A new force emerges in state politics (continued)

JUST HOW THE day-care providers’ excursion into politics plays out remains to be seen. Their latest move to gain bargaining leverage with the state is one test.

In a major shift of tactics, the providers and District 1199 say they are dropping their bid to be treated as traditional state workers. Instead, they suggest they be considered "independent contractors" who are allowed to bargain collectively with the state.

This move would keep them from automatically gaining two big-ticket benefits enjoyed by regular state workers: medical and pension benefits, which are provided through state law. Those two benefits alone would have cost the state millions of dollars, and were among the concerns raised not only by Carcieri, but House and Senate leaders.

Union officials say they are crafting a bill that would exempt providers from anti-trust rules, which are designed to prevent competing businesses from cooperating in setting prices and market practices.

The union is promoting the new approach as a "compromise" with Carcieri and other critics. It proposes an end to the lawsuit filed by Carcieri last year to block the Labor Relations Board decision certifying the day-care providers as state employees.

One indication that the providers have the attention of top General Assembly leaders is that Majority Leader Gordon D. Fox is helping them to draft the bill.

House spokesman Larry Berman says Fox has been working on the bill for the past three months, and plans to either introduce it himself or have another representative do so. Fox’s involvement, of course, does not guarantee success. Powerful as they are, neither Murphy nor Fox can dictate what the House does with any legislation, to say nothing of what the Senate might do.

Moreover, Carcieri appears nearly as skeptical of the new approach as he was of the providers’ original state employee bid.

For openers, Jeff Neal, the governor’s spokesman, says Carcieri opposes dropping the lawsuit, because he wants a definitive ruling about the labor board’s authority to say whether such a large group should be added to the state workforce "If we don’t get a resolution, there is no reason to believe the state labor board won’t try to do the same thing again," Neal says.

Marc B. Gursky, a union lawyer, says continuing the case — which he believes the union still can win — won’t get the result the governor wants. This kind of case is fact-specific, he says, determined by its own particular circumstances. "If the court rules that providers are entitled to bargain collectively under state law," Gursky says, "it doesn’t mean any other group would or wouldn’t."

Neal adds that Carcieri is not inclined to bargain with the day-care providers for a variety of reasons. For example, such negotiations, he says, usually take place between an employer and employees — and now the providers themselves agree they aren’t state workers. Also, Neal says, a host of regulations and rules govern home day-care operations — such what kind of equipment and how much space they must have — to safeguard children. "The system exists to protect children," he says, "and the governor doesn’t believe the health and safety of the children should be subjected to negotiation."

In short, Neal says, "it is very unlikely he [Carcieri] will accept the idea that the state should bargain with them as if they were employees." Asked why Carcieri isn’t completely closing the door, the spokesman says that since the bill hasn’t been introduced, he can’t make a judgment on something he hasn’t seen. "The governor understands that the child care providers have an interest in bettering their financial situation," Neal adds. "But he does not believe it factors in how we regulate this industry."

This is not how the day-care providers, the union, and many of their supporters in nonprofit agencies and other community groups see the issue.

Providers have gained an entitlement to the state’s RIte Care medical insurance system for the poor, plus they now get regular pay boosts, under the theory that a healthy day-care industry promotes the ability of low-income parents to leave welfare and of workers to continue to hold jobs.

Improvements sought by McIntosh and other day-care providers include the extension of RIte Care health coverage to providers’ spouses of providers. And some, she says, would like paid vacations and sick leave.

But what the providers most want, McIntosh says, is a chance to discuss and negotiate the full range of issues that impact their work conditions. "We don’t need people sitting down, making rules, without talking to us," she says. "We want to sit at the table."

What seems to be shaping up is a continuation of the clash of wills and viewpoints that have characterized the day-care fight from the beginning.

But what could make the difference this year is not what happens at the State House, but what the day-care providers and their union accomplished in voting wards and neighborhoods in the 2004 election.

If General Assembly members, as well as the governor, view the providers as an effective political force, their concerns will be taken that much more seriously.

Brian C. Jones can be reached at brijudy@cox.net.