01:00 AM EDT on Wednesday, June 8, 2005

BY LIZ ANDERSON
Journal State House Bureau

PROVIDENCE -- The House Labor Committee voted yesterday, with little debate, to approve a bill that would allow home-based child-care providers to unionize and require the state to negotiate with them over the terms of their work.

The proposal does not limit what could be negotiated. But it does declare that the providers, generally women, are not "employees of the state for any purpose" and also bars them from striking.

The 9-to-3 vote came after Jack Hogan, a lobbyist for the union backing the providers in their fight, was tapped to explain changes in the "Family Child Care Providers Business Opportunity Act" that dissenting committee members protested they had not had time to review.

It also came after a representative of child-care center directors said the revisions failed to satisfy their concerns.

Kim Maine, chair of the Child Care Directors Association, said home and center-based child care providers had generally worked together to address issues in the past; the bill, she said, "fractures the community."

But Joe Simoes, lead organizer for District 1199 of the Service Employees International Union, which is backing the women's fight, complained the directors had not stepped forward until now.

"Why should day care centers have the right to choose whether providers want to be represented by us?" he asked Maine in an impromptu debate that broke out after the vote.

Providers have said they need union standing to gain a strong voice in demanding changes in how the state oversees child care. Among the things they have said they could be interested in are a more regular and reliable payment system for state-subsidized children, more training opportunities, and the ability to include their spouses in state-supplied health insurance plans.

"The objective of providers is to have a fair system where they can work together with the state to make the system stronger for children in the state," Simoes said later, promising: "We'll come up with proposals that are reasonable and fair."

Governor Carcieri has vowed to veto the bills, insisting the women are independent contractors who should not be allowed to collectively bargain with the state. His chief of staff, earlier this spring, called the proposal an "unmitigated financial and legal disaster."

Among the changes made yesterday to the House bill, sponsored by House Majority Leader Gordon D. Fox, D-Providence, is language that appears to strengthen the providers' would-be powers in the state's rule-making process.

Under the original version, considered by the committee in late March, state departments would have to put any regulatory changes negotiated with the providers' union through a public hearing process before final approval.

But the revised language makes clear the child-care union would have to sign off not just on the original terms, but any alterations the department might wish to make as a result of public feedback.

The bill now would also require the state, on request, to collect union dues by deducting them from any payments owed a child-care operator.

Fox's bill now heads to the House floor; a matching proposal, from Senate Majority Leader M. Teresa Paiva Weed, D-Newport, should clear the Senate Labor Committee today, Senate spokesman Greg Pare said.

Backers of the Fox and Paiva Weed bills plan to rally today at 3 p.m. at the State House "in support of providers having a voice, respect and dignity."

Meanwhile, the state Ethics Commission ruled yesterday morning that Rep. Grace Diaz, D-Providence, who operates the Teddy Bears Under the Rainbow Home Daycare, can't vote on the issue without violating state ethics rules.

Several commissioners said it is clear that the bill would financially benefit Diaz by giving her and fellow providers the advantage of union representation.

"This is obviously intended to produce benefits -- that's the purpose," said commission member Ross Cheit, a Brown University professor who teaches a course in ethics and public policy.

Another member, James C. Segovis, agreed it amounts to "voting for the very thing that affects their livelihood."

While the advisory opinion was pending, Diaz was protected against prosecution under the ethics code on the issue she was asking for advice about. But commission attorney Jason M. Gramitt said that protection ended with the commission vote.

With reports from staff writer Bruce Landis.