November 16-17, 2011
Nov 16 00:04 Gov. Dayton caves, as predicted Nov 16 15:05 Are there 2 sides to the child care-union issue? Nov 16 15:46 What part of private property rights doesn't Robert Reich understand? Nov 16 19:44 Rick Perry calls President Obama out, CBS defends President Obama (sorta) Nov 17 01:36 Michele undermines her campaign Nov 17 09:05 President Obama, the wealth destroyer Nov 17 13:03 Biden closes transparency meeting to press Nov 17 14:10 Exposing AFSCME's spin
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Gov. Dayton caves, as predicted
Even though he lacks the constitutional authority to order a vote, Gov. Dayton signed this executive order calling for a vote to unionize in-home child care providers. The EO was announced in this statement . I suspect that Gov. Dayton's EO will be challenged in court before today's end because State Sen. Mike Parry has threatened to challenge Gov. Dayton's authority in the matter:
State Senator Mike Parry tells 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS he thinks Governor Mark Dayton has over stepped his bounds on home daycare union issue.
The Governor appears poised to sign an executive order authorizing the union vote for 11-thousand home daycare providers across the state. Senator Parry doesn't think the Governor has the authority to order a union vote, because the daycare providers are independent contractors. The Waseca Republican says he will consider legal action, if the Governor does sign the executive order paving the way for a statewide vote.
Union officials say organized daycare workers would have more bargaining power to negotiate state subsidy payments and they would have the right to appeal any regulatory action taken against a home daycare provider.
Gov. Dayton's authority doesn't stretch that far because the Minnesota state statute's definition of government employee is exceptionally tight :
What is the status of home-based child care providers under the Public Employment Labor Relations Act (PELRA)?
Answer: Minnesota Statutes Chapter 179A defines a public employer as the state of Minnesota or other local political subdivisions. The law also defines public employees as those appointed or employed by a public employer. Under current law, a self-employed, home-based child care provider would not be a public employer or a public employee. Here is the link to the law; the relevant definitions are in subdivisions 14 and 15: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=179A.03
Here's what the key parts of subdivisions 14 and 15 say about public employees and public employers:
Subd. 14. Public employee or employee
"Public employee" or "employee" means any person appointed or employed by a public employer except:
(a) elected public officials;
(b) election officers;
(c) commissioned or enlisted personnel of the Minnesota National Guard;
(d) emergency employees who are employed for emergency work caused by natural disaster;
(e) part-time employees whose service does not exceed the lesser of 14 hours per week or 35 percent of the normal work week in the employee's appropriate unit;
(f) employees whose positions are basically temporary or seasonal in character and: (1) are not for more than 67 working days in any calendar year; or (2) are not for more than 100 working days in any calendar year and the employees are under the age of 22, are full-time students enrolled in a nonprofit or public educational institution prior to being hired by the employer, and have indicated, either in an application for employment or by being enrolled at an educational institution for the next academic year or term, an intention to continue as students during or after their temporary employment;
Here's the relevant portion of Subdivision 15:
Subd. 15. Public employer or employer
"Public employer" or "employer" means:
(a) the state of Minnesota for employees of the state not otherwise provided for in this subdivision or section 179A.10 for executive branch employees;
(b) the Board of Regents of the University of Minnesota for its employees;
(c) the state court administrator for court employees;
(d) the state Board of Public Defense for its employees;
(e) Hennepin Healthcare System, Inc.; and
(f) notwithstanding any other law to the contrary, the governing body of a political subdivision or its agency or instrumentality which has final budgetary approval authority for its employees. However, the views of elected appointing authorities who have standing to initiate interest arbitration, and who are responsible for the selection, direction, discipline, and discharge of individual employees shall be considered by the employer in the course of the discharge of rights and duties under sections 179A.01 to 179A.25.
Minnesota state statute is exceptionally clear. Nowhere in the language does it talk about individual contractors being defined as government employees or employers. Gov. Dayton's EO will get overturned if the justices follow the letter and spirit of the law.
Here's the statement issued by the Dayton administration:
In an effort to settle a dispute concerning the right of licensed family child care providers to organize to have a union represent them in their dealings with the State of Minnesota, Governor Dayton today issued Executive Order 11-31, which calls for an election among licensed, registered, subsidized, family child care providers. This election will be conducted by the Bureau of Mediation Services, and it will give all affected providers the chance to vote by mail ballot.
If a majority of licensed, registered, subsidized, family child care providers vote in favor of union representation, the selected union will meet and confer with the Commissioners of Human Services and Education on issues that affect child care providers in Minnesota. Membership in the union, if approved by a majority of providers, will be voluntary.
About the election, Governor Dayton said, 'There are two sides to this issue: some child care providers are in favor of joining a union, and some are opposed. The fairest way, and the American way, to settle this dispute is to have an election, where all the people directly affected will have an opportunity to vote.'
Please see the attached letter from AFSCME and SEIU that describes the dispute and requests an election, Executive Order 11-31, and a list of frequently asked questions about the election.
The best way to put this is to say that Gov. Dayton caved to his PEU allies. It's also BS that "some child care providers are in favor of joining a union, and some are opposed." The reality is that most in home child care providers want nothing to do with AFSCME or SEIU. That's been the steady drumbeat from Day One.
Further, that point is moot since PEU's are restricted to people who are public employees as defined by Minnesota State Statute.
Finally, Gov. Dayton is lying when he said at his announcement that people who didn't join the union wouldn't have to pay union dues. That's an outright lie. Minnesota has a fair share law on the books, which Leo Pusateri highlighted in this post :
Notice how the SEIU thug at first tries to poo-poo the fact that non-union daycare providers will still have to shell out fair share costs to the union ("Fair Share" in the State of Minnesota is 80 percent of union dues-still a hefty price in anyone's book); but after being pressed on the issue, explains away the higher cost of daycare via unionization by saying that "the increased subsidies" as a result of unionization will "more than offset the (increased) cost.
It's worth noting Gov. Dayton repeated what that the SEIU representative said almost verbatim.
Union membership is struggling. The opportunity to collect union or Fair Share dues from 11,000 potential new members is just too interesting for the unions to resist.
Gov. Dayton is supposed to represent all of Minnesota. Thus far, he's represented the unions in the child care matter and the militant environmentalists with the mineral rights matter.
When will Gov. Dayton represent people who aren't part of his special interest coalition?
Posted Wednesday, November 16, 2011 12:04 AM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 16-Nov-11 07:26 AM
Yawn.
Comment 2 by GaryF at 16-Nov-11 07:43 AM
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/collections/special/columns/todays-question/archive/2011/11/do-you-think-unionized-child-care-is-a-good-idea.shtml
Comment 3 by J. Ewing, at 16-Nov-11 09:22 AM
Has anyone pointed out that, should these child care providers who receive state checks (not public employees) want to lobby the government for fatter checks, they could form an association and hire a lobbyist for a LOT less money and hassle?
Response 3.1 by Gary Gross at 16-Nov-11 10:36 AM
I have several times.
Comment 4 by Bob J. at 16-Nov-11 10:08 AM
Lil' Markie is just following orders. Legal? Why should Democrats care about what's legal?
Are there 2 sides to the child care-union issue?
Something jumped off the page at me while reading Andy's post on Gov. Dayton calling for a vote on unionizing in-home child care providers. Andy quoted this Dayton statement:
DFL Gov. Mark Dayton announced Tuesday he wants Minnesota's state-subsidized licensed child-care providers to vote on whether to form a union.
'There are two sides to this issue,' he said in a statement. 'Some child-care providers are in favor of joining a union, and some are opposed. The fairest way, the American way, to settle this dispute is to have an election.'
It's certainly a DFL chanting point that "there are two sides to this issue" but that doesn't make it true. That just proves it's a DFL chanting point, nothing more. I wrote here that Minnesota State Statute Chapter 179A clearly defines who is a state employee:
What is the status of home-based child care providers under the Public Employment Labor Relations Act (PELRA)?
Answer: Minnesota Statutes Chapter 179A defines a public employer as the state of Minnesota or other local political subdivisions. The law also defines public employees as those appointed or employed by a public employer. Under current law, a self-employed, home-based child care provider would not be a public employer or a public employee. Here is the link to the law; the relevant definitions are in subdivisions 14 and 15: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=179A.03
That means there's really only one side to that story.
Since in-home child care providers are independent contractors, not government employees, they aren't within the reach of Gov. Dayton's executive order authority.
Another complicating factor in this is that not all in-home child care providers will be allowed to vote on unionization. That's because, of Minnesota's 11,000 in-home child care providers, only 4,000 in-home child care providers care for children whose parents receive state assistance.
Nonetheless, if a majority of in-home child care providers that care for children getting state assistance votes for unionization, AFSCME and SEIU will argue that all 11,000 in-home child care providers pay fair share dues.
Union thugs insist that that hasn't been determined but that's provably false. Minnesota's Fair Share laws are quite clear on this. Likewise, there's little doubt that AFSCME's and SEIU's motivation is to grow the amount of money to spend on DFL candidates.
Gov. Dayton has the First Amendment right to say there's 2 sides to the in-home child care unionization issue. He just isn't being accurate.
Posted Wednesday, November 16, 2011 3:05 PM
Comment 1 by Tom Jones at 17-Nov-11 08:53 AM
This is a little tricky to follow, but workers are not considered government employees in other areas where state assistance/money is involved. For instance, while contractors and subcontractors of the state have to follow prevailing wage and other labor laws, they and their employees are not considered government workers for the purposes of data collection: http://www.ipad.state.mn.us/opinions/2011/11002.html.
So, while they have to follow state law (as in-home daycare providers do), the Department of Administration has explicitly stated that at least one type of worker being paid with state money is not a government employee.
It makes no sense that in-home daycare providers would be treated any differently. The precedent that anyone receiving a state benefit is a state worker is very dangerous, and will lead to a European Democractic-Socialist style state, or Michigan.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 17-Nov-11 09:09 AM
That's an excellent point Tom.
PS- There's a difference between Gov. Granholm's Michigan & "European Democractic-Socialist style states"? Who knew?
What part of private property rights doesn't Robert Reich understand?
Robert Reich's post about The Man shutting down people's First Amendment rights isn't silly. It's beyond that:
A funny thing happened to the First Amendment on its way to the public forum. According to the Supreme Court, money is now speech and corporations are now people. But when real people without money assemble to express their dissatisfaction with the political consequences of this, they're treated as public nuisances and evicted.
What Prof. Reich won't mention is that Zuccotti Park, the launching point for the movement, is private property. Clearly, the property owner has the right to set the rules of who can enter his property and when they can protest there. That isn't a complicated concept to grasp.
Likewise, people can peaceably assemble until the gatherings become public health hazards and organizers have to establish "rape-free zones." I'd hope that a learned man like Dr. Reich could grasp those concepts but perhaps I'm overestimating his intellectual capabilities.
This is whining progressive BS:
This tsunami of big money into politics is the real public nuisance. It's making it almost impossible for the voices of average Americans to be heard because most of us don't have the dough to break through. By granting First Amendment rights to money and corporations, the First Amendment rights of the rest of us are being trampled on.
When Howard Dean broke through, he didn't have lots of big money donors supporting him. They were mostly average Joes contributing $25 once a month. Most of Newt's fundraising has been online contributions. Ditto with Ron Paul's.
The reality is that the voices of average people are getting heard plenty clearly because they're joining contributions with like-minded people to make one extremely loud voice.
Besides, the amount of money one has doesn't guarantee that that person's voice will be heard. Most House races where a GOP challenger defeated the Democrat incumbent were races where the Democrat out-raised and outspent the GOP challenger by wide margins. That's certainly the case in the Cravaack-Oberstar race.
This is where the Occupiers come in. If there's a core message to the Occupier movement it's that the increasing concentration of income and wealth poses a grave danger to our democracy.
The TEA Party would disrespectfully disagree. The TEA Party, contrary to progressives' chanting points, isn't bankrolled by the Koch Brothers, yet they're a powerful positive political force that changed the American political landscape.
The difference between the TEA Party movement and the Occupation movement is that the TEA Party movement's message is vibrant and appealing to the average Joe. The Occupation movement's message is that of punishing achievement. It didn't help that Occupation HQ's turned into public health hazards and rape zones.
The real problem for the Occupation movement isn't that their First Amendment rights were trampled. It's that their actions were too frequently criminal and too infrequently inspiring or even appealing.
Tehnorati: Occupy Wall Street , Rape Zones , First Amendment , Robert Reich , Zuccotti Park , Sanitation , Public Health , Progressives , TEA Parties , Newt Gingrich , Ron Paul , Grassroots
Posted Wednesday, November 16, 2011 3:46 PM
No comments.
Rick Perry calls President Obama out, CBS defends President Obama (sorta)
Jim Hoft, the Gateway Pundit, praises Rick Perry for his new ad criticizing President Obama's "lazy" statement in this post . Perry criticized President Obama for making that statement while he vacationed in Hawaii.
WOW!: Great ad, Rick!
Rick Perry slams Obama for calling Americans lazy; says it's time to clean house.
'Obama's socialist policies are bankrupting America .'
Unwilling to let their candidate get gored CBS jumped to President Obama's defense:
Rick Perry's presidential campaign is out with a new ad, 'Lazy,' attacking President Obama for his comment that Americans have 'been a little bit lazy I think over the last couple of decades.'
After video of the president making that comment is shown in the ad, Perry, standing outside in a casual shirt, addresses the camera. 'Can you believe that?' he says. 'That's what our President thinks wrong with America? [sic] That Americans are lazy? That's pathetic.' (Perry appears to have omitted an 'is' from his comments.)
Perry goes on to say 'it's time to clean house in Washington,' an argument that squares with his recent call to overhaul all three branches of government, a proposal that includes making being a member of Congress a part-time job.
'It's time for a Balanced Budget Amendment that forces Washington to stop overspending,' Perry goes on to say. 'If Congress balks, cut their pay and send them home.'
He then complains that 'Obama's socialist policies are bankrupting America,' adding: 'We must stop him now.'
The Perry campaign says the 30-second spot is airing on national cable and on broadcast television in Iowa; CBS News saw it on Fox News Wednesday afternoon.
The ad marks the latest foray in the Perry campaign's effort to reboot the Texas governor's candidacy after a string of poor debate performances, capped off by the now-infamous 'oops' moment, that have helped drive down his standing in the polls.
CBS was willing to let their debate moderator make an ass of himself by letting him pretend he was an expert on national security and international law. Now they're campaign consultants? The arrogance at the Tiffany Network is disturbing and typical liberal I-know-better-than-you thinking.
CBS should return to getting the facts right before attempting to be experts on national security, international law and conservative campaigns.
Posted Wednesday, November 16, 2011 7:44 PM
No comments.
Michele undermines her campaign
If there's anything that the GOP presidential candidates should've learned by now, it's that going negative hurts the candidate going negative. That's why it's a little astonishing that Michele Bachmann went this negative against each of her chief opponents.
The Des Moines Register published this article on her attack ad:
In a new hard-hitting web video attack ad, Michele Bachmann conveys the message that Iowans can expect 'no surprises' from her - unlike from her fellow GOP presidential candidates, her campaign said this morning.
It's Bachmann's most sharp-tongued attack on her rivals this election cycle, ripping Mitt Romney, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul and Rick Perry for past comments, including Perry's 'oops' moment in a recent GOP debate.
The web ad, titled 'No Surprises 2012,' is 'Iowa specific,' her aides said, although it doesn't make any specific reference to Iowa.
The ad seeks to contrast differences between Bachmann and her rivals on abortion, nuclear weapons, illegal immigration, global warming, health care mandates, and the 2nd Amendment, her campaign aides said.
The only fellow Republican candidate she doesn't thump? Rick Santorum.
This isn't the type of advertising a confident candidate puts together. It's what I'd expect from a panicked, desperate candidate make. Watch the video and judge for yourself:
When Gov. Perry attacked Gov. Romney for allegedly hiring illegal immigrants to care for his lawn, both men suffered. In fact, that was Gov. Romney's worst performance by far.
When Michele and Gov. Pawlenty had their major spat during one of the early debates from Iowa, it crippled Gov. Pawlenty's campaign but it damaged Michele's campaign, too.
Iowa, like the rest of America, is looking for a reason to hope, not just a candidate whose mantra used to be hope. They're looking for someone with a positive agenda and a sunny disposition when talking with voters.
What's worse for Michele is that she just attacked Newt. It isn't that Newt can't handle the heat. He can. It's that this makes Michele look mean-spirited, especially after Newt praised her at the recent Faith and Freedom fundraiser in Iowa.
Michele wasn't a top contender prior to releasing this video. She certainly will get hurt by it, though.
Posted Thursday, November 17, 2011 1:36 AM
Comment 1 by IndyJones at 17-Nov-11 01:15 PM
This is a rino vs conservative ad and would Bachmann object to being labeled anti-choice, legal immigration only, or anti global warming? Probably not...I know what she stands for, I know what Santorum stands for and I even know what Paul stands for but the rest are anchored on political rubble. They could be adopting most any position next time.
Comment 2 by J. Ewing, at 17-Nov-11 08:22 PM
So, when Ms. Bachmann realizes she is not going to be the nominee, and returns to her District to run for Congress, do you think the nominee is liable to come and stump for her?
Comment 3 by eric z. at 19-Nov-11 07:56 AM
Bachmann being Bachmann really is not news. It's been her MO since ambushing Gary Laidig.
Comment 4 by Gary Gross at 19-Nov-11 10:08 AM
That isn't typical Michele. If it's typical Michele, how did Michele kick Tarryl's ass so badly?
President Obama, the wealth destroyer
President Obama, like the vast majority in the progressive chorus, has whined about "income inequality." According to this post , income inequality has shrunk during this administration. Unfortunately, it's shrunk for the wrong reasons:
In the last two years, it's way down. Recessions are bad for the rich. If you care about inequality per se, recessions are great. That appears to be true, so in 2009 the top 1% I calculated at 17.6%. I've seen other calculations a tad under 17%, but it's basically gone from 23.5 to 17. What's interesting about 17 is that inequality in 2009 is actually lower than it was during any year of Bill Clinton's second term.
"The Rich" have taken a hit during this administration. Thanks to President Obama not getting the economy running, the percentage of money millionaires made is 20% less than when President Obama took office. Jim Hoft, the Gateway Pundit, has frequently called President Obama the "Worst. Jobs. President. Ever." Later this am, I'll be emailing Jim to let him know that I'm adding another title to President Obama's list: The. Biggest. Wealth. Destroying. President. Ever.
Most presidents increase the country's wealth. President Obama's policies have shrunk American wealth. It isn't just "the rich" that've gotten hurt, either. There are more people on food stamps now than ever before. The middle class has shrunk significantly.
At some point, people will know that President Obama a) a harmful to their bank accounts' health, b) has pursued policies that won't ever create wealth or prosperity and c) has increased debt, both personal and national, at a faster rate than any other president in U.S. history.
President Obama's stimulus fed his political allies. His policies have assisted his rich bundlers and union thugs alike. Everyone else has pretty much gotten the shaft.
Personally, I don't care about income inequality. I worry about whether the economy is creating wealth. If it's creating wealth, the jobs will come. It isn't healthy to worry about income inequality. It's important, though, to use that as motivation to propel yourself higher.
Posted Thursday, November 17, 2011 9:05 AM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 17-Nov-11 06:18 PM
I hate to be a stickler for detail, but what is this author talking about? That the wealthy took their capital losses when they were unfortunate enough to have bet on securitized mortages because they were priced at a higher expected return, all things being equal, than treasuries? All things turned out to not be equal and some gamblers -
Comment 2 by eric z. at 17-Nov-11 06:20 PM
[cont'd I don't know what did a publish] ... gamblers - with their LEVELS OF DISCRETIONARY WEALTH that you and I, Gary, do not have. I cry. I weep real tears for the poor buggers. I am depressed for the remainder of the day.
Comment 3 by eric z. at 17-Nov-11 06:24 PM
Gary, does that article really make any sense to you, in context and apart from lifting a snippit - the print equivalent of a sound-bite? To me it is pure hogwash. If it makes sense to you, please explain how it is relevant to anything and how it in your view makes itself cogent to you in ways I miss? I'd appreciate that.
Biden closes transparency meeting to press
You can't make this stuff up. VP Biden will attend a meeting of the Government Accountability and Transparency Board in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building:
Spot the irony in Vice President Biden's schedule today, from the White House's daily guidance:
'At 1:00 PM, the Vice President will attend a meeting of the Government Accountability and Transparency Board in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building. At 2:30 PM, the Vice President will meet with representatives of the National Sheriffs' Association in the Roosevelt Room. These meetings are closed press.'
(It was only two months ago that State Department officials briefed reporters on transparency efforts but refused to have their names be printed; and in March, the White House postponed a pooled-press ceremony for President Obama to get an openness award; it was later rescheduled and carried out in an undisclosed meeting.)
This administration is the worst administration in terms of transparency while touting their record on transparency. Simply put, this administration has been terrible on transparency issues. This article shows that transparency isn't a priority with this administration.
The first hint that this administration wasn't interested in transparency came when the health care debates weren't covered on C-SPAN. It wasn't a surprise because Democrats hadn't proven that they were interested in transparency.
Posted Thursday, November 17, 2011 1:03 PM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 17-Nov-11 06:12 PM
Politics is as politics does.
Exposing AFSCME's spin
This statement from AFSCME's website is pure spin.
More than 4,300 licensed, in-home child care providers in Minnesota this week have won a historic opportunity to gain union representation. It's the first step in a process that will empower them to negotiate over standards, funding and other issues to improve the quality of care they provide.
With the signing of an executive order, Democratic Gov. Mark Dayton set the stage for what could be significant improvements to the lives of these providers and the families they serve. The order notes that, although the state 'is committed to improving the quality, accessibility, and affordability of early childhood education services: there has been a troubling decline in the number of licensed family child care providers' in Minnesota.
First, there's likely to be a lengthy court battle. As I noted in this post , it's far from settled that Gov. Dayton has the authority to call this election. House research indicates that Gov. Dayton doesn't have that authority:
What is the status of home-based child care providers under the Public Employment Labor Relations Act (PELRA)?
Answer: Minnesota Statutes Chapter 179A defines a public employer as the state of Minnesota or other local political subdivisions. The law also defines public employees as those appointed or employed by a public employer. Under current law, a self-employed, home-based child care provider would not be a public employer or a public employee. Here is the link to the law; the relevant definitions are in subdivisions 14 and 15: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=179A.03
Minnesota's definition of who is or isn't a public employee is specific:
14. Public employee or employee
'Public employee' or 'employee' means any person appointed or employed by a public employer except:
(a) elected public officials;
(b) election officers;
(c) commissioned or enlisted personnel of the Minnesota National Guard;
(d) emergency employees who are employed for emergency work caused by natural disaster;
(e) part-time employees whose service does not exceed the lesser of 14 hours per week or 35 percent of the normal work week in the employee's appropriate unit;
(f) employees whose positions are basically temporary or seasonal in character and: (1) are not for more than 67 working days in any calendar year; or (2) are not for more than 100 working days in any calendar year and the employees are under the age of 22, are full-time students enrolled in a nonprofit or public educational institution prior to being hired by the employer, and have indicated, either in an application for employment or by being enrolled at an educational institution for the next academic year or term, an intention to continue as students during or after their temporary employment;
More importantly, Gov. Dayton, AFSCME and SEIU act like these child care providers won't have a voice at the Capitol if they aren't unionized. That's total nonsense. The Minnesota Licensed Family Child Care Association , aka the MLFCCA, is currently the voice of the child care providers:
The mission of MLFCCA is to support the highest standard of care for children in Minnesota's diverse licensed family child care homes through education, resources, recognition and advocacy.
MLFCCA isn't a Johnny-come-lately, either:
History
MLFCCA was established in 1973 as a nonprofit organization. MLFCCA is a statewide network of family child care providers, provider associations, support groups, and neighborhood groups. During 1973, MLFCCA began publication of it's newsletter, MEGAPHONE. In 1978, the Child Care and Adult Food Program was included in the Association. MLFCCA began product development and sales as a revenue source in the 1980's. In 1986, the Minnesota Child Care Training Project began and in 1987 MLFCCA sponsored its first Week of the Family Child Care Provider Conference and Recognition Banquet.
In 1989, MLFCCA changed its logo to keep up with the changing times. In 1991-92, the Association received a Leadership Training Grant from the Minnesota Department of Human Services. In 1992, MLFCCA began its membership options program and the association began to receive cooperative support from MnDHS(MnCFL), CACFPs, CCR&Rs, private business, and county associations.
In 1993, the MLFCCA logo changed again to what we see today. The Association also received its next Leadership Training Grant. And in 1994, MLFCCA hosted the national conference for the National Association for Family Child Care. Providers from across the nation attended this successful biennial conference.
Doesn't that sound like MLFCCA already is a voice for child care providers? In fact, doesn't it sound like AFSCME is just attempting to steal the MLFCCA's clientele?
It's interesting that membership in MLFCCA is a modest $35/yr. What are the odds that monthly union dues or Fair Share dues would be more expensive per month than a yearly membership in MLFCCA? It isn't a stretch to think that the odds are pretty high that it'd cost more per month to be unionized.
The bottom line is that there isn't justification to join AFSCME or SEIU while MLFCCA exists.
Posted Thursday, November 17, 2011 2:10 PM
No comments.
