I'm aliiiiiiive (and feeling mildly political)
....yes, I know it's been forever since I last posted, well, anything. I'm going to see if I can get back in the habit, because writing is good for me.
Anyway! The topic of today's post/rant is some recent events that's been going on in Minnesota, regarding a possible unionizing of home daycare providers. Here is one of the lengthier recent articles I've found and mentions a bit of the background, but to summarize, here's basically the timeline as I've been able to piece together from various sources:
* A few years ago, representatives of two major existing Minnesota unions went around door to door to various home daycares, and had people fill out cards to get more information on possible unionization.
* Some time after that, those same two unions used those same signed cards as "proof" that the individuals who signed them wanted to unionize.
* The Minnesota governor assigned a date at which home daycare providers were to vote on whether or not to unionize.
* Out of approximately 11k providers, only about 4300 would have been allowed to participate in this vote that governor ordered; specifically, those who were both licensed and received subsidies from the government. The unionizing would potentially affect/include all providers, however.
* A group of home daycare providers opposing the idea of unionizing brought the case to court.
* A judge in Ramsey county court (the county the state capitol is located in) ordered a stay on the vote, finding that the governor appeared to have exceeded his authority in ordering the vote, pending another hearing in January.
Now, first of all, I just want to say that if a bunch of home daycare providers all got together and said "hey, we want to form a union!" then that would be one thing! There'd probably still be some questions as to whether or not small, independent business can unionize, which is another matter entirely, but if they feel that there's a strong benefit in having some form of collective bargaining, then that's their right to pursue.
However, the fact that all evidence seems to point toward two existing unions and the governor trying to force a union on a group of people who don't want it bothers me. It bothers me a lot. Especially given the apparent deception the unions practice in obtaining signatures, and the fact that in the governor's proposed vote nearly two-thirds of those affected by it would not have been allowed to vote. At the best, that was extremely short-sighted and overlooking a very important detail. At the worst, it's someone trying to force a majority into a decision made by an apparently small minority. Which goes entirely against the principle of a representative democracy.
Not to mention that aside from the allegedly downright deceptive tactics the unions used, according to most all the articles I've read what information is readily available is often confusing and/or contradictory. Many providers are apparently unclear on whether or not membership in the proposed union would be voluntary or not, and it's also unclear whether or not those who choose to opt out would still be required to pay "fair share" dues despite not being a member of the union. Now, the issue of whether or not joining a union, especially a brand new union, ought to be "mandatory" is a whole other matter, and fair share dues may be appropriate in some circumstances, but there needs to be some clarity on the issue. Leaving it this vague only makes it look like either someone is exceedingly careless (in which case I, for one, wouldn't want to trust them to represent my interests) or deliberately obfuscating the matter. Neither of which exactly leaves a positive impression.
There's also the matter of the governor's involvement. Consider this passage from the article link at the beginning of this entry:
"Solicitor General Alan Gilbert, who represented Dayton in the hearing, argued that the executive order was not an attempt to make law. Gilbert said the governor was simply trying to enable a dialog about whether child care providers should organize a union.
In a statement, Dayton said he respects the court’s decision, and that he plans to meet with the Attorney General Lori Swanson to consider the administration’s next step. Dayton stressed that he still believes that 'people should have the right to elections to determine their own destinies.'"
First of all, it may be just me, but I fail to see what ordering a vote does to "enable a dialog". If I wanted to "enable a dialog", then I would start by putting forth and disseminating all available a relevant information, setting up open forums for discussion, and so on. Telling people to vote on a matter is trying to enable a decision, not a dialog.
Secondly, I would definitely agree that people have a "right to elections to determine their own destinies", as the governor puts it. However, I fail to see how excluding nearly two-thirds of the affected group is giving them the right to determine their own destinies. It sounds a whole lot more like letting someone else determine it for them. Giving out information, holding forums and debates, and then once called for facilitating a vote, then that would be giving people that right to such an election. But not when you're barring the majority of affected people from the polls. (For that matter, it should be noted that there are about 11k licensed providers, and yet only 4300 would have been eligible to vote; instead of basing eligibility on whether or not a business was licensed, it was being based on whether or not they happened to receive subsidies.)
And with all of that said, why, exactly, does the governor feel he has such a stake in this? It isn't exactly a hugely controversial issue, and I'm sure that if the majority of providers wanted to unionize, then it would happen in a much less frenzied way. In fact, the only things that make the matter remotely controversial appear to be the very organizations who are supporting and initiating this whole process. Again, it should be noted that it was two existing unions that started this push for unionization, not the home daycare providers themselves. I've yet to come across any article in any local news source that suggests that it was some of the providers themselves that in any way initiated this push for unionization.
Which just makes me wonder if there isn't some agenda driving all this. Because frankly, why should a couple of existing unions even care what a bunch of small in-home businesses are up to, anyway? And perhaps more importantly, why should the governor care? It's not his job to go championing peoples' causes, after all, it's his job to make decisions on the causes the legislature places before him. And yet...
Basically, I don't care WHICH side is the one pushing people around (not too many years ago, it was anti-union bullying we had to worry about) but it's exactly this sort of ordeal that makes me disinclined to trust that some of these people are looking out for my best interests as much as they claim to be.
Anyway! The topic of today's post/rant is some recent events that's been going on in Minnesota, regarding a possible unionizing of home daycare providers. Here is one of the lengthier recent articles I've found and mentions a bit of the background, but to summarize, here's basically the timeline as I've been able to piece together from various sources:
* A few years ago, representatives of two major existing Minnesota unions went around door to door to various home daycares, and had people fill out cards to get more information on possible unionization.
* Some time after that, those same two unions used those same signed cards as "proof" that the individuals who signed them wanted to unionize.
* The Minnesota governor assigned a date at which home daycare providers were to vote on whether or not to unionize.
* Out of approximately 11k providers, only about 4300 would have been allowed to participate in this vote that governor ordered; specifically, those who were both licensed and received subsidies from the government. The unionizing would potentially affect/include all providers, however.
* A group of home daycare providers opposing the idea of unionizing brought the case to court.
* A judge in Ramsey county court (the county the state capitol is located in) ordered a stay on the vote, finding that the governor appeared to have exceeded his authority in ordering the vote, pending another hearing in January.
Now, first of all, I just want to say that if a bunch of home daycare providers all got together and said "hey, we want to form a union!" then that would be one thing! There'd probably still be some questions as to whether or not small, independent business can unionize, which is another matter entirely, but if they feel that there's a strong benefit in having some form of collective bargaining, then that's their right to pursue.
However, the fact that all evidence seems to point toward two existing unions and the governor trying to force a union on a group of people who don't want it bothers me. It bothers me a lot. Especially given the apparent deception the unions practice in obtaining signatures, and the fact that in the governor's proposed vote nearly two-thirds of those affected by it would not have been allowed to vote. At the best, that was extremely short-sighted and overlooking a very important detail. At the worst, it's someone trying to force a majority into a decision made by an apparently small minority. Which goes entirely against the principle of a representative democracy.
Not to mention that aside from the allegedly downright deceptive tactics the unions used, according to most all the articles I've read what information is readily available is often confusing and/or contradictory. Many providers are apparently unclear on whether or not membership in the proposed union would be voluntary or not, and it's also unclear whether or not those who choose to opt out would still be required to pay "fair share" dues despite not being a member of the union. Now, the issue of whether or not joining a union, especially a brand new union, ought to be "mandatory" is a whole other matter, and fair share dues may be appropriate in some circumstances, but there needs to be some clarity on the issue. Leaving it this vague only makes it look like either someone is exceedingly careless (in which case I, for one, wouldn't want to trust them to represent my interests) or deliberately obfuscating the matter. Neither of which exactly leaves a positive impression.
There's also the matter of the governor's involvement. Consider this passage from the article link at the beginning of this entry:
"Solicitor General Alan Gilbert, who represented Dayton in the hearing, argued that the executive order was not an attempt to make law. Gilbert said the governor was simply trying to enable a dialog about whether child care providers should organize a union.
In a statement, Dayton said he respects the court’s decision, and that he plans to meet with the Attorney General Lori Swanson to consider the administration’s next step. Dayton stressed that he still believes that 'people should have the right to elections to determine their own destinies.'"
First of all, it may be just me, but I fail to see what ordering a vote does to "enable a dialog". If I wanted to "enable a dialog", then I would start by putting forth and disseminating all available a relevant information, setting up open forums for discussion, and so on. Telling people to vote on a matter is trying to enable a decision, not a dialog.
Secondly, I would definitely agree that people have a "right to elections to determine their own destinies", as the governor puts it. However, I fail to see how excluding nearly two-thirds of the affected group is giving them the right to determine their own destinies. It sounds a whole lot more like letting someone else determine it for them. Giving out information, holding forums and debates, and then once called for facilitating a vote, then that would be giving people that right to such an election. But not when you're barring the majority of affected people from the polls. (For that matter, it should be noted that there are about 11k licensed providers, and yet only 4300 would have been eligible to vote; instead of basing eligibility on whether or not a business was licensed, it was being based on whether or not they happened to receive subsidies.)
And with all of that said, why, exactly, does the governor feel he has such a stake in this? It isn't exactly a hugely controversial issue, and I'm sure that if the majority of providers wanted to unionize, then it would happen in a much less frenzied way. In fact, the only things that make the matter remotely controversial appear to be the very organizations who are supporting and initiating this whole process. Again, it should be noted that it was two existing unions that started this push for unionization, not the home daycare providers themselves. I've yet to come across any article in any local news source that suggests that it was some of the providers themselves that in any way initiated this push for unionization.
Which just makes me wonder if there isn't some agenda driving all this. Because frankly, why should a couple of existing unions even care what a bunch of small in-home businesses are up to, anyway? And perhaps more importantly, why should the governor care? It's not his job to go championing peoples' causes, after all, it's his job to make decisions on the causes the legislature places before him. And yet...
Basically, I don't care WHICH side is the one pushing people around (not too many years ago, it was anti-union bullying we had to worry about) but it's exactly this sort of ordeal that makes me disinclined to trust that some of these people are looking out for my best interests as much as they claim to be.