Published: Wednesday, January 20, 2010
IN OUR VIEW / UNIONIZING CHILD CARE WORKERS
A distraction to set aside
With less than two months to plug a $2.6 billion budget hole, the Legislature’s attention should be locked onto that task. Controversial issues that don’t contribute to balancing the budget distract from that paramount task, and should be set aside — at least for this session.
Such an issue is a hold-over from the last two years: a proposal to let some child-care centers unionize and bargain with the state for greater subsidies to care for low-income children. HB 1392 died last year when a compromise between House and Senate versions couldn’t be reached. It’s a contentious idea that shouldn’t be revisited, especially with more important challenges facing lawmakers this year.
The bill, a high union priority, seeks to unionize employees and managers of child-care centers that receive state subsidies for the purpose of bargaining. The idea is to use union clout to increase such subsidies and bring them in line with true costs of care. Currently, they fall short. In the process, unions would gain more members and, presumably, higher wages for them.
YMCAs and other larger child-care centers are exempt, but the Y’s still oppose the bill on principle, arguing that the goal of greater subsidies can be achieved without diverting state money to an expensive bargaining process.
Indeed, an alternative bill from last session, SB 5506, offers better solutions. It would increase subsidies over time, and fix a flaw in state law that keeps child-care providers from being reimbursed for enrolled children who are absent. It addresses the subsidy issue directly, once the current revenue crisis has passed, without adding more bureaucracy.
The House bill is already poised for a vote on the floor, where it was approved last year. Some senators who stopped it in 2008 and 2009 may be fearful that if they do so again, the bill’s union backers will fight their re-election — a threat that has surfaced often recently.
That shouldn’t be on their list of worries, at least not over this issue. Lawmakers have enough to be concerned about this year as they weigh painful budget choices. The responsible approach for the leadership in both chambers would be to end this controversy now, before any more energy is wasted on it this session.
Such an issue is a hold-over from the last two years: a proposal to let some child-care centers unionize and bargain with the state for greater subsidies to care for low-income children. HB 1392 died last year when a compromise between House and Senate versions couldn’t be reached. It’s a contentious idea that shouldn’t be revisited, especially with more important challenges facing lawmakers this year.
The bill, a high union priority, seeks to unionize employees and managers of child-care centers that receive state subsidies for the purpose of bargaining. The idea is to use union clout to increase such subsidies and bring them in line with true costs of care. Currently, they fall short. In the process, unions would gain more members and, presumably, higher wages for them.
YMCAs and other larger child-care centers are exempt, but the Y’s still oppose the bill on principle, arguing that the goal of greater subsidies can be achieved without diverting state money to an expensive bargaining process.
Indeed, an alternative bill from last session, SB 5506, offers better solutions. It would increase subsidies over time, and fix a flaw in state law that keeps child-care providers from being reimbursed for enrolled children who are absent. It addresses the subsidy issue directly, once the current revenue crisis has passed, without adding more bureaucracy.
The House bill is already poised for a vote on the floor, where it was approved last year. Some senators who stopped it in 2008 and 2009 may be fearful that if they do so again, the bill’s union backers will fight their re-election — a threat that has surfaced often recently.
That shouldn’t be on their list of worries, at least not over this issue. Lawmakers have enough to be concerned about this year as they weigh painful budget choices. The responsible approach for the leadership in both chambers would be to end this controversy now, before any more energy is wasted on it this session.
Comments
(