Michigan child care providers are suing in federal court to stop the state from taking union dues out of their subsidy checks. One of the small group involved in the lawsuit, fifty year old child care provider Peggy Mashke, in an Associated Press report "says she thought it was "a joke" when she received a letter from the UAW welcoming her into the union." During a telephone interview today with Peggy, she said, "I don't think the union is a bad thing, but in this instance it is wrong."
In 2006 the United Autoworkers (UAW) and American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) teamed up to form the Child Care Providers Together Michigan union to represent 40,000 child care providers that look after children in their homes in counties all across Michigan. In that election, only 15% of the eligible child care providers voted, but over 92% of the ballots favored the union. Although there have been no charges or reports of irregularities in the election, Peggy states, "I did not receive a ballot," even though she was in business prior to 2006 when union representation for home child care givers became an issue in Michigan.
As Peggy pointed out during the interview the money used to subsidize child care for lower income families "does not come from the State of Michigan" or the union, "but from a Federal grant to the State" which Michigan Department of Human Services then doles out as it sees fit with little oversight by Federal or Michigan authorities. Supposedly without the negotiations of the union on behalf of the child care givers, the increased grants would have been spent elsewhere with subsidy payments remaining stagnate at the 1996 level, a ten year period when there were no subsidy increases to the child care givers.
When asked if her union had fulfilled its promises to her, Peggy responded with a resounding, "no," and continued, "collective bargaining was never needed before so why is it needed now?"
The contract negotiated in 2008 by the union contained a 23% increase over a period of three years in subsidy payments to home child care givers, and, according to Ms Mashke this increase is on track, but that her billable hours have been decreased from 100 hours to 90 hours every two weeks. She explained that the union negotiated away the time she could charge for the parents to travel to her child care center, and now can bill the state for only the hours the children are under her supervision. Based on the figures Peggy quoted, this leaves her with a net income from the subsidies larger than what she would have received without the contract, but the net increase has not kept up with the rate of inflation.
Peggy's greatest complaint appears to be that the State of Michigan forced these changes on her even though she does not meet any criteria for union representation. As an independent business woman with no employees she believes that Michigan has invaded the privacy of her home by taking union dues without her consent. From this perspective Peggy Mashke may be in concert with the founding fathers of the United States whose greatest public complaint was the issue of taxation without representation.
The lawsuit was filed in July, 2010, but no action in the courts has been taken until now. Because a federal judge in Grand Rapids, Mich., has recently ruled that the lawsuit can proceed, it appears Peggy Mashke and the other home child care givers involved in the law suit will be getting their day in court.
Sources:
Percentage of care givers who voted in favor of union representation: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100912/ap_on_bi_ge/us_child_care_union
Subsidy rate increases and union dues: http://www.resourcesforchildcare.org/index.cfm?page=provratifymiunion
AFSCME representation of home child care givers in Michigan: http://www.afscme.org/12929.cfm
There are no comments yet