Did Herrera Even Read HB 1329?

by lewwaters

For the second week in a row, conservative pro-family Family Policy Institute of Washington has brought up what has every appearance to be anti-family wording buried deep within HB 1329, a bill “Providing collective bargaining for child care center directors and workers.”

Surprisingly enough, Republican candidate for Washington States Third Congressional District and Representative for Washington States 18th Legislative District, Jaime Herrera not only voted for this pro-union bill, but is listed as a co-sponsor of it.

FPIW told us on Monday, February 8, 2010 in a post, WA Legislature Threatens Women’s Choice that childcare centers turned down the SEIU’s offer of Union Representation in 2007, “After learning that the union would not disclose how much membership was going to cost or specify the benefits that the centers would receive.”

After being turned down, FPIW informs us that Union Officials approached “their friends in the legislature… and asked the legislature to force daycare centers to reap the blessings of union membership.”

Having had more time to read the bill and digest what is contained in it, FPIW tells us today, February 15, 2010 Bill Encourages Churches to Indoctrinate Young Children? Reading over what they discovered makes me further question Jaime Herrera’s support of this bill, as I continue to wait for the email explanation she previously promised to send me during the phone call she placed to me last week.

FPIW informs us now, “On page 4 of the bill, it says that any agreement between workers and the unions must be ‘consistent with the provisions of any quality rating and improvement system’.” The exact wording of that section says,

“The public employer is: (A) Required to bargain over the manner and rate of subsidy and reimbursement, so long as any agreement is consistent with the provisions of any quality rating and improvement system.”

Pointing out the wording seems to “appear to be nothing more than a way to track the effectiveness of education” at first glance, FPIW further tells us that such a “quality rating and improvement system” already exists and has been “carefully defined by the Department of Early Learning” in a 216 page publication, “Washington State Early Learning and Development Benchmarks,” A Guide To Young Children’s Learning and Development: From Birth To Kindergarten.

FPIW then lists some of these “benchmarks” that would most likely cause many conservative families to raise an eyebrow or two in disagreement. Page 63 is one they list that should disturb many parents where it says “caregivers are encouraged to ‘read stories with child and elicit responses to characters, including stories from diverse cultures and family structures (e.g., single parent, same sex parents)’.”

A backdoor method to place Churches in the uncomfortable position of teaching same sex marriage is just another an “alternate lifestyle?”

This is one reason I question if Jaime Herrera even read the bill or what it might lead to. She voted against Domestic Partnerships, but votes for and co-sponsors a bill that very likely could lead to small children being indoctrinated in just that?

Not mentioned by FPIW, but one I find disturbing is found on page 55 of the publication where it states, “Find out how child’s other caregivers negotiate and resolve disputes.”

Interrogation? Is it possible these “other caregivers” might also include “parents?”

Of course, the bill would only force childcare centers that “accept children whose care is subsidized by the state” to accept unions, but in these economic perilous times, might that include many low income and single parents families struggling to get by who have had to turn to the state for assistance in caring for their children so they may work?

I think in such times as we are currently in, there is at least the potential for more and more low income and single parents families having to resort to state assistance in greatly increased.

As mentioned by FPIW, should churches around the state that now provide childcare to decide to decline accepting “state subsidies” for children they care for currently, to avoid state supervision of the curriculum, might that not also increase the cost low income and single parent families might have to pay?

Jaime said to me in our telephone conversation last Tuesday words to the effect of she was trying to “fix how we pay for childcare,” “do what is right for people” and that it was a “moral issue” to her in co-sponsoring and voting for HB 1329.

Seeing what FPIW found in their research and what I discovered on my own within the 216 page “A Guide To Young Children’s Learning and Development” publication, I have to question if she either read or understood the Bill.

If she did, then she obviously has yet to discover “the law of unintended consequences.”

How someone who calls them self a ‘conservative Republican’ could co-sponsor or vote for such a monstrosity as this is beyond me.

UPDATE: It has come to my attention that Fox News’ John Stossel covered this subject and the detrimental effect it had upon “private day-care” centers in Michigan where they underwent FORCED UNIONIZATION.

A Wall Street Journal article from December 2009 brings up the point that such forced unionization just may violate the U.S. Constitution. The article reads,

“The freedom of association clause prevents compulsory unionism except, courts have determined, when it is necessary for “labor peace.” But in this case, whom would the day-care providers riot against? The parents?”

The suit filed in Michigan is currently on appeal as it was dismissed “with no reason given or legal opinion expressed.”

Ms. Herrera, is it “moral” to force people against their will into Unions? Is this what you consider “doing what is right for the people?” Or, doing what the Union Bosses desire?

I still await your email explanation.

12 Responses to “Did Herrera Even Read HB 1329?”

  1. WOW! I found your opinion of the bill 1329 to very distorted at best. If you read the bill there is an “opt in” clause that states it is the center’s CHOICE to be in the Union. As far as teaching children about “alternative lifestyles”…. Your reaching on that one. Being unionized would have nothing to do with the curriculm taught. The state already oversees that in all child cares, religious based or not. All centers in the state of Washington have to be licenced. In that licencing process the curriculm is discussed and a Quality Rating System is already being developed. As far as church based programs are concerned they would have more freedom of choice in what they teach or do not teach if they choose to be unionized. As far as Child Care centers taking less state subsidised children is concern, more centers would take MORE subsidized children based on the fact that the main reason a center limits the number of slots avalible for subsidies is due to the underpayment of these children by the state. I have been a teacher in a church based child care for over 15 years and am also very active with the American Federation of Teachers efforts to help child cares form a Union. The fear tactics surrounding this bill are unfounded and overly exaggerated.

    Like

  2. Funny, Michigan childcare centers do not seem to share your views, Dawn.

    Perhaps you should actually click on the links I provided and see what others have undergone.

    I guess it also escapes you that the state would withhold a portion of what they now pay to childcare providers and instead send it to unions for “dues.”

    Naturally, this would mean less money to childcare with the union now empowered to “collectively bargain” for more taxes paid to childcare to make up the difference, which would probably also increase the dollar amount of dues they collect and have available to fund Democrats.

    In the end, it is the children who will pay as less money would actually go to them, unless childcare providers upped what they charge parents, many of who are already struggling to make ends meet.

    Maybe we needs fewer nannies state and allow neighbors to help each other out more like they used to, before everything needed “fixed” by the socialist state.

    Oh, and before you tell me how bad it was then, know that I was a licensed daycare provider in the early days of state run interference and was observed by the state.

    We didn’t call ourselves “teachers” then.

    Your union membership explains all too well your view.

    Off topic, but I also recall when I was in the Machinists Union how Coors Beer was banned in our state. It was “un-pasteurized” and considered very bad and unhealthy, facing strong union opposition. That is, until Coors agreed to go union.

    I also see how much good the unions have done for Detroit, Schools and the Auto Industry.

    But let me ask, since you advocate unionizing daycare “teachers,” what about the children? When did unions give a damn about the children?

    After all, isn’t that what you unions cry all the time, especially in the frequent levies you back to “provide for the children?”

    Funny though, the kids always seem to end up with less and taxpayers get stuck with higher taxes, yours included and the next election, we hear of yet another levy needed to “care for the children.”

    The “fear tactics” coming out of pro-union people in order to advance socialism, crying how only unions can properly provide is uncanny, but not unprecedented.

    I do believe the Bolshelviks used it too.

    Like

  3. This bill is very concerning – it amounts to a takeover of all child care centers, including religious ones. You may want to read the editorial at http://www.religiousliberty.tv/washington-house-of-representatives-attempts-to-facilitate-union-take-over-of-religious-child-care-centers.html

    Like

Trackbacks

%d bloggers like this: