Editorial: Daycare union gets no voteBallots had been scheduled to be mailed out today to 4,300 daycare providers across Minnesota. As a result of an executive order issued by Gov. Mark Dayton, they would have been voting on unionization.
By: Daily Globe, Worthington Daily Globe
Ballots had been scheduled to be mailed out today to 4,300 daycare providers across Minnesota. As a result of an executive order issued by Gov. Mark Dayton, they would have been voting on unionization.
The problem was, there were 11,000 daycare providers who wouldn’t get ballots this week.
That was one of two primary questions at the root of the debate on the unionization vote, which was temporarily stopped by a Ramsey County judge Monday following a lawsuit.
Dayton wanted to mail ballots to daycare providers who receive state subsidies, an action that omitted about 60 percent (or 11,000 others who provide that service) from the vote. In a story published in the Nov. 29 Daily Globe, it’s argued by an American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Council 5 employee that since the daycare providers who get state money “have a direct financial relationship with the state of Minnesota,” they are in turn “an appropriate bargaining unit.”
Others who don’t get state subsidies, though, wouldn’t have representation in the event of unionization, leaving them — in essence — without much of a voice at the state level. So said Becky Swanson, a Dakota County daycare operator who grew up in Worthington, in the Nov. 29 story.
The other question — besides who would get to vote on unionization — is whether Dayton’s executive order is legal. “It’s unfortunate that he took, basically with a swipe of the pen ... our freedoms away,” said St. Michael childcare provider Hollee Saville to Minnesota Public Radio last week. “Participation won’t be voluntary. You may not be forced to [pay] membership dues, but you could be forced to pay Fair Share fees, and Minnesota is a Fair Share state.”
Involuntary participation? Forced fees? Sounds dubious to us — never mind likely to drive new costs back to hard-working parents only to be used for union-related goals. On multiple levels, we give this election a “no” vote.