President's Perspective
A marriage of missions
May 24, 2007 1:27 PM
Whatever else I accomplish in my life, I think I will never be more proud than the day that Gov. Spitzer announced his executive order to give 60,000 home child-care providers in New York State the right to unionize. As I listened to him, I kept thinking that this is the fruit of the labor union movement — the opportunity it provides working people, both individually and collectively, to secure economic stability and personal growth. After all, wasn’t it the labor movement that created the middle class in America?
So now, just as we did for teachers, paras and others, we have set our sights on winning a living wage and professional dignity for these dedicated caregivers, most of whom are women of color living barely above the poverty level. First, however, there must be an official representation election to see if a majority of the providers want the UFT to represent them.
Surely, this was a match made in heaven. It is so in keeping with our dual mission — to improve the lives of children by helping those who serve them — that ACORN, a community organizing group that had been helping home-care workers nationwide, turned to us when they realized that what the providers needed was the clout of a strong union! And we were a union that had not only an understanding of the role and responsibilities of these early-childhood educators, but also the ability to move the agenda in Albany on their behalf.
To me, bringing these proud, hard-working providers into the union ranks was a win-win for everybody: the workers, the children, the children’s families, the UFT, the school system and the city as a whole. So I don’t understand how some policy-makers and pundits could object.
Don’t we all want to eradicate poverty in our city?
All the data show that being in a union is the surest way out of poverty for the working poor. And providing quality subsidized child care also enables many more parents to enter the job market and become self-supporting.
Don’t we want our children to get the best early start on learning?
Providing their earliest caregivers with quality training and adequate resources to do their jobs is a big step in that direction. Children will start school better prepared, and (as the research bears out) the better prepared our youngest students are, the more likely they will achieve in the years to come.
So how come the mayor complained that if the providers get higher reimbursements, there will be fewer day care slots? That is akin to the argument of some in Washington to justify their vote against raising the minimum wage. They say they vote that way out of “concern for workers” because higher wages mean fewer jobs. Huh? Such thinking leads to terrible social policy and even worse economic policy. An economy built on the exploitation of workers is both unjust and unsound.
But such academic debates were far from the minds of the more than 12,000 child-care providers who signed cards authorizing the UFT to represent them. More important to them are the delayed payments from the city, some for thousands of dollars, and their inability to secure pay rates that reflect their long hours and the cost of food and supplies for the children in their care.
Before the executive order, these providers were considered “independent contractors” who therefore had no right to join a union or bargain collectively with the city or state. They are paid with vouchers from eligible families, which they then submit to the city for reimbursement. For most of the providers (who are license-exempt and care for one to three children), the state-set pay rate is $88 to $95 a week per child, depending on age. Providers work an average 10-hour day, with no vacation or sick days and no health benefits or pensions.
What the providers cared about most, they said, was their voicelessness, their inability to pierce an unresponsive bureaucracy to obtain such simple justice as on-time payments or explanations of basic procedures and requirements.
UFT Vice President Michelle Bodden and I, accompanied by Central Labor Council Executive Director Ed Ott and Assembly member Adriano Espaillat, were among hundreds of volunteers who knocked on doors this fall and winter seeking those signed authorization cards. Our plan was to seek support from one-third of the 28,000 providers in New York City, to continue the pressure to give these workers bargaining rights, and ultimately to force a representation election. (Those in the rest of the state are being organized by CSEA.)
The women who answered the doors — many of them with children tugging at their skirt hems as they talked — told us mind-boggling stories of their frustration and helplessness as they tried to negotiate the bureaucratic maze. For example, many routinely receive notices that they are in violation because their homes lack “two remote means of egress” directly to the street. Try explaining to a recording that it is impossible to meet that requirement in a city apartment, especially if your English is halting. (I must thank City Councilman Bill de Blasio for holding hearings on these issues and raking city agencies over the coals for their unresponsiveness.)
During the two years that it took to win them the right to unionize, these providers displayed incredible grit and determination. Because the women work at home isolated from one another, organizing them is a huge challenge. But the leaders who sprung out of their ranks have been indefatigable. They have led informational meetings teaching their sisters (and a few brothers) how to access resources and meet licensing requirements. They have held rallies in every borough and met with city and state representatives to garner support.
And they cheered the leadership of Sens. Nick Spano and Carl Andrews, along with Assemblyman Espaillat, in spearheading the enabling legislation that passed in 2006 — only to cry when Gov. Pataki vetoed it. Unfortunately, time for the session ran out before the full override, although the Senate did so as one of its last acts in June 2006. But Gov. Spitzer, keeping a campaign promise, enacted an executive order which, in essence, accomplishes what the law would have provided.
The union, however, did not wait for “official” authorization. This is a labor of love and we swung into action practically from the moment we began to hear about the way the providers were being treated. We have already won more than $154,000 in back payments for them and an agreement from city agencies to respond to payment problems within two weeks. At our urging the City Council adopted a pilot Provider’s Choice program similar to that for teachers. The providers in the pilot program can buy anything from toys and educational materials to diapers and snacks for the children. Our Teacher Centers have offered workshops and courses, attended by hundreds, on child development, nutrition and safety. In fact, the providers’ long-term goal is to professionalize their work and develop the skills to help them better prepare their charges for school and the world beyond. That is a goal we share and are well-equipped to help them achieve.
However, the significance of our organizing these thousands of powerless, low-income workers goes beyond their ranks. Fewer and fewer Americans are members of labor unions. Clearly, that is not for want of need. American workers’ wages are falling behind even as their productivity surges. But being in a union can help — a lot. The average unionized service worker earns $8 per hour more than her non-union counterpart.
No wonder employers are becoming more aggressive about squelching organizing efforts. Hundreds of thousands of workers continue to be exploited, including in our very own city. I hope the story of these women who are fighting for their rights — and winning — inspires others to organize and demand the wages and the dignity they deserve.
