CES_FHCC_WAC_170-296A_final.pdf (application/pdf Object)
This is actually a thank you to the Department of Early Learning (DEL).
My intent is to give kudos when kudos apply. Today I say thank you to the Department of Early Learning (DEL) for their transparency in documenting the journey of how the new family home child day care rules and regulations came to be and which are to be implemented in 2012 came to be.
I blog for the benefit of parents who must go to work and who must put their children in daycare. And today I want to give you some insider witnessing and my opinion.
I sat in on some of these Negotiated Rule Making Team (NRMT) meetings, sometimes as a substitute for and representing the non-profit organization Washington Parents for Safe Child Care; the sole parent voice.
From the introduction to this document in the link above: "RCW 34.05.325(6) requires that when a state agency adopts a permanent rule (known as Washington Administrative Code or WAC), the agency must prepare a “Concise Explanatory Statement” (CES). This statement is a public document that generally summarizes comments received on a state agency’s proposed rules, notes the agency’s responses to those comments, and whether the comment resulted in any changes to the final rule compared to the proposal"
Parents and citizens of Washington State, it was a nightmare! As Spencer Breslin child actor in the Disney movie The Kid yelled, "a nightmare". If it wasn't about the health, safety and well-being of children it would be funny.
I give my kudos to DEL for being transparent. Representative Ross Hunter from Bellevue has long advocated for complete transparency in government. This long document moves in that direction. It recorded the comments of family home child day providers who were overwhelmingly represented on this NRMT. Parents were not represented.
Revising the rules was delayed for almost eight (8) years because of this certain segment of the licensed family home child day care provider community and the Service Employees International Union (SEIU).
Parents were not represented.
Stu Jacobson, director of Washington Parents for Safe Child Care was on the NRMT and all work ground to a halt one meeting day when I was present as the day care providers were in an uproar because Mr. Jacobson spoke to the press. These day care providers stopped talking about the health, safety and well-being of the child in licensed day care to focus their energy and attention on taking away Mr. Jacobson's Constitutional first amendment rights.
Advising these day care providers that the committee work they were doing was public, that all their meetings were public meetings had no effect on their outrage and desire for revenge. It was as though this committee was their private little club.
Like Dave Barry writes, "I'm not making this up."
Like Carrie Fisher wrote in her memoir Wishful Drinking: "If this wasn't funny, it would just be true."
This is a long state record document and I have only read up to page 31 and scanned through some of the rest. But I want parents to have access to this document now for their own review.
I recommend reading the "comments column" as it is in the providers' own words and you can get a sense of the attitude and the focus of some of the child day care providers on this committee.
I say kudos to DEL for in many instances not changing the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) rule when this certain segment of day care providers and SEIU demanded it; and for reminding this group of day care providers that rules must match the law. In Washington State that is the Revised Code of Washington (RCW). That's what we call our laws.
Read the provider comments for yourselves and decide which of their comments are truly for and which are truly not for the health, safety and well-being of your child. The child you must give over to the care of a day care provider that you pay to keep your child healthy, safe and happy while you are at work.
A provider at one of the meetings when I substituted for Washington Parents for Safe Child Care said it wasn't the government's business if after day care hours she was a hooker on the street.
SEIU isn't taking your parental money to keep your children safe.
SEIU takes money from all folks in Washington State (and those visiting), easy money on a monthly basis with the state government acting as their banking system.
So kudos to DEL today. Tomorrow the question is: will DEL enforce these regulations fairly and consistently? That is and has always been the key.
Showing posts with label SEIU. Show all posts
Showing posts with label SEIU. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
Sunday, September 11, 2011
Taxpayer Unions
It may be worth contemplating what President Franklin Delano Roosevelt said in 1937 about public unions as referenced in this Washington Times article linked below.
FDR vs. Wisconsin Teachers - Washington Times
FDR: "All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters."
I recommend the reader Google John Taylor Gatto who wrote The Underground History of American Education. My older grandson, Isaiah, at age six wanted me to read this book to him; and then his younger brother, Cole, age four chimed in that yes, for me to read to them from this book. This book had turned Isaiah's agony in trying to learn to read the way the public school set it up, to joy by my creating a "secret code book" for Isaiah, from using John Taylor Gatto's ideas in his book.
Kids listen and when Isaiah heard me talking to my son about what I was learning from Taylor's book, Isaiah went over and started flipping through the book. I paid attention and followed his interests. At age six and four both boys sat with me at the table for two hours with no fidgeting and no having to go to the bathroom. They were engrossed about the real world of adults, about the lives of Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson.
We were a highly literate nation in 1831 (ask Alexis de Tocqueville) then by 1854 or 1857 (I'll have to look up the date again) through a legislative act Congress created the first taxpayer union, the NEA (National Education Association) thus beginning the slide downward. Reforms since by and large continue that decline. In 1930 phonics got kicked to the curb and we got Dick and Jane. By 1935 we had our first epidemic of dyslexia. By 1955 Rudolf Flesch wrote Why Johnny Can't Read.
I've subbed in the school districts in the last few years and took a look at the latest "how to teach reading" materials. It's like a mishmash of "look-say" and phonics, fragments of this and that. It's not hard to learn how to read, but it's made hard. When Isaiah surged ahead and did a week's worth of reading homework in one night he got reprimanded by the teacher (think To Kill a Mockingbird).
I asked a friend, long time teacher, "How did public education start?" She thought it had to do with the Industrial Revolution that it began as a babysitting facility where kids would be put to be safe. That topic wasn't covered in the teacher college she attended. I suspect many if not most teachers don't know the beginnings of this thing called "public education."
I bring this up because we have a fascinating 150 year history to look back on that makes it possible to make other decisions today.
The article below gives a direct scenario how the taxpayer who pays the unions is not allowed at the so-called bargaining table of these taxpayer unions.
http://www.ajc.com/opinion/neal-boortz-public-union-861337.html
I got to be on the receiving end this year of SEIU "union organizing". What did they do to contact me to see if I wanted unionizing? Nothing. Then I got a ballot to fill out to vote, but I wasn't allowed be at the vote counting. Did SEIU contact me to tell me the outcome of the vote? NO. What contact did I have next from SEIU?
If you guessed SEIU wanted more money from me, you would be right.
FDR was right.
FDR vs. Wisconsin Teachers - Washington Times
FDR: "All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters."
I recommend the reader Google John Taylor Gatto who wrote The Underground History of American Education. My older grandson, Isaiah, at age six wanted me to read this book to him; and then his younger brother, Cole, age four chimed in that yes, for me to read to them from this book. This book had turned Isaiah's agony in trying to learn to read the way the public school set it up, to joy by my creating a "secret code book" for Isaiah, from using John Taylor Gatto's ideas in his book.
Kids listen and when Isaiah heard me talking to my son about what I was learning from Taylor's book, Isaiah went over and started flipping through the book. I paid attention and followed his interests. At age six and four both boys sat with me at the table for two hours with no fidgeting and no having to go to the bathroom. They were engrossed about the real world of adults, about the lives of Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson.
We were a highly literate nation in 1831 (ask Alexis de Tocqueville) then by 1854 or 1857 (I'll have to look up the date again) through a legislative act Congress created the first taxpayer union, the NEA (National Education Association) thus beginning the slide downward. Reforms since by and large continue that decline. In 1930 phonics got kicked to the curb and we got Dick and Jane. By 1935 we had our first epidemic of dyslexia. By 1955 Rudolf Flesch wrote Why Johnny Can't Read.
I've subbed in the school districts in the last few years and took a look at the latest "how to teach reading" materials. It's like a mishmash of "look-say" and phonics, fragments of this and that. It's not hard to learn how to read, but it's made hard. When Isaiah surged ahead and did a week's worth of reading homework in one night he got reprimanded by the teacher (think To Kill a Mockingbird).
I asked a friend, long time teacher, "How did public education start?" She thought it had to do with the Industrial Revolution that it began as a babysitting facility where kids would be put to be safe. That topic wasn't covered in the teacher college she attended. I suspect many if not most teachers don't know the beginnings of this thing called "public education."
I bring this up because we have a fascinating 150 year history to look back on that makes it possible to make other decisions today.
The article below gives a direct scenario how the taxpayer who pays the unions is not allowed at the so-called bargaining table of these taxpayer unions.
http://www.ajc.com/opinion/neal-boortz-public-union-861337.html
I got to be on the receiving end this year of SEIU "union organizing". What did they do to contact me to see if I wanted unionizing? Nothing. Then I got a ballot to fill out to vote, but I wasn't allowed be at the vote counting. Did SEIU contact me to tell me the outcome of the vote? NO. What contact did I have next from SEIU?
If you guessed SEIU wanted more money from me, you would be right.
FDR was right.
Sunday, July 31, 2011
Send SEIU 925 Day Care Providers to Child Development Classes
It's going on seven long years since the last WAC revision to the Family Home Child Care Business Regulations. It's dragged on and on and on and on.
On July 7, 2011 the Washington State Supreme Court issued their decision about what is paramount about licensed day care...and it's the child.
In my last blog I identified SEIU 925's focus as one of "self interest" and not a real interest in the children per my analysis of their website. Now as I read the latest comments copied in below from SEIU 925 on the WAC revisions demonstrates these folks don't understand child development.
SEIU wrote (I put their comments in italics):
WAC 170-296A-1725 Providers must have high school diploma or equivalent by January 2015.
Concerns: There are many providers who completed their high school education outside of the US and, due to civil war in these countries, are not able to obtain their records. What will happen in this situation? We also believe that new providers should have two years to obtain their GED. The reason for this is that once they are licensed, they can access the scholarship fund to minimize the financial burden of this new WAC.
My response: The Department of Early Learning was created with the idea of learning, learning related to working with the children, not a learning, training program using vulnerable children as guinea pigs, not as a scholarship fund for people looking for an education funded by the state.
WAC 170-296A-7075 Infants must be in the licensed area “approved for infants”
Concerns: This is not appropriate-many infants are not able to sleep when they are in such close proximity to other kids. We propose this WAC should say sight or sound or in an adjoining room and need to be checked on a regular basis and not include toddlers. Research shows that sleep is critical to young children.
My response: SEIU educate yourselves on SIDS.
WAC 170-296A-1525 Must report licensee, staff or household member if alleged to have committed … abuse or neglect…then screened in as complaint.
Concerns: A neighbor could call in a complaint and the provider would not know about it or a family member could do something and not tell the provider… how would provider have knowledge of all issues/circumstances. You can’t report if you don’t know about the complaint. What if the person is innocent? An allegation should not have to be reported, only if the person is charged or convicted, same as in (2)(a).
My response: Allegations must be reported so an investigation can be done to ensure DEL can make a determination if children were hurt or at risk.
WAC 170-296A-1175 Basic 20 hours of training prior to receiving license
Concerns: We would like to keep current WAC because in order to access the scholarship funds, a provider needs to be licensed.
My response: This represents to me a core issue about SEIU providers. Rather than stating add a subsection that reimburses someone if and after they are granted a license, SEIU supports giving licenses to folks who are not trained first. I believe this was an RCW. You can't simply change RCW because you don't like the law the legislators passed.
WAC 170-296A-2275(2,a,i) Report “reasonable expectation” illness or incapacity of Provider within 24 hours (2,b,i) Report charge or conviction for a crime reasonably related to providing care for children
(2,f) Report to DEL change in required policies within 24 hours
Concerns: Over reporting—providers cannot predict the future. What is the definition of reasonable expectation? Could vary from provider to provider.
My response: If you're not sure what "reasonable" means and you feel ill call DEL or the Health Department to get their input. If someone gets arrested call DEL.
WAC 170-296A-5775(1,2,3) Licensee absence – expected outside work schedule – must inform DEL before employment
Concerns: How does this improve the health and safety of children? Why does the licensor need to know?
My response: If you have to ask maybe watching vulnerable, innocent children may not be what you should be doing. I could go into detail with examples about this one. One provider, 3 different children, 3 different broken bones, a child came to her day care one morning with long hair and left with short without any adult noticing...why...provider was at her other job.
WAC 170-296A-5850, 5875, 5900 Must notify DEL of absences, closures, staffing changes, licensee’s potential absences.
Concerns: Providers would be on phone with DEL staff endlessly & providers would require a crystal ball to address potential absences. This is way too invasive and nosy as small business owners. If Providers are meeting staff qualifications, ratios, and following their policies and procedures, that’s all DEL should be requiring.
My response: As a former licensor the excellent providers on my caseload (the ones with no complaints, violations or injuries) were at their daycare minding to the needs of the children, the kids were having fun, they were having fun, the children were still alive when the parents came to pick them up. One provider I'd visit...every time she asked me, "Why do you let them keep a license? The regulations aren't hard?" The answer? The managers and supervisors wouldn't allow it.
WAC 170-296A-6125 Must prevent harmful or aggressive acts by other children or immediately intervene
Concerns: Sometimes things happen so quickly that a provider only has a reative time to intervene and children can still be hurt.
My response: This a most concerning and revelatory statement. SEIU providers do not know child development, don't know how to create an environment and how to work with children. There was and I suspect still a major issue with being overcapacity. If you can't keep the number of children you have health, safe, happy and protected, and alive you have too many kids.
WAC 170-296A-6400(3) Inform parents of planned off site activities at least 24 hours before activity – even if in policies and procedures
Concerns: This would be in policies and procedures and parents have a copy. It takes the spontaneity out of a child’s day.
My response: SEIU doesn't understand structure, consistency and planning. It doesn't take the spontaneity out of a child's day, it may prevent the provider from hauling the kids around while she runs errands.
WAC 170-296A-6450(2) Requirement of cell phone for off-site activities
Concerns: Need financial impact study.
My response: SEIU doesn't all ready know the answer to that question? After seven years you don't know who in your community doesn't have a cell phone?
The Washington State Supreme Court affirmed the legislature's intent that the health, safety and well-being of the child, the welfare of the child in licensed day care is paramount over the right of someone to care for a child in licensed care.
The legislature, the Attorney General and the highest court in the State of Washington has spoken up for the child and by doing that they spoke up for that child's parent. It's come back full circle to 1995.
Now DEL managers will have to be educated on what they don't know so that licensing is highly professional, knowledgeable and consistent in their practices.
On July 7, 2011 the Washington State Supreme Court issued their decision about what is paramount about licensed day care...and it's the child.
In my last blog I identified SEIU 925's focus as one of "self interest" and not a real interest in the children per my analysis of their website. Now as I read the latest comments copied in below from SEIU 925 on the WAC revisions demonstrates these folks don't understand child development.
SEIU wrote (I put their comments in italics):
WAC 170-296A-1725 Providers must have high school diploma or equivalent by January 2015.
Concerns: There are many providers who completed their high school education outside of the US and, due to civil war in these countries, are not able to obtain their records. What will happen in this situation? We also believe that new providers should have two years to obtain their GED. The reason for this is that once they are licensed, they can access the scholarship fund to minimize the financial burden of this new WAC.
My response: The Department of Early Learning was created with the idea of learning, learning related to working with the children, not a learning, training program using vulnerable children as guinea pigs, not as a scholarship fund for people looking for an education funded by the state.
WAC 170-296A-7075 Infants must be in the licensed area “approved for infants”
Concerns: This is not appropriate-many infants are not able to sleep when they are in such close proximity to other kids. We propose this WAC should say sight or sound or in an adjoining room and need to be checked on a regular basis and not include toddlers. Research shows that sleep is critical to young children.
My response: SEIU educate yourselves on SIDS.
WAC 170-296A-1525 Must report licensee, staff or household member if alleged to have committed … abuse or neglect…then screened in as complaint.
Concerns: A neighbor could call in a complaint and the provider would not know about it or a family member could do something and not tell the provider… how would provider have knowledge of all issues/circumstances. You can’t report if you don’t know about the complaint. What if the person is innocent? An allegation should not have to be reported, only if the person is charged or convicted, same as in (2)(a).
My response: Allegations must be reported so an investigation can be done to ensure DEL can make a determination if children were hurt or at risk.
WAC 170-296A-1175 Basic 20 hours of training prior to receiving license
Concerns: We would like to keep current WAC because in order to access the scholarship funds, a provider needs to be licensed.
My response: This represents to me a core issue about SEIU providers. Rather than stating add a subsection that reimburses someone if and after they are granted a license, SEIU supports giving licenses to folks who are not trained first. I believe this was an RCW. You can't simply change RCW because you don't like the law the legislators passed.
WAC 170-296A-2275(2,a,i) Report “reasonable expectation” illness or incapacity of Provider within 24 hours (2,b,i) Report charge or conviction for a crime reasonably related to providing care for children
(2,f) Report to DEL change in required policies within 24 hours
Concerns: Over reporting—providers cannot predict the future. What is the definition of reasonable expectation? Could vary from provider to provider.
My response: If you're not sure what "reasonable" means and you feel ill call DEL or the Health Department to get their input. If someone gets arrested call DEL.
WAC 170-296A-5775(1,2,3) Licensee absence – expected outside work schedule – must inform DEL before employment
Concerns: How does this improve the health and safety of children? Why does the licensor need to know?
My response: If you have to ask maybe watching vulnerable, innocent children may not be what you should be doing. I could go into detail with examples about this one. One provider, 3 different children, 3 different broken bones, a child came to her day care one morning with long hair and left with short without any adult noticing...why...provider was at her other job.
WAC 170-296A-5850, 5875, 5900 Must notify DEL of absences, closures, staffing changes, licensee’s potential absences.
Concerns: Providers would be on phone with DEL staff endlessly & providers would require a crystal ball to address potential absences. This is way too invasive and nosy as small business owners. If Providers are meeting staff qualifications, ratios, and following their policies and procedures, that’s all DEL should be requiring.
My response: As a former licensor the excellent providers on my caseload (the ones with no complaints, violations or injuries) were at their daycare minding to the needs of the children, the kids were having fun, they were having fun, the children were still alive when the parents came to pick them up. One provider I'd visit...every time she asked me, "Why do you let them keep a license? The regulations aren't hard?" The answer? The managers and supervisors wouldn't allow it.
WAC 170-296A-6125 Must prevent harmful or aggressive acts by other children or immediately intervene
Concerns: Sometimes things happen so quickly that a provider only has a reative time to intervene and children can still be hurt.
My response: This a most concerning and revelatory statement. SEIU providers do not know child development, don't know how to create an environment and how to work with children. There was and I suspect still a major issue with being overcapacity. If you can't keep the number of children you have health, safe, happy and protected, and alive you have too many kids.
WAC 170-296A-6400(3) Inform parents of planned off site activities at least 24 hours before activity – even if in policies and procedures
Concerns: This would be in policies and procedures and parents have a copy. It takes the spontaneity out of a child’s day.
My response: SEIU doesn't understand structure, consistency and planning. It doesn't take the spontaneity out of a child's day, it may prevent the provider from hauling the kids around while she runs errands.
WAC 170-296A-6450(2) Requirement of cell phone for off-site activities
Concerns: Need financial impact study.
My response: SEIU doesn't all ready know the answer to that question? After seven years you don't know who in your community doesn't have a cell phone?
The Washington State Supreme Court affirmed the legislature's intent that the health, safety and well-being of the child, the welfare of the child in licensed day care is paramount over the right of someone to care for a child in licensed care.
The legislature, the Attorney General and the highest court in the State of Washington has spoken up for the child and by doing that they spoke up for that child's parent. It's come back full circle to 1995.
Now DEL managers will have to be educated on what they don't know so that licensing is highly professional, knowledgeable and consistent in their practices.
Sunday, May 22, 2011
Save Taxpayer Money, Reverse Taxpayer Unions, Save Democracy and Remember Colby Thompson
To the Taxpayers of Washington State and their Senators and Representatives I share a personal tale and make a suggestion.
Taxpayer unions that came in through the legislative process must be reversed. These so-called unions, are not unions as citizens and workers historically knew them to be. As I've written previously, and provided testimony to the legislature for a number of years such folks as Andy Stern, the past head honcho of the SEIU (Service Employees International Union), in his early career was a government employee. Andy Stern saw what a cash cow state governments were and got busy lobbying for taxpayer money.
These so-called unions (including the Washington state employees union, AFSCME, of which I had been a member) are merely folks involved in shenanigans, doublespeak, doubletalk, fear-mongering and behind the scenes threats to those who might oppose them to ensure their goal of getting an uninterrupted flow of taxpayers' money.
Now...this last year coming into this year I got to experience the SEIU "organizing of workers" first hand in Oregon. It fully supports my testimony to the legislature these last four years.
I had an individual client in Oregon. I heard SEIU was "organizing" and my name and contact information had to be turned over to them. Well, I thought I'll be experiencing the SEIU "organizing" drill. I waited. I waited. I waited. I waited. At Christmas time I got a postcard. It was blue with white snowflakes. After scrutinizing it I realized it was from the SEIU. There was no message about SEIU organizing or that they were a union or that they cared about me.
Well, I thought, I'll just wait some more. I waited. I waited. I waited. I waited.
Mid-May 2011 I get a letter from the Employment Relations Board that they were mailing me a SECRET BALLOT. I am told if I make any other marks on my ballot (say, that I am not afraid for them to know how I voted and signed my name) my ballot won't count, "because that would destroy the secrecy of your ballot and may void it." My name and address are on the back of my "secret" ballot envelope with my signature. This is NOT how it's done in a real election.
Plus the only folks allowed at the ballot counting are SEIU and "authorized representatives of the employer." Again this is not done in a real election.
The letter says, "...you should consider yourself as having the same rights and responsibilities as a voter in a voting booth." Were they being nostalgic or ironic?
Thus SEIU NEVER contacted me to ask me how I felt about joining their union or even if I wanted to be in a union. SEIU did not call me or send me a letter telling me how much they cared about me or my client. They DID NOT.
Recently, I was invited and appeared for the Governor's signing of the Colby Thompson Act on May 10 2011, named in honor of then 9 month old Colby who at an unlicensed home received permanent brain damage. There were some SEIU members in the Governor's conference room for the signing and picture taking. I heard family members asking each other who those people were at Colby's bill signing.
I went to SEIU 925 website to see what they had to say about now 19 month old Colby and how much they honored and cared about this little guy; and how they supported Colby's mom and dad in getting this bill passed.
NOT A WORD ABOUT COLBY.
SEIU was first most excited about the non-expiring license bill (full paragraph) then excited about the portable criminal history check that they could use and lastly mentioned about upping the fine on unlicensed homes and centers.
Nothing about the new criminal history check which requires all applicants to be fingerprinted (thus an increased safety to children) and nothing about 9 month old Colby and his injuries from being in an unlicensed home; and his parents spearheading the drive to address unlicensed care.
The more unlicensed homes get licensed the more opportunity SEIU will have to get that flow of uninterrupted taxpayer money.
My suggestion to the public is to contact all the representatives and all the senators to ask them to work on reversing these so-called unions. They are not unions. Your senators and representatives want to hear from you.
Taxpayer unions that came in through the legislative process must be reversed. These so-called unions, are not unions as citizens and workers historically knew them to be. As I've written previously, and provided testimony to the legislature for a number of years such folks as Andy Stern, the past head honcho of the SEIU (Service Employees International Union), in his early career was a government employee. Andy Stern saw what a cash cow state governments were and got busy lobbying for taxpayer money.
These so-called unions (including the Washington state employees union, AFSCME, of which I had been a member) are merely folks involved in shenanigans, doublespeak, doubletalk, fear-mongering and behind the scenes threats to those who might oppose them to ensure their goal of getting an uninterrupted flow of taxpayers' money.
Now...this last year coming into this year I got to experience the SEIU "organizing of workers" first hand in Oregon. It fully supports my testimony to the legislature these last four years.
I had an individual client in Oregon. I heard SEIU was "organizing" and my name and contact information had to be turned over to them. Well, I thought I'll be experiencing the SEIU "organizing" drill. I waited. I waited. I waited. I waited. At Christmas time I got a postcard. It was blue with white snowflakes. After scrutinizing it I realized it was from the SEIU. There was no message about SEIU organizing or that they were a union or that they cared about me.
Well, I thought, I'll just wait some more. I waited. I waited. I waited. I waited.
Mid-May 2011 I get a letter from the Employment Relations Board that they were mailing me a SECRET BALLOT. I am told if I make any other marks on my ballot (say, that I am not afraid for them to know how I voted and signed my name) my ballot won't count, "because that would destroy the secrecy of your ballot and may void it." My name and address are on the back of my "secret" ballot envelope with my signature. This is NOT how it's done in a real election.
Plus the only folks allowed at the ballot counting are SEIU and "authorized representatives of the employer." Again this is not done in a real election.
The letter says, "...you should consider yourself as having the same rights and responsibilities as a voter in a voting booth." Were they being nostalgic or ironic?
Thus SEIU NEVER contacted me to ask me how I felt about joining their union or even if I wanted to be in a union. SEIU did not call me or send me a letter telling me how much they cared about me or my client. They DID NOT.
Recently, I was invited and appeared for the Governor's signing of the Colby Thompson Act on May 10 2011, named in honor of then 9 month old Colby who at an unlicensed home received permanent brain damage. There were some SEIU members in the Governor's conference room for the signing and picture taking. I heard family members asking each other who those people were at Colby's bill signing.
I went to SEIU 925 website to see what they had to say about now 19 month old Colby and how much they honored and cared about this little guy; and how they supported Colby's mom and dad in getting this bill passed.
NOT A WORD ABOUT COLBY.
SEIU was first most excited about the non-expiring license bill (full paragraph) then excited about the portable criminal history check that they could use and lastly mentioned about upping the fine on unlicensed homes and centers.
Nothing about the new criminal history check which requires all applicants to be fingerprinted (thus an increased safety to children) and nothing about 9 month old Colby and his injuries from being in an unlicensed home; and his parents spearheading the drive to address unlicensed care.
The more unlicensed homes get licensed the more opportunity SEIU will have to get that flow of uninterrupted taxpayer money.
My suggestion to the public is to contact all the representatives and all the senators to ask them to work on reversing these so-called unions. They are not unions. Your senators and representatives want to hear from you.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Words...SEIU...the Making of History in Washington State
Editorial
Words taken from Service International Employees Union (SEIU 925) Washington State Senate Bill 5572 cannot be confirmed by any research, study or evidence yet the bill was passed out of their respective hearing committees and Ways and Means this week; meaning it can at any moment come to a floor vote in either house.
Why is the bill even viable given the $8 billion dollar deficit? Why did it even come out of the committees?
Language and testimony from experts in child care licensing, the non-profit Washington Parents for Safe Child Care, the YMCAs and other child day care center owners show the following words in the bill are false:
”Senate Bill 5572: AN ACT Relating to improving quality, access, and stability of
child care....."
Family child care providers in the state have recently been given a similar opportunity, and the results of their efforts have improved standards and quality for that segment of the child care industry.....
The legislature intends to address these problems by creating the possibility for a new relationship between child care center directors and workers and the state....”
The bill passed in 2006 for the family child care provider has resulted in family home child care providers not taking subsidy children to not be under SEIU. This current bill of $1.4 million dollars is merely for setting up another bureaucracy in the government. These bills make the government SEIU’s banker.
An email shared with the legislature from 2005 shows the research manager for the Washington State’s child care licensing agency writing about subsidy children and family providers: "we looked at the relationship between licensing complaints and percent of capacity filled by DSHS children........but the attached graphs were pretty striking. They show a relationship between complaints and percent of capacity filled by DSHS subsidized children for both families and centers." "Data in Washington show a correlation between facilities that have greater percentages of children receiving subsidies and the incidence of reported and confirmed licensing complaints."
Thus subsidy children are forced and will further be forced into a smaller pool of available providers if the bill passes. Children coming from difficult situations are crowded together in the fewer and fewer family homes willing to take them. This ups the risk factors.
In terms of “creating the possibility for a new relationship” the Department of Early Learning has not, is not and cannot identify which providers are in SEIU to fulfill the contract agreement to provide training to that group. Thus there is no new relationship as a result of the 2006 bill passing.
The bill states”results of their efforts have improved standards and quality”. There is no data or research to support that claim. SEIU themselves claim to only have provided some classes for 700 out of the 10,000 membership they claim.
If YMCAs, Knowledge Learning and other centers can opt out, why can’t the current centers, also, opposed to SEIU opt out?
Why has the bill passed out of committees waiting for someone to pull it to the floor for a vote? It may be as simple as money was extracted from the taxpayer to SEIU; and then some given back to the legislature to buy votes and influence. We wait to see who will not be bought.
About the author:
Margo Logan, formerly worked for state government for over 20 years, including thirteen years in child care licensing, an expert in her field she now has her own consulting firm, website and blog.
Words taken from Service International Employees Union (SEIU 925) Washington State Senate Bill 5572 cannot be confirmed by any research, study or evidence yet the bill was passed out of their respective hearing committees and Ways and Means this week; meaning it can at any moment come to a floor vote in either house.
Why is the bill even viable given the $8 billion dollar deficit? Why did it even come out of the committees?
Language and testimony from experts in child care licensing, the non-profit Washington Parents for Safe Child Care, the YMCAs and other child day care center owners show the following words in the bill are false:
”Senate Bill 5572: AN ACT Relating to improving quality, access, and stability of
child care....."
Family child care providers in the state have recently been given a similar opportunity, and the results of their efforts have improved standards and quality for that segment of the child care industry.....
The legislature intends to address these problems by creating the possibility for a new relationship between child care center directors and workers and the state....”
The bill passed in 2006 for the family child care provider has resulted in family home child care providers not taking subsidy children to not be under SEIU. This current bill of $1.4 million dollars is merely for setting up another bureaucracy in the government. These bills make the government SEIU’s banker.
An email shared with the legislature from 2005 shows the research manager for the Washington State’s child care licensing agency writing about subsidy children and family providers: "we looked at the relationship between licensing complaints and percent of capacity filled by DSHS children........but the attached graphs were pretty striking. They show a relationship between complaints and percent of capacity filled by DSHS subsidized children for both families and centers." "Data in Washington show a correlation between facilities that have greater percentages of children receiving subsidies and the incidence of reported and confirmed licensing complaints."
Thus subsidy children are forced and will further be forced into a smaller pool of available providers if the bill passes. Children coming from difficult situations are crowded together in the fewer and fewer family homes willing to take them. This ups the risk factors.
In terms of “creating the possibility for a new relationship” the Department of Early Learning has not, is not and cannot identify which providers are in SEIU to fulfill the contract agreement to provide training to that group. Thus there is no new relationship as a result of the 2006 bill passing.
The bill states”results of their efforts have improved standards and quality”. There is no data or research to support that claim. SEIU themselves claim to only have provided some classes for 700 out of the 10,000 membership they claim.
If YMCAs, Knowledge Learning and other centers can opt out, why can’t the current centers, also, opposed to SEIU opt out?
Why has the bill passed out of committees waiting for someone to pull it to the floor for a vote? It may be as simple as money was extracted from the taxpayer to SEIU; and then some given back to the legislature to buy votes and influence. We wait to see who will not be bought.
About the author:
Margo Logan, formerly worked for state government for over 20 years, including thirteen years in child care licensing, an expert in her field she now has her own consulting firm, website and blog.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)