AFT attempting to organize child care workers in Vermont

It's Always So Interesting... (4.00 / 1)

...how little attention- in general- labor issues get here on GMD.  

No comments?  Really?  This will be a major, ground-breaking effort that not only effects the hundreds of child care providers in the state (I used to be one of them) but, in the end, all working families who rely on third party care; to say nothing of the countless children whose lives will be shaped by their early life experiences at the hands of care providers.

That said, apparently it's now necessary to note that, despite whatever my independent political opinions, I must disclose that my partner works for AFT.

"GMD's once proud libertarian-socialist"

---

by: wdh3 @ Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 00:42:34 AM UTC

Childcare workers are an important sector of social service. (0.00 / 0)

They have many of the same responsibilities as educators and healthcare providers, but lack the public profile and organizational vehicle to advocate for their own needs and to elevate the standards of the industry.  Association with AFT could contribute to the welfare of the children who come under their car as well as that of the childcare workers themselves.

---

by: Sue Prent @ Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 17:42:12 PM UTC

note that (0.00 / 0)

the labor market cannot function without child care; most businesses take it for granted and collectively contribute about 1% of the total cost of child care (national figure from a few years back)

in truth, these workers have more power than they know; unfortunately, the only way to exercise such power is to inconvenience parents who would probably react poorly to job actions; and of course most parents are maxed out financially so they can't afford to pay more to ensure better trained and better paid workers

in the end, child care is no less a societal issue than K-12 education and should be funded by everyone -- including all the businesses who could not exist without it

---

by: Doug Hoffer @ Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 19:38:54 PM UTC

Actually... (0.00 / 0)

...one thing that child care workers can do if organized is to lobby as a group for higher subsidy reimbursement rates, thereby benefiting both themselves and parents.  

Musician, Web Designer, Photographer

---

by: JulieWaters @ Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 23:27:23 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

absolutely (0.00 / 0)

my point is that higher reimbursement rates require more money; it's time to ask the only beneficiaries who aren't really paying into the system to contribute

the General Fund (GF) includes money from businesses (corp. taxes & bank franchise fees) but that represents only 6% of the total

I think child care (early childhood education) is so important that it should be treated like Workers Comp and Uemployment Insurance; in addition to parents, federal $, and GF support, there should be a special fund that all businesses pay into to help improve quality, expand the number of slots, and pay higher wages; this could be as little as $0.05 or $0.10 per hour per worker

---

by: Doug Hoffer @ Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 12:16:43 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Do child care workers deserve good wages? (0.00 / 0)

Absolutely yes.

But should child care be viewed as the best possible social answer to how kids are raised in their earliest years?

Absolutely no.

What is really needed the most in the arena or early childhood is strong families that can commit one of more adults to the day to day raising/affairs of the child. Give a young child a cardboard box, some crayons, a bunch of paper and an attentive and talkative adult, and you'll get a child that develops as well or better than the same child under the tutelage of a highly trained professional.

How can we achieve this?

By no longer accepting the radical Republican/Democratic led notion that we can't go back to high tax brackets for the wealthiest among us. Our now-disappearing middle class was built on the premise that the once growing middle class helped make the rich rich, and as such deserved some payback for the effort.

And we had a class of people that earned enough to get by, take a vacation, get medical attention, educate their kids and retire with some social and financial dignity all the while maintaining a home front that could provide a family adult for the raising of the youngest children.

This unionization drive is a positive, but in my opinion it should only be viewed as a stop gap. Government run child rearing, even when made necessary by government's own fiscal actions, is not a desirable thing.

Which leads to a question: will the union (if it should come to pass) be willing to fight for an economy that strengthens the position of families even if it means the demise of that union?

It's over at http://ramabahama.net ... only it's still under construction (but so is the rest of my life)

---

by: Rama Schneider @ Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 13:48:56 PM UTC

what happened to parent choice? (4.00 / 2)

Not all parents want to take 5 years off to be at home day in and day out with their child.  And, frankly, not all parents are cut out for that.  Some people are better parents because they have work outside the home they enjoy. Nurturing and encouraging young children isn't something that is hard wired into our DNA.  We need good choices for all families, not just those that fit someone's ideal model. So yes, parental leave should be a strong, viable option but so should high quality, well paid, accessible child care.

PS - I just know someone will start lecturing me about this because of course, giving birth mandates a willingness to put one's life on hold in every way for 5 years (not just the commitment we make to our children every day for the rest of our lives).  Go for it.  I've heard it before and I'm pretty clear where you are coming from.  

---

by: MoonWomyn @ Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 14:27:03 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I agree (4.00 / 1)

moreover, while Rama's vision is appropriate for some, it will not become available for most people any time soon (i.e., low wages, wage disparities, and penalties for career interruptions are not going away because we want them to)

in the meantime, there are millions in the system and it's not optimized; these kids are the future and deserve the best we can provide; it's one thing to delay work on a bridge; it's quite another to delay improvements for kids who otherwise could achieve so much more as people, citizens, and workers

---

by: Doug Hoffer @ Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 21:15:11 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Which brings me back to my closing question ... (0.00 / 0)

Will the union (if it should come to pass) be willing to fight for an economy that strengthens the position of families even if it means the demise of that union?

Coal miner unions and auto maker unions are two examples of worker protectionism taking precedence over the good of society, and no - I'm not saying either group is/was ill intentioned or evil.

But unions in both areas have fought pollution controls and have taken what I consider negative stances regarding our only source of food, water, air and shelter (aka the physical environment). This is a very understandable, predictable even, human reaction as these folks were doing what they viewed as protecting their families and jobs.

So my question stands.

It's over at http://ramabahama.net ... only it's still under construction (but so is the rest of my life)

---

by: Rama Schneider @ Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 12:31:20 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I think (4.00 / 2)

your view that strengthening families may (should?) mean the end of the need for child care is a stetch; and, therefore, the question of a union fighting for changes that would mean its demise is not relevant

even if wages grew significantly and some families chose to get by on one income, it doesn't necessarily follow that ALL families will make that choice

some people want careers for personal reasons and believe that (with high quality affordable child care) they can have both; and why shouldn't they?

and I think the analogy to unions that resisted environmental protection is misplaced; those actions were certainly self-serving (and unfortunate) but to equate the costs of those actions with the possibility of a union fighting to retain child care jobs is over the top; you assume that the "good of society" is for child care to wither away and for all parents to be Ozzie & Harriet (not a dig, it just came to mind); I disagree and suspect many others do as well

recall also that the model you are idealizing was only really in place for one generation -- ours; before WWII, many (most?) low- and moderate-income families had three generations living together, which made the situation much easier; that scenario is not likely to be repeated

---

by: Doug Hoffer @ Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 17:53:32 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

And my reply ... (0.00 / 0)

From my life's experience I'd say a large majority of families with children would, if financially feasible, choose to have at least one adult home with the kids. While that wouldn't spell the end of child care (after all, child care predates this discussion by eons), such an improvement in incomes will indeed drastically reduce the need and even desire for outside child care.

That in turn will change both the urgency and level of need for a child care system. Demise of child care? Certainly not, but the demise of an organized labor force to provide the service for a shrinking pool of need? Quite possible.

And this could happen in response to personal choice ... IF the appropriate values are pursued.

My discussion of unions resisting change is very apropo on two levels: 1) it demonstrates that unions act out of what the union perceives as personal self-interest, and 2) indeed it does matter who's raising our kids ... just as much as it matters what they breath and ride in.

For the most part coal minors and auto manufacturers are good, honest people interested in doing what they perceive as the right thing ... same as child care providers.

I not only don't begrudge people gathering together under a labor union banner, I've become a strong believer that they're a necessity for a properly functioning society. But beyond our governments (and even there I have some ambivalence) I don't want to see a sense of permanency built into social organizations.

I'm not idealizing. I'm also not using the twentieth century "mom, dad + kids" nuclear family as my model. That model lasted as a working paradigm for such a short time because it was financially unworkable for most. However the family that provids one or more adults to directly handle the child rearing has been the norm for almost the whole of human history. It is not a short term, 20th century flash in the pan.

Doug, you know your economics. And you know we basically have three choices: do something ourselves, pay someone else to do it or do without.

We obviously cannot do without child rearing.

In the short and the long run it costs society more dollars to provide a high quality child care service than it does to provide wages that make a stay at home parent possible. If the two can provide at worst equivalent results, why wouldn't we make our social policy one that encourages the most efficacious?

I'll take the idealistic word as a compliment. Long term goals should be in the idealistic vein.

It's over at http://ramabahama.net ... only it's still under construction (but so is the rest of my life)

---

by: Rama Schneider @ Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 19:23:33 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I think you make a valid point (0.00 / 0)

human nature often turns the best intended vehicles of power toward outcomes of self-interest that are not great for society as a whole.

However, the ability to organize is necessary to empower those who occupy underpaid but essential service jobs. The only possible offset to wealth in this country is the power of symbolic mass-assembly which, for the worker, is represented in unionization.  That same power of symbolic mass-assembly belongs to those of us who participate in environmental lobbying groups; and sometimes, as in the case of the autoworkers' unions, we must necessarily find ourselves on opposite sides of the table.

---

by: Sue Prent @ Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 18:21:21 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

While You're At It (0.00 / 0)

Please add home health aides the the list of ripe for organizing. The industry has been abusing employees for decades. As Vermont ages more, the service of these workers will be needed more and more.

I hope whoever is running the AFT drive will begin a blog site and a website devoted to the drive. Would love to watch it evolve and come to fruition. Good luck!

---

by: HSTGonzo @ Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 13:53:20 PM UTC