Question 3 on the ballot would let child-care providers who operate from their homes and who provide state-subsidized child-care organize themselves and bargain collectively with the state over working conditions. The proposal would affect about 12,000 providers.
Many local day-care providers contacted for this story said they haven't heard of the ballot proposal. Others, like Julie Tachuk, a Salem family child-care provider, had many questions about the proposal.
"I am not sure of how I feel," Tachuk said. "I'm probably going to vote yes because we are kind of union-type people. I don't know how this will affect us because we don't have any subsidized children."
Marcia Irizarry, who provides care to two children with state subsidies at her home business on Salem Street, said she would support the initiative if it would help her to push for more state subsidies for the children who are in a waiting list for day care.
"It sounds like a good thing to me, if we can tell them what the community needs," Irizarry said.
Supporters of the question say it would provide a voice to all the licensed businesses that provide care for children with state subsidies and
* Improve safety and health standards to protect children.
* Provide more training for child-care providers to raise the quality of care.
* Reduce turnover and stabilize the child-care profession so children can get the consistent, quality care they need.
But the state Department of Early Education and Care has come out against the initiative, saying it would have a profound effect on all child-care providers.
The EEC is the state division in charge of licensing providers. It also administers day-care subsidies for the children of low-income families.
Agency officials say the ballot question, if approved, would jeopardize its ability to maintain a balance of access, affordability and quality.
The agency's concern is partially based on a provision in the proposal that would allow day-care providers to organize if 30 percent of those who receive state subsidies authorize a union or organization to be their representative. The union would then become the exclusive representative of all day-care providers in the state.
A union could push state subsidy rates above what private parents pay. The union would also be able to bargain on other issues including safety decisions, "making that decision more a matter of what is good for the provider's business rather than what's safe for children," EEC Commissioner Ann Reale said.
Reale questioned why family child-care providers, as private business owners, would need to organize.
"Why would they need to negotiate with the state?" Reale said.
Deanne Bonnar, an associate professor at Boston University's School of Social Work, favors the proposal. She said day-care providers should have a voice on state child-care policy.
Bonnar said that other private business owners are organized. "They have the Small Business Association, and independent day-care providers are not well-represented."
Bonnar also said that safety decisions and regulations shouldn't be an issue.
"People who provide care want the children's safety, and their own safety," she said.
"Right now many, child-care providers are isolated in their work," Bonnar said. "It's a great deal of work and it is undervalued."
A recent Suffolk University poll found 36 percent of likely voters opposed to the proposal, while 34 percent were in favor. A poll taken in August had 46 percent in favor and 32 percent against.
