Dozens of child-care workers flocked to the Statehouse on Wednesday evening to deliver two conflicting messages: that forming a union would grant them a much-needed voice, or it would rob them of the individual voices they already have.
Decked out in red, white and blue, workers at the public hearing before the Senate Economic Development Committee were from at least three factions.
Child care workers in blue generally supported S.52, legislation that allows providers to unionize. Those in red, mostly from the Vermont Workers Center, also supported the bill.
A third group of child-care workers oppose the bill because they say they don’t need a union to represent them and they don’t want to be forced to pay dues. They wore white T-shirts reading: “I already have a voice: please don’t take it away.”
The debate over allowing child-care workers the right to unionize is not new at the Statehouse, with active lobbying under way for the past three years. But the legislation got a new start, after Gov. Peter Shumlin made it a priority again this year and after former opponent Senate President Pro Tem John Campbell pledged to stay “neutral” this year.
Child-care workers are employees at centers or self-employed individuals, who often work from home.
Those backing unionization argued at the hearing that the bill would give child-care workers a meaningful voice on a par with the state, which sets child-care subsidy rates; that it would unite geographically isolated workers; and that it would give basic rights to workers.
Opponents of the measure argued unionization is unnecessary, since individual workers can already raise their concerns with state officials. They also said that unwanted union dues or agency fees would be levied, without any benefits to themselves, since state subsidy rates would increase over time anyway.
Some opponents also contended that the bill did nothing to improve the quality of child care, because the union is more focused on workers than it is on the children who benefit from their work.
“I see nothing in this child-care unionization bill that will better early childhood ed [education],” said Deb Thayer, a child-care worker from Burlington. “And where some states have allowed collective bargaining, there is no evidence that it has improved access to quality care.”
Thayer added that she already had access to training and career development resources, which some advocates say child-care workers lack.
“The state has a lot of wonderful professional development opportunities that many of us take advantage of,” noted Morgan Kittredge, a Vergennes child-care worker. “I truly find it hard to find positive scenarios where a union would benefit my business or the children that I serve,” she added.
“What this union will do is take away my individual voice and my money, two things that I am very partial to,” Kittredge said. “You take away my individual voice, and you take away my freedom as a self-employed person. Subsidy rates can and will be increased without a union … Plus I have no reason to ever file a grievance.”
But workers backing the unionization law countered passionately with their own arguments.
“The best way that those of us who are in classrooms most of the day, to be able to influence decisions that are made about our work, and therefore the quality of the education we can offer, is by being organized,” said Heather McGrath, a Milton Elementary school teacher and a member of the Vermont Workers’ Center.
“For decades, the people working in this profession, largely women and people of color, have been denied the same rights as most other working people. This is your opportunity to be the ones to say that early educators are professionals. … They deserve the same respect as K-12 teachers, and to be able to decide for themselves, whether or not they would like to form a union,” McGraff said.
In the hallway outside the packed committee room, which held around 100 people, lead Senate sponsor Dick McCormack, D-Windsor, said that significant opposition from individual child-care providers isn’t new to him.
“You know, the T-shirts, ‘I already have a voice’? Well yeah, a little, tiny little voice that no one has to listen to if they don’t feel like it,” McCormack said. “You know, ‘I don’t need the union to speak for me.’ Alright: then you take what management wants to give you … Individual workers are relatively powerless, relative to the people who have the money. There is nothing new in this.”
Pointing to potential compromise between the two sides, McCormack highlighted the exclusion of child care centers from the bill, a point now under discussion. McCormack also said that improving child care would likely be a key aim of any union, and more easily achieved by a union than individuals.
Ben Johnson, the Vermont president of the American Federation of Teachers, was confident that there were enough votes among providers generally, for the needed majority to form a union.
The new union would represent all child-care providers, even those who aren’t members. Johnson said working conditions would be negotiated on non-union members’ behalf, sometimes without their input.
“What happens when you form a union is that you actually have a voice,” he said. “You are nothing but a suggestion box without a union.”
The Senate economic development committee is expected to vote the bill out of committee by the end of the week.
Correction: Heather McGrath teaches in Milton Elementary, not Burlington. Her last name was originally misspelled.
