusive representative, the state, through the governor or the governor’s designee, shall meet and negotiate in good faith with the exclusive representative of the family child care provider unit regarding issues ofmutual concern. Issues of mutual concern include quality standards and quality rating systems, the availability of training opportunities and funding, reimbursement rates, access to benefits, changes to the state system of providing early childhood education services, the collection and disbursementof established dues or fees to the exclusive representative of family child care providers, licensing and licensing actions, the monitoring and evaluating of family child care providers, and any other matters that the parties agree would improve recruitment and retention of qualified family child careproviders and the quality of the programs they provide.”
There have been significant changes to both bills. Here’s the latest language of the Senate bill:“
Subd 7.
Meet and negotiate. If the commissioner certifies an employee organization as the majority exclusive representative, the state, through the governor or the governor’s designee, shall meet and negotiate in good faith with the exclusive representative of the family child care provider unit regarding grievance issues, child care assistance reimbursement rates under chapter 119B, and terms and conditions of service, but this obligation does not compel the state or its representatives to agree to a proposal or require the making of a concession.”
In the newest version of the House bill it limits the issues to negotiate over to:
“1) child care assistance reimbursement rates under chapter119B; (2) fringe benefits, including those paid upon termination, but not retirement contributions or benefits, and not other benefits to be paid when a person is no longer a family child care provider; and (3) grievance procedures regarding matters in clauses (1) and (2).”
As you can see, the most recent versions drastically limits the scope of what the union can bargain over to the subsidy program. However, what does “terms and conditions of service” mean in the Senate bill? I’ve asked several people who have experience with labor law and no one can answer this question. If it’s the intention of the union to limit the bargaining to CCAP issues only, then I think it would be helpful for them to clarify this point more specifically. I have spoken to a union representative about this issue and asked for such clarification.
If the union is limited to bargaining over CCAP, then I believe that this should alleviate the legitimate concerns of many licensed providers about being excluded from voting for or against a union. Since the union wouldn’t be able to bargain over anything but the subsidy program, licensed providers who do not care for subsidized families will not be affected by any negotiations. And since they don’t care for subsidized children they shouldn’t be allowed to vote for or against a union.
If it’s the union’s intention to allow the union to bargain over licensing issues and other broader issues, then I share the concerns of licensed providers who would not be allowed to vote on the issue of certifying a union.
Why should legally unlicensed providers be able to vote on whether or not a union is to be established in Minnesota?
For many years legally unlicensed providers have cared for CCAP families. Since they would obviously be affected by changes in the CCAP program, it makes sense for them to be represented by a union that is trying to raise CCAP rates.
As of March 2013 there were about 10,000 licensed family child care providers in Minnesota and about 6,500 legally unlicensed providers who care for CCAP families.
I’ve heard many licensed providers say that only licensed providers should be allowed to vote. The reason is that they want a voice in decisions that may affect them. However, the same logic can be used to argue that legally unlicensed providers (who are certainly affected by the CCAP rates) should also be included in the vote. So, why would it be okay to exclude legally unlicensed providers from the voting process but include licensed providers who don’t care for CCAP children?
Will the bill prevent family child care organizations such as the Minnesota Licensed Family Child Care Association, local family child care associations, child care resource and referral agencies and individual providers from meeting or communicating with the Department of Human Services (DHS), or talking to their legislators about CCAP or any other issue?
No. The Senate bill clearly addresses this: “Subd 10 Rights. Nothing in this section shall be construed to interfere with: 2) the right or obligation of any state agency to communicate or meet with any citizen or organization concerning family child care legislation, regulation, or policy; or 3) the rights and responsibilities of family child care providers under federal law.” the House bill has language that is very similar.I’ve heard from many providers that they are concerned they will not have a “voice” at DHS or in the legislature if the bill passes. I think this concern was legitimate under the old language of the bills. Other than the question of what “terms and conditions of service” means, I don’t believe it is an issue anymore. I would urge MLFCCA, local family child care associations and others to continue their efforts to advocate on behalf of family child care and children.
Will I be forced to join the union?
No. Minnesota and federal law prohibits anyone from being forced to join a union. If providers vote to allow AFSCME to represent them, providers can voluntarily join the union or decide not to. Providers who do not care for CCAP families can join the union but won’t be able to vote on negotiations with the state over the CCAP program. If the union is established, all providers who care for CCAP children will be represented by the union in their negotiations with the state. CCAP providers who are opposed to the union will get any benefits negotiated by the union. The union would be required to assist providers who have complaints about the CCAP program even if the provider does not join the union.
How much will union dues be?
Currently, AFSCME union dues are $25 a month. Union members decide what dues to charge themselves. This could go up in the future.
Will I be forced to pay “fair share” fees?
Providers who care for CCAP families and do not choose to join the union are likely to be charged a “fair share” fee. This is a fee to cover the costs of the union to bargain with the state over the CCAP program. By law, these fees cannot be greater than 85% of union dues. At the current rate of $25a month, this would mean a “fair share” fee could not be greater than $21.25 per month. If union dues go up, “fair share” fees could also go up.
What does the union do with union dues and “fair share” fees?
The union members make their own decisions about how union dues will be spent. They cannot be spent on supporting political candidates. Some of the union dues (and “fair share” fees) will go to the national AFSCME office. In return, AFSCME provides support and expertise to the Minnesota union. I have heard some anti-union providers say that millions of dollars will be sent to the national office. I do not know where this figure comes from. “Fair share” fees will be used to pay for the cost of negotiating with the state.
Family child care providers are independent business owners. How can they be an “employee” of the state of Minnesota?
This is a difficult issue to explain. If providers choose to set up a union to negotiate with the state this will not affect your ability to continue to operate as an independent business owner. The union cannot tell you what rates to charge parents. They cannot tell you what to put in your contract or policies. They cannot interfere with your relationship with parents. According to the bill, “Family child care providers shall not have the right to strike.”
Under the law, for a union to negotiate with the state they must have a financial connection to the state. This connection is the CCAP program. The only way for a union to negotiate with the state is for them to be considered an employee, but only for purposes of negotiating over the CCAP program. The Senate bill says, “This section does not require the treatment of family child care providers as public employees for any other purpose.”
The House bill says, “Family child care providers have the rights and obligations of public employees only for the purposes of meeting and negotiating on issues specified in subdivision 7, paragraph (a)…. This section does not grant family child care providers status as public employees for any other purpose than the use of procedures in this chpater….” So the use of the word “employee” is meaningless outside of the bargaining room. Providers are not eligible for any benefits state employees enjoy and cannot file for unemployment benefits. Providers should not worry that their right to operate their business as they choose will be affected by a union.
9) Haven’t the majority of family child care providers already expressed their opinion that they don’t want a union?
Several years ago AFSCME and the SEIU union got thousands of providers to sign cards saying they wanted to be represented by a union. Recently, the Minnesota Licensed Family Child Care Association did an online survey asking its members if they wanted a union. They received a 20% response rate and over 80% of those voting said they didn’t want a union. I don’t know what the majority of providers (licensed or legally unlicensed) want. I think the only way to find out is to hold a vote.
During the union campaign several years ago there were instances where some family child care providers were deceived by union representatives into signing the cards. Some providers had theircards withdrawn after contacting the union. I deplored these actions at the time and spoke to both unions about it. I do not support any actions that confuse, mislead or deceive providers. I do not know how many cards were withdrawn.
What does it mean that the union will collectively bargain with the state?
The right to collectively bargain with the state is something only a union can obtain. Under our current non-union environment, individual providers, provider associations and other organizations can approach DHS and the legislature and propose changes in Rule 2, urge them to raise the CCAP rate, allocate money for more grants, etc.. (Note: if a union is formed, this can still happen.) But without a union, DHS does not have to sit down and bargain about these issues. They can listen (if they choose), but they don’t have to respond to or agree to anything that the child care community might want.
Under collective bargaining rules, DHS would be forced to sit down with the union and negotiate in good faith over issues solely dealing with the CCAP program. If they fail to do so, the union can file a complaint and force DHS to negotiate fairly. This does not mean that DHS must agree to anything the union suggests. But, because DHS would be forced by law to negotiate, this shifts the balance of power to a more level playing field between DHS and child care providers. Since the union can’t strike, it can only be effective by convincing DHS that its positions are reasonable. Since DHS has to listen and has to respond to the union recommendations, it is much more likely that they will come to an agreement with the union.
Here’s how this might proceed. After the union is formed, union members would sit down and discuss what are their most important priorities regarding CCAP. Let’s say they decide they want the CCAP rates raised by 6% in 2014 and 5% in 2015. They then sit down with DHS and discuss this. DHS might say they don’t think it’s reasonable to raise rates higher than 3% in 2014 and 2% in 2015. They also say they don’t think the legislature will pass a bill that sets rates any higher. The union argues with DHS and eventually they agree to a contract that will raise rates by 4% in 2014 and 2% in 2015.
Any contract about CCAP rates decided by the union and DHS must be voted on by the legislature. The legislature can either vote up or down on the settlement reached by DHS and the union. During economic hard times the union might not even propose a rate increase. In some states where family child care unions exist the state legislature has approved increases in subsidy rates. In some cases, not. In some states the union has been successful in preventing rates from being cut.
Here is the main reason I support the efforts to unionize. I have been a part of the child care field in Minnesota since 1981 and have participated in many campaigns to try to raise the CCAP rates. We achieved some successes in the 1990s, but the rate has remained stagnant for many years. In fact, the legislature cut the rates by 2.5% in November 2011. The current rate is not adequate to give a provider a reasonable living wage.
A typical family child care provider works long hours (on average over 60 hours a week). If a provider cared for one toddler and three preschoolers who were all subsidized by the state, and she worked 60 hours a week, how much would she earn per hour?
In the highest paid county (Hennepin) she would earn $9.70 per hour. In the lowest paid county (Murray) she would earn $6.03 per hour. In 60% of the counties, family child care providers would earn less than the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour. That’s working 60 hours a week caring for four children! These numbers do not take into consideration any expenses associated with caring for children (toys, supplies, etc.).
Of course these numbers are imprecise because all providers are different. Some providers only care for CCAP children, while others also care for private pay parents. Some providers care for more than four children. And so on. The point is, however, that by any measure the amount providers receive from CCAP is not adequate.I strongly believe that Minnesota is much more likely to see higher CCAP rates if there is a union engaged in collective bargaining with DHS than if there isn’t a union. I can’t guarantee this. I can’t promise it. But collective bargaining puts power into the hands of family child care providers as never before. In addition, since AFSCME has also organized thousands of other workers in Minnesota it can bring political power to elect a legislature that is more sympathetic to children and child care providers.
Note: Currently AFSCME has formed a child care union and has recruited a very few members. However, the union has no right to collectively bargain without the state legislature passing a law giving them the power to do so.
What has happened in other states where family child care unions have been formed?
The results in other states has been very mixed. Successful union efforts in other states have generated tens of millions of dollars for increased subsidies for low income parents, lower parent co-payments, as well as increased access to training, and a strong voice for family child care at the state level. In some states there have been no increases in subsidy rates. In some states where a Republican governor replaced a Democratic governor the union was dissolved. If you want to judge unions purely from a financial perspective (“Are the financial benefits I receive equal to or more than my union dues or “fair share” fees?”) then the answer would probably be negative for many states. However, other non-financial benefits providers receive are real and providers continue to support a union in some states.
The National Women’s Law Center has published two comprehensive reports on the movement to organize family child care unions. Their latest report, “Getting Organized: Unionizing Home-Based Child Care Providers” was published in 2010.
Will licensed providers not be eligible for grants unless they care for CCAP families?
No. This has never been the case and will not be the case under the union bill. The grant application says that providers “may not refuse service” to CCAP families. So, a provider who decides she will not take CCAP families (either because she doesn’t want any of her money going to the union, or for any other reason) will not be eligible for the state Child Care Services Grant program.
If the union is certified to represent family child care providers, is there a way to get rid of the union?
Yes. Unions are a democratic organization and if a majority of its members decided to disband the union, they can do so. If those who are not in the union and are opposed to unions want to introduce legislation to revoke the right of the union to organize they can do so.
Several years ago, in a campaign to attempt to organize family child care providers, the union got many providers to sign cards indicating their support for the creation of a union. Can those cards be used to certify the union in 2013?
No. Minnesota law (Bureau of Mediation Services Rule 5510.0810) says that cards that are six months old cannot be used in any union certification process.
Under the bill, the union must provide evidence that at least 30 percent of the pool of providers who would be included in the bargaining unit (licensed and legal unlicensed providers who care for CCAP families) before an election can be held. The union will be asking providers to sign cards stating that they want to be represented by a union. Cards signed by providers two years ago cannot be included in this count. If they get enough signed cards, then an election will be held that will ask whether providers want to be represented by a union.
Is Tom Copeland on the payroll of AFSCME?
No! I have never been paid by any union to support its efforts. I am not an employee of a union. I have never been paid to organize for a union. I have been paid by unions outside of Minnesota to write online business classes for family child care providers, host webinars, answer questions from providers, assist with providers being audited, and so on. These are the same kinds of activitiesI do for other organizations, including family child care associations. I work for many different organizations, all with the purpose of trying to help providers be more successful as a business.
Tom Copeland – www.tomcopelandblog.com
Image credit: https://www.flickr.com/photos/donkeyhotey/5521102662
