In a somewhat surprising move, the Senate Committee on Economic Development, Housing and General Affairs took up a bill that would allow child-care providers to bargain collectively with the state.

Early education professionals on both sides of the argument offered testimony on why or why not they should be able to bargain with the state over rates and reimbursement practices for subsidy payments.

The status of these collective bargaining rights has become a hot-button issue with providers for and against unionizing embarking on public campaigns.

A bill that passed the House last year remains on the wall in the Senate Rules Committee. Senate Pro Tem John Campbell said aggressive tactics by the union to support the bill convinced him not to move it forward. Because of pressure from Gov. Peter Shumlin, Campbell agreed to hear testimony on the issue and sat in on the committee hearing.

Supporters of allowing collective bargaining say early educators are undervalued. Many earn lower wages than the average retail worker.

Cathi Ste. Marie, owner of Cathi’s House in North Troy, has become somewhat of a spokeswoman for the collective bargaining effort.

She said early educators have an extremely important job, yet they receive incredibly low wages. Allowing collective bargaining would permit child-care workers to be at the table to work for better pay, at least in the realm of state subsidies.

“The reason the emphasis is put on pay is we have a serious job,” Ste. Marie said. “Birth to 5 sets the construction of how a child will learn. That’s quite a responsibility to get paid less than a taxi driver or a maid.”

The ability to unionize and bargain, she said, is about validation, respect and support.

“Quality programs cost money,” Ste. Marie said.

Bargaining would also help child care workers have a say in the method of reimbursement for the subsidies as well.

Vermont Early Educators United, an affiliate of the local American Federation of Teachers, proposes blending the bill that passed the House last year with the bill in the Senate to include child-care centers. Last year, the House took centers like the Boys and Girls Club out of the bill.

Mary Alice McKenzie, executive director of the Boys and Girls Club of Burlington, said her center and others do not base their services on subsidy reimbursements.

Because they are not part of the issues being discussed, McKenzie said, they don’t want to get caught up in the controversy.

Moreover, she said, larger centers do not want to pay dues to the union.

Although the legislation does not require providers to be part of the union, McKenzie said the centers could be subject to things like fair representation fees.

“Our concern as charities is that the issues being fought over not our issues,” McKenzie said. “We don’t want to pay for them. We want to focus on our mission. We don’t want to be dragged into anyone else’s controversy.”

Elsa Bosma, owner of Puddle Jumpers Child Care in Shelburne, says many small providers don’t want a union either.

“We do have a voice already,” Bosma said. “I fear it will silence my individual voice, and I can’t participate in the bargaining process.”

Some supporters of the bill, like Progressive Sen. Anthony Pollina, said they are glad it is finally being considered on its merits.

“So far the whole conversation around this bill, at least in the Senate, has been about politics,” Pollina said.

Pollina said the emphasis on union tactics has detracted from the important issues, and he was glad to see people discussing the merits.

“I’m just glad they’re having the conversation,” he said.

Campbell said he wanted to hear the testimony to hone in on the specific issues. He said he does not want child-care providers to go unheard because of what he sees as inappropriate tactics by some members of the union.

“I told these folks before that I do not want them to be collateral damage of the tactics that were used by the AFT [American Federation of Teachers],” Campbell said.

He said he has lingering concerns that people have been promised that collective bargaining will produce more than it really will, since there is only so much subsidy money to go around.

“What really troubles me is that the folks have been promised you get a seat at the table and that automatically means increased benefits,” Campbell said. “That’s not true.”