Under the bill approved last night, the state would be required to negotiate with home-based child-care provider.

01:19 AM EDT on Thursday, June 16, 2005

BY LIZ ANDERSON
Journal State House Bureau

PROVIDENCE -- House leaders succeeded in passing a bill last night that would force the state to negotiate with home-based child-care providers over the terms of their work and pay, although the vote fell short of the margin needed to insulate the measure from Governor Carcieri's promised veto.

The final vote on the bill, sponsored by Majority Leader Gordon D. Fox, D-Providence, was 41 to 27, with 2 abstentions and 5 members absent. Proponents could require as many as 44 votes for a veto override.

Lawmakers spent nearly three hours debating various amendments that made, or proposed to make, significant changes to the legislation. One that succeeded, from Rep. Paul W. Crowley, D-Newport, would no longer require the providers to vote to unionize in order to gain negotiating power with the state.

But Republicans protested fiercely that Democrats were "stifling debate" when House Whip Peter F. Kilmartin, D-Pawtucket, moved to limit discussion on the bill itself to just 10 minutes. That motion succeeded on a vote of 37 to 30.

"Go ahead, you puppets!" hollered Rep. Joseph A. Trillo, R-Warwick, at colleagues as the final vote to pass the bill was tallied.

Still, at least five loyalists broke ranks with House leadership on the issue, including Rep. Arthur J. Corvese, D-North Providence, Rep. Fausto C. Anguilla, D-Bristol, and Rep. Al Gemma, D-Warwick, who called the bill's ramifications "crazy."

The legislation would cover two groups of people who care for state-subsidized children: certified home child-care providers, who are regulated closely by the Department of Children, Youth and Families, and noncertified providers, generally a family friend or neighbor caring for children on a smaller scale and with far fewer requirements.

State records list about 1,300 people in each group, although lower numbers participate in the $81.3-million subsidized-care program from month to month. A provider who receives more than $1,800 in state subsidies in a six-month period also qualifies for state-paid health care for both herself and any dependent children.

A core group of largely urban child-care providers have been fighting for union recognition with the help of District 1199 of the Service Employees International Union. Last spring, the state Labor Relations Board declared that the providers were so closely regulated by the state that they qualified for recognition as state employees.

The Carcieri administration challenged the ruling in court, and the case is pending.

The governor has labeled the unionization drive a "blatant effort" by the Service Employees International Union to increase its ranks, charges echoed by House Republicans yesterday.

But others defended the providers as pioneers fighting to improve the system, and for their right to be heard. Rep. Edith H. Ajello, D-Providence, for one, likened the providers to suffragettes demanding the right to vote, and civil-rights activist Rosa Parks, who famously refused to give up her seat in the front of a segregated bus.

Proponents altered the bill in several significant ways before the final vote. One amendment, from Fox, removed language giving the providers a say over the outcome of any departmental rule-making process. Fox said the change would assuage concerns that the providers would have the right to bargain over health and safety issues.

Still, his amendment did not limit the scope of what could be covered in negotiations, and Carcieri spokesman Jeff Neal said later that "it is not clear to us that [lawmakers] have addressed [such concerns]."

Another change, from House Speaker Pro Tempore Charlene Lima, D-Cranston, changed the bill to explicitly state that the providers cannot bargain for a pension.

Republicans such as Rep. Nicholas Gorham, R-Coventry, said that presented a "false sense of security" because the courts could yet declare the women full-fledged state employees with a right to such benefits. Alternately, Gorham suggested, the providers could try to jack up their reimbursement rates to create a privately held pension system with the extra money.

Crowley said his own amendment, to remove the unionization requirement, was meant to avoid complaints that the bill was only about organized labor. But the original provisions required that a majority of providers vote to unionize in order to gain negotiating rights; under Crowley's amendment, any fraction of providers could become a bargaining force.

Rep. Susan Story, R-Barrington, tried unsuccessfully to change the bill's language to require the state to "discuss" matters with providers, rather than have to "negotiate" with them. She also failed to persuade colleagues to limit the bill's scope to certified providers only.

Democrats used other procedural moves to cut off debate -- and avoid voting -- on several other Republican issues, including motions from Rep. Laurence W. Ehrhardt, R-North Kingstown, to strengthen the bill's language declaring that child-care providers would not be recognized as state employees or given the right to strike.

Ehrhardt noted the bill says that nothing in the legislation "shall be construed" to give them such rights. He suggested the bill needed more "affirmative" statements, such as: "Family child-care providers are not employees of the state or any department or agency thereof."

Gorham agreed, calling the existing wording "weasel language."

But Crowley said the intent of the language was clear, and had the amendments tabled.

How much providers earn also was the source of some debate.

Fox contended that the average provider makes $1,130 a month, or $13,560 a year, in net income.

But Trillo countered with a list, distributed by the Carcieri administration, of subsidies given to 968 certified providers last year. The top earner, Rosemary Raygada, of Providence -- quoted in union literature as saying the fight is about "poor, minority women" -- received $99,164; 21 others made at least $70,000 each.

"I'm not sure what we're doing in terms of who we're protecting and who's really benefiting," Trillo said.

Fox, at first blush, said the high-end figures suggested there might be "some kind of fraud going on."

But House Finance Committee Chairman Steven M. Costantino, D-Providence, quickly rose to protest that the subsidy amounts were not what "the family daycare provider as a person receives," but money that must cover expenses and assistants as well.

Carcieri distributed a letter to lawmakers yesterday declaring that the proposal "will not only cost the taxpayers millions of dollars more in increased reimbursement, but it will [also] cost families who don't participate in the subsidized program millions as child-care rates increase."

A Senate vote on an equivalent measure was delayed until at least today.