Counterpoint
Minnesota's in-home child-care providers, wrongly labeled "babysitters," have long been denied basic labor protections, including the right to form a union and be paid at least a minimum wage.
It's shocking that the Star Tribune supports a continuation of that injustice against the women who help raise Minnesota's poorest children ("An alarming pitch for day care unions," Sept. 24).
The Star Tribune's venomous opposition to a child-care union seems inconsistent with past editorials that oppose "right to work" laws and support raising the minimum wage and closing the achievement gap. Readers deserve answers.
If "right to work" is wrong for Minnesota, why is it right for child-care providers? If low-wage workers deserve a raise, why is it OK for child-care providers to live in poverty? If early education is money well-spent, why not invest in the providers who prepare disadvantaged children to succeed in school and life?
The newspaper wisely editorialized summer that Minnesota needs a higher minimum wage. A majority of Minnesotans agree, and so does our union, Child Care Providers Together/AFSCME. We also agree that increasing family income will improve child outcomes.
Minimum-wage earners are people we depend on every day. Yet thousands of the women who care for poor children aren't paid enough to care for their own families.
According to the Minnesota Department of Human Services, home-based child-care providers who are subsidized by the state earn less than minimum wage. They deserve the opportunity to negotiate a raise.