• strict warning: Non-static method view::load() should not be called statically in /home/glencoenews/www/www/sites/all/modules/views/views.module on line 906.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_argument::init() should be compatible with views_handler::init(&$view, $options) in /home/glencoenews/www/www/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_argument.inc on line 0.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter::options_validate() should be compatible with views_handler::options_validate($form, &$form_state) in /home/glencoenews/www/www/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_filter.inc on line 0.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter::options_submit() should be compatible with views_handler::options_submit($form, &$form_state) in /home/glencoenews/www/www/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_filter.inc on line 0.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter_node_status::operator_form() should be compatible with views_handler_filter::operator_form(&$form, &$form_state) in /home/glencoenews/www/www/sites/all/modules/views/modules/node/views_handler_filter_node_status.inc on line 0.
  • strict warning: Non-static method view::load() should not be called statically in /home/glencoenews/www/www/sites/all/modules/views/views.module on line 906.
  • strict warning: Non-static method view::load() should not be called statically in /home/glencoenews/www/www/sites/all/modules/views/views.module on line 906.
  • strict warning: Non-static method view::load() should not be called statically in /home/glencoenews/www/www/sites/all/modules/views/views.module on line 906.
  • strict warning: Non-static method view::load() should not be called statically in /home/glencoenews/www/www/sites/all/modules/views/views.module on line 906.
  • strict warning: Non-static method view::load() should not be called statically in /home/glencoenews/www/www/sites/all/modules/views/views.module on line 906.
  • strict warning: Non-static method view::load() should not be called statically in /home/glencoenews/www/www/sites/all/modules/views/views.module on line 906.
  • strict warning: Non-static method view::load() should not be called statically in /home/glencoenews/www/www/sites/all/modules/views/views.module on line 906.
  • strict warning: Non-static method view::load() should not be called statically in /home/glencoenews/www/www/sites/all/modules/views/views.module on line 906.

Child-care unionization would hurt many families

To the Editor:
An issue that has come to light recently is the child-care provider unionization vote. I’d like to provide some information to you about the process.
On Jan. 22 of this year, the Child Care Providers Together, a branch of AFSCME (American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees), submitted valid signature cards from 30 percent of the providers who received child-care assistance funds (otherwise known as CCAP) in the last year, triggering a unionization vote. On Feb. 8, ballots were mailed out to 2,384 child-care providers, which constitutes approximately one-third of all child-care providers in Minnesota. These ballots must be received by the Bureau of Mediation Services no later than Feb. 29 to be counted in the final vote tally.
This vote is a blatant attempt by AFSCME to grow the power of its union in our state by adding dues taken from child-care providers to their coffers. If you are a child-care provider who has received CCAP funds in the last year, your ballot should arrive shortly in the mail. A vote “yes” is a vote in favor of unionization, and a vote “no” is a vote against forming a union.
CCAP funds help low-income families afford day-care services for their children. By taking union dues from providers receiving CCAP funds, day-care providers will be forced to increase charges to families for their necessary day-care services. This will further stretch family budgets, and reduce the number of day-care providers who will care for children from families receiving CCAP, especially in rural areas. The net result is that unions will increase their coffers at the expense of low-income families and their children. Unfortunately, Gov. Dayton and a majority of DFL members support the union’s efforts.
In other states, similar unionization attempts have been successful, mainly due to low voter “turn out.” If the majority of the ballots returned are votes in favor of unionization, providers receiving CCAP will be unionized. AFSCME is working hard to insure that only providers who are likely to vote “yes” return their ballots. It is essential that providers do the same in opposition, and encourage a “no” vote on this measure.
The Republican caucus has raised questions about what criteria was used by the Department of Human Services to determine who was qualified to vote, and I hope those concerns will be addressed. I will continue to look into this issue. Please do what you can to prevent this union take-over of yet another part of our workforce.
State Rep. Glenn Gruenhagen
R-Glencoe