Politics & Government

Rep. Sarah Anderson: Childcare Bill 'Directs Precious Dollars to Union Dues'

The Plymouth state rep spoke out as a Minnesota House of Representatives committee OK'd a bill to let homebased childcare providers form a union.

This article includes material by Sarah Lemagie at Session Daily and Tim Pugmire at Minnesota Public Radio.

A controversial bill to allow elections that could unionize thousands of Minnesota child care providers and personal care assistants is heading to the House Floor.

In a 17-14 vote on Thursday, the House Ways and Means Committee approved a bill that could lead to the unionization of perhaps 12,700 home-based providers who care for children in the state’s Child Care Assistance Program. The bill, HF950, would also create a separate path to collective bargaining for tens of thousands of personal care attendants who work for elderly or disabled Minnesotans.

Find out what's happening in Plymouthwith free, real-time updates from Patch.

State Rep. Sarah Anderson (R-Plymouth) spoke out against the bill, Minnesota Public Radio reported:

Under the measure before the House, both groups could decide to join unions and then engage in collective bargaining with the state for higher subsidies. But Rep. Sarah Anderson, R-Plymouth, objected to the possibility of tax dollars being used to pay union dues.

Find out what's happening in Plymouthwith free, real-time updates from Patch.

"I have a lot of constituents that care for their children, care for their parents, other relatives. And their biggest concern, to me is the money, the precious dollars they get to care for their relative, is now going to go to a union," she said. "Basically, you're unionizing them against their own relative."

Read the full article at mprnews.org.

Backed by labor unions and some of the affected workers, the bill is adamantly opposed by some child care providers who argue that, as small business owners, they shouldn’t be unionized.

“I am self-employed. I am not a state employee,” said Julie Seydel, a licensed child care provider from Andover who testified against the bill at a legislative hearing this winter. “I take care of children. I give them love, nurturing and education, and I do not need the assistance of a union to do this.”

The bill would apply only to providers serving children who qualify for state-subsidized care through CCAP.

Bill supporters say a union would improve the quality of child care and elevate the profession, without forcing anything on providers. “I’ll still negotiate my own price, hours, terms with individual parents,” Lynn Barten, a licensed provider from Alexandria, told lawmakers earlier this year. Unionization would give providers “a strong, unified voice to someday achieve much more than we ever could do alone,” she said.

The bill’s sponsor, Rep. Mike Nelson (DFL-Brooklyn Park), said Thursday that he wants to give workers the chance to decide for themselves whether to organize. “It’s simply about giving a group of individuals … the ability to try and form a union.”

If child care providers voted to unionize under the proposed law, they would gain the right to collectively bargain with the state on some issues, including CCAP reimbursement rates. They would not have the right to strike, and the Legislature would have to approve agreements reached between the state and a union.

Those who didn’t want to join the union would still pay “fair share” dues — a huge problem for bill opponents. Some child care providers have said that if they’re forced to pay union fees, they’ll either charge more for their services or stop accepting CCAP families. That would limit care options for children from low-income families who qualify for state subsidies, they say.

Another sticking point: The child care union described in the bill would include both licensed and unlicensed providers. Critics protest that unlicensed providers, who are often neighbors or relatives of the children they care for, have different interests and should not be lumped together, either in a union vote or at the bargaining table.

They also say it’s unfair that many licensed providers who don’t serve CCAP families would be excluded from a union election.

Nelson likened that argument to a hypothetical attempt by Target employees to vote on whether Walmart workers form a union. They’re doing similar work, he said, but “they’re two separate groups.”

The bill is supported by the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) Council 5, the union trying to organize the child care providers.

The Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Healthcare Minnesota seeks to represent the personal care assistants who could unionize under the proposed law, some of whom provide in-home care for family members. That half of the bill would affect roughly 55,000 workers, according to a recent estimate from the Department of Human Services.

The bill’s companion, SF778, is sponsored by Senate President Sandy Pappas (DFL-St. Paul) and awaits action in the Senate Finance Committee.


Get more local news delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for free Patch newsletters and alerts.

We’ve removed the ability to reply as we work to make improvements. Learn more here

More from Plymouth