« Go Back   « Go Back
Summary of Question 3
This proposed law would allow licensed and other authorized providers of child care in private homes under the state's subsidized child care system to bargain collectively with the relevant state agencies about all terms and conditions of the provision of child care services under the state's child care assistance program and its regulations. Under the proposed law, these family child care providers who provide state-subsidized child care would not be considered public employees, but if 30% of the providers gave written authorization for an employee organization to be their exclusive representative in collective bargaining, the state Labor Relations Commission would hold a secret mail ballot election on whether to certify that organization as the exclusive representative. Parts of the state's public employee labor relations law and regulations would apply to the election and collective bargaining processes. The proposed law would not authorize providers to engage in a strike or other refusal to deliver child care services. An exclusive representative, if certified, could then communicate with providers to develop and present a proposal to the state agencies concerning the terms and conditions of child care provider services. The proposed law would then require the parties to negotiate in good faith to try to reach a binding agreement. If the agreed-upon terms and conditions required changes in existing regulations, the state agencies could not finally agree to the terms until they completed the required procedures for changing regulations and any cost items agreed to by the parties had been approved by the state Legislature. If any actions taken under the proposed law required spending state funds, that spending would be subject to appropriation by the Legislature. Any complaint that one of the parties was refusing to negotiate in good faith could be filed with and ruled upon by the Labor Relations Commission. An exclusive representative could collect a fee from providers for the costs of representing them. An exclusive representative could be de-certified under Commission regulations and procedures if certain conditions were met. The Commission could not accept a decertification petition for at least 2 years after the first exclusive representative was certified, and any such petition would have to be supported by 50% or more of the total number of providers. The Commission would then hold a secret mail ballot election for the providers to vote on whether to decertify the exclusive representative. The proposed law states that activities carried out under it would be exempt from federal anti-trust laws. The proposed law states that if any of its parts were declared invalid, the other parts would stay in effect.

2006 - Franklin County - Question 3Do you approve of a law summarized below, on which no vote was taken by the Senate or the House of Representatives before May 3, 2006?

View as: # | %

Franklin County Results
« Return to Aggregate Results

 
City/Town Ward Pct Blanks Total Votes Cast
Totals
14,646
11,024
3,132 28,802
Ashfield
 
502
282
102
886
Bernardston
 
315
334
268
917
Buckland
 
398
292
133
823
Charlemont
 
261
196
41
498
Colrain
 
319
244
68
631
Conway
 
544
333
94
971
Deerfield
 
1,098
1,021
242
2,361
Erving
 
240
256
40
536
Gill
 
339
271
58
668
Greenfield More »
 
3,358
2,459
649
6,466
Hawley
 
65
52
16
133
Heath
 
198
102
38
338
Leverett
 
600
267
79
946
Leyden
 
195
128
29
352
Monroe
 
20
19
3
42
Montague More »
 
1,625
1,288
271
3,184
New Salem
 
226
207
42
475
Northfield
 
617
549
137
1,303
Orange More »
 
944
1,048
337
2,329
Rowe
 
92
79
21
192
Shelburne
 
431
338
148
917
Shutesbury
 
628
268
77
973
Sunderland
 
784
451
82
1,317
Warwick
 
159
126
39
324
Wendell
 
284
95
43
422
Whately
 
404
319
75
798
County Totals
14,646
11,024
3,132 28,802