Counterpoint: Child-care union effort truly is suspect

  • Article by: Hollee Saville
  • Updated: October 3, 2013 - 6:21 PM

AFSCME is wrong. An editorial calling out organizers for the message they’re giving was on the mark.

  • 67
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
pumiceOct. 3, 13 6:47 PM

From the article: "We are not 'low-wage workers.' We are self-employed small-business owners who choose our own rates, hours and working conditions." Other choices include whether or not to join the union and whether or not to care for children of families on CCAP.

Here's an observation from Sheryl Sandberg on why women's income lags behind men's: "A 2011 survey showed that long before they even hit the workforce, teenage girls expect lower starting pay than teenage boys. And this trend continues throughout college where a 2010 study revealed that women’s expected peak-pay expectations were 33 percent lower than men’s. Because we link salary with competence, not only do women often have lower salary expectations for themselves, but others expect to pay them less as well. A study found that having lower salary expectations resulted in a lower offer compared to similarly qualified candidates who had higher salary expectations. Changing these lower salary expectations can reap real rewards."

jbpaperOct. 3, 13 7:03 PM

While I'd never choose a daycare provider based solely on an opinion piece or comments made on a newspaper's website, there seems to be a noticeable difference in their tones. The ones that are against unionization keep talking about how they love their jobs and really enjoy taking care of the children. The ones that are for the union, seem to go a more negative route and only seem to care about money. Who would you want your child around?

I'm not saying there hasn't been any negative comments against the unionization but it seems like most of those are more about the link between the union and the dfl than the about the providers.

FreeMplsOct. 3, 13 7:06 PM

Right on Hollee! Your claim that Legislators already have the power to raise the CCAP rate is prescient. As most of us know, the only reason Dayton and the DFL would choose to funnel money to AFSCME by way of union dues, paid indirectly by parents of care children, is so AFSCME can re-funnel some of that money - campaign contributions - to the DFL.

raygunrevoltOct. 3, 13 9:06 PM

Jennifer Munt and Lisa Thompson are paid union organizers. AFSCME Council 5 is millions of dollars in debt and has been trying for years to find new revenue streams. They figured that the easiest and least path of resistance was to bully women business owners and dip into their income once the DFL gained control. They first tried to ram this through by Dayton's executive order. When the courts slapped Dayton's attempted quid pro quo... Big Labot and the DFL thought they had a clever plan to disenfranchise the 11,000 private daycare providers by rigging the voting process to ensure their desired outcome. They thought that they could prey on what they pereceived was a weak target. They figured wrong. They will be challenged at every turn and willl justifiably be told to keep their noses out of places they don't belong.

martytoilOct. 3, 1310:42 PM

How would this union affect providers that do not provide for children that need financial assistance?

DufferHOct. 3, 1311:08 PM

Dayton is pushing this to enlarge his unit vote and collect more campaign money. This will backfire and cost him more votes than it will bring him. His thinking on this is as muddled as his thinking on the Viking stadium scam.

ruphinaOct. 4, 13 6:21 AM

Pumice- How is your post on pay expectations even remotely relevant to the unionization issue? Bill G.

supervon2Oct. 4, 13 6:34 AM

Can't you just see the Union based rules telling you how to run your child? Oh, the horror.

davehougOct. 4, 13 7:05 AM

How would this union affect providers that do not provide for children that need financial assistance? - - - Everything they convince the State to do will apply to ALL providers.

childcare12Oct. 4, 13 9:02 AM

Wonderful article and full of FACTS as opposed to the ones by Munt and Thompson. How will this affect those not taking assistance? How about them not getting a vote just because they haven't had families on assistance. How about making the decision to reject families on assistance because they don't want to be a part of a Union? How about families being rejected because they can't find a good, licensed daycare because the Providers don't want to be a part of a Union so are rejecting them? How about unlicensed Providers making decisions on rules and regulations that would affect licensed Providers? Or the fact that the unlicensed Provider's wouldn't have to follow the rules and regulations they put into effect? How about the AFSCME, which is a nationwide Union...getting millions of dollars from Minnesota Providers only to put back less than 2% towards MN families? Or that AFSCME will be pushing for nationwide uniform rules and regulations? -- Each state has different needs and desires just like each county has different needs and desires. There's so much wrong with this Union and being FORCED to pay. We can join now if we want to. That's how it should be.


Comment on this story   |  


  • about opinion

  • The Opinion section is produced by the Editorial Department to foster discussion about key issues. The Editorial Board represents the institutional voice of the Star Tribune and operates independently of the newsroom.

  • Submit a letter or commentary
Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters