<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xml:base="http://www.nrtw.org" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<channel>
 <title>Child Care</title>
 <link>http://www.nrtw.org/en/free-tagging/child-care</link>
 <description>The taxonomy view with a depth of 0.</description>
 <language>en</language>
<item>
 <title>California Seeks to One-Up Washington State by Forcibly Unionizing Grandmas</title>
 <link>http://www.nrtw.org/en/blog/california-seeks-one-washington-state-unionizing-grandma</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;
Following up on &lt;a href=&quot;/blog/forced-union-dues-foster-parents&quot;&gt;forced dues for foster parents&lt;/a&gt; in Washington State, another &lt;a href=&quot;http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/353039_weibtraubonline29.html&quot;&gt;op-ed&lt;/a&gt; in the Seattle P-I this week says that the California Legislature wants to &amp;quot;unionize Grandma.&amp;quot;  The article states:
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;blockquote&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
	A bill pending in the Senate would create a union to organize family&lt;br /&gt;
	members who provide child care for their kin and are paid by the state&lt;br /&gt;
	so that mothers can work outside the home.
	&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
Furthermore:
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;blockquote&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
	Child-care providers who did not want to join the union would still&lt;br /&gt;
	have to pay fees -- likely in the same amount as the union dues.
	&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
 Most disturbingly, this extension of compulsory unionism is part of a broader trend:
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;blockquote&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
	The move in California is part of a nationwide strategy by SEIU and the&lt;br /&gt;
	American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. Since&lt;br /&gt;
	2005, governors in eight states have issued executive orders or taken&lt;br /&gt;
	other action giving family child-care providers the right to unionize&lt;br /&gt;
	and bargain as a group.
	&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
And in all of those states without a &lt;a href=&quot;/rtws.htm&quot;&gt;Right to Work law&lt;/a&gt;, those care providers must pay union dues.   What a tell tale sign that this is all about the money that union officials must stoop to compelling payment of union dues from people taking care of their own families. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nrtw.org/en/blog/california-seeks-one-washington-state-unionizing-grandma&quot;&gt;read more&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
 <comments>http://www.nrtw.org/en/blog/california-seeks-one-washington-state-unionizing-grandma#comments</comments>
 <category domain="http://www.nrtw.org/en/free-tagging/california">California</category>
 <category domain="http://www.nrtw.org/en/free-tagging/child-care">Child Care</category>
 <category domain="http://www.nrtw.org/en/free-tagging/forced-dues">Forced Dues</category>
 <category domain="http://www.nrtw.org/en/free-tagging/forced-unionism-states">Forced Unionism States</category>
 <category domain="http://www.nrtw.org/en/free-tagging/foster-parents">Foster Parents</category>
 <category domain="http://www.nrtw.org/en/free-tagging/washington-state">Washington State</category>
 <pubDate>Fri, 29 Feb 2008 09:48:33 -0500</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Justin Hakes</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">3005 at http://www.nrtw.org</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>MD Child Care Providers Wary of Compulsory Unionism</title>
 <link>http://www.nrtw.org/en/blog/md-child-care-providers-wary-compulsory-unionism</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;With the specter of forced union dues &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.times-news.com/local/local_story_281092110.html&quot;&gt;looming&lt;/a&gt; over child care providers in Maryland, some providers worry it could hurt those at the very bottom.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt; 	&lt;span&gt;&amp;quot;My understanding of the union is that they would automatically 	take out of our Purchase of Care vouchers as union dues,&amp;quot; Sarecia 	Powers, child care provider in the Cresaptown area, said. &amp;quot;Having to 	pay what might be an astronomical amount of dues might make providers consider signing on families based upon being paid privately, where the provider gets everything they are being paid. You could have providers turning down Purchase of Care families, and they are the families that need it most. If they can&#039;t find care, it will have a domino effect.&amp;quot;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;br /&gt; 	&lt;span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
&lt;p&gt; While Maryland Governor Martin O&#039;Malley proclaimed Friday that &amp;quot;no one should be forced to join a union,&amp;quot; his is one of 28 states without a &lt;a href=&quot;/rtws.htm&quot;&gt;Right to Work law&lt;/a&gt; where employees can be fired if they refuse to pay union dues.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nrtw.org/en/blog/md-child-care-providers-wary-compulsory-unionism&quot;&gt;read more&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
 <comments>http://www.nrtw.org/en/blog/md-child-care-providers-wary-compulsory-unionism#comments</comments>
 <category domain="http://www.nrtw.org/en/free-tagging/child-care">Child Care</category>
 <category domain="http://www.nrtw.org/en/free-tagging/forced-dues">Forced Dues</category>
 <category domain="http://www.nrtw.org/en/free-tagging/forced-unionism-states">Forced Unionism States</category>
 <category domain="http://www.nrtw.org/en/free-tagging/maryland">Maryland</category>
 <pubDate>Tue, 09 Oct 2007 10:33:59 -0400</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Justin Hakes</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">83 at http://www.nrtw.org</guid>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>
