Minnesota's child-care union debate hitting home

  • Article by: JIM RAGSDALE , Star Tribune
  • Updated: September 16, 2013 - 8:26 AM

Passions and activism run strong on both sides of what is a national issue.


Child care provider Laurie Cornelious held her 7-month-old grandson, Gavin, at a meeting on fighting efforts to unionize home child-care workers.

Photo: RENÉE JONES SCHNEIDER • reneejones@startribune.com,

CameraStar Tribune photo galleries

Cameraview larger


Far from the all-night drama of the State Capitol or the legal battling in the courtroom, the fight over unionizing in-home child-care providers has come into the communities and homes of those who must keep order in a houseful of preschoolers.

The debate, part of a national battle that has occurred in more than 15 states over the past decade, is turning caregivers by day into rabble-rousers by night. An election with no set date has both sides scrambling to ensure their supporters are qualified to vote, whenever it happens. The debate over whether the union model applies to small private businesses is less visible, but no less intense.

“It is a really hot-button issue,” said Rep. Pam Myhra, R-Burnsville, speaking at an anti-unionization event she hosted in Savage last week. “It affects something so personal — parenting and caring for children.”

“We do not have a voice at the table,” passionate union supporter Karla Scapanski told providers at a meeting in her Sauk Rapids living room last week. “Give us a chance to have the vote.”

A law passed after a 17-hour debate in the Minnesota Senate in May, and which survived its first legal challenge this summer, allows an election at any time within four years for both child-care workers and personal-care attendants. The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), which is trying to unionize child-care providers, can trigger the election by presenting signed cards of 30 percent of the group.

Neither AFSCME nor the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), whose work with personal-care attendants is far less controversial, have said when they will pull the election trigger. For now, door-knocking and living-room rallying have defined the battle.

Skunks vs. bears

Scapanski brought the child-care union movement into her own living room one evening last week, telling a group of providers that they face a government-regulation system that can act like an angry bear.

Comparing the 10 providers at a gathering of the Benton County Child Care Providers Together to skunks being threatened by the bear, she said: “Until we get a big stink out here going on, that bear is going to keep dumping on us.”

A regional leader of the child-care union movement who worked for the unionization law at the Capitol, Scapanski extolled the virtues of collective action to face government regulators on more equal footing.

This discussion focused on the details of regulations that providers sometimes see as micromanaging: The need to keep toddlers nearby even when taking another child to use the restroom, the proper way to clean a diaper-changing table, the need for regular recertifications on such topics as car-seat use, and food service rules specifying even such details as the number of grapes in a child’s serving.

Joan Wenning of Holdingford said the rules can defy common sense, yet providers have little chance of prevailing if they challenge an adverse ruling. Kelly Martini of Avon and others said they worry about being issued a “correction order” for a technical violation that could damage their reputation and require costly expenditures.

A seat at the table with state and county regulators, with a powerful union such as AFSCME behind them, was regarded as preferable to the independent, private-business model union opponents extol.

Scapanski vowed that she would “go out and knock on doors” in hopes of countering what she believes is a campaign of misinformation by union opponents. Her message is that the union is not an alien force seeking raw political power, as opponents contend, but the expression of the will of the women gathered in her living room.

“It’s us! We’re the union! It’s not an outside entity! We are it!” Scapanski said.

Getting registered

When their child-care duties are done for the day, Hollee Saville of St. Michael and Becky Swanson of Lakeville often take to the road to sound the warning about unionization, which they oppose as ardently as Scapanski supports it. They told a dozen or so providers in a scenic community center in Savage last week that providers must register to accept children from the state subsidy program, known as C-CAP, in order to have a vote.

  • get related content delivered to your inbox

  • manage my email subscriptions


Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters