Massachusetts Family Care Worker Unionization Initiative, Question 3 (2006)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Voting on Labor and Unions
Labor and unions.jpg
Ballot Measures
By state
By year
Not on ballot
The Family Care Worker Unionization Initiative, also known as Massachusetts Question 3, Family Child Care Providers was on the November 7, 2006 ballot in Massachusetts as an indirect initiated state statute. It was defeated.

The initiative would have allowed 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.

Election results

Question 3 (Family Care Worker Unionization)
Defeatedd No1,042,25346.4%
Yes 951,517 42.4%

Official results via: The Massachusetts Secretary of the Commonwealth Elections Division

Text of measure


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.[1][2]



The initiative was supported by the group Campaign for our Children's Future. The group argued that the new law would allow Massachusetts child care providers to work with the Commonwealth to make improvements to their services, including raising safety standards, raising level of care through additional training for care providers, and reducing turnover to stabilize the child care profession and ensure consistent, quality care. The group also stated that the new law would not raise taxes or costs.[3]


$1,866,538 was donated to the campaign in favor of a "yes" vote on Question 3.

Donors of $50,000 and over were:

Donor Amount
SEIU $1,815,897


The initiative was opposed by the Associate Commissioner for Coordination and Outreach of the Massachusetts Department of Early Education and Care, who argued that the new law would subject child care standards to "union concerns rather than parent concerns."[4]

No campaign donations or expenditures were reported.[5]

See also

External links

Suggest a link


  1. Elections: Initiative Petition H Initiative Summary
  2. Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributed to the original source.
  3. Elections: 2006 State Ballot Questions Secretary of the Commonwealth Site
  4. Elections: 2006 State Ballot Questions Secretary of the Commonwealth Site
  5. Follow the Money's report on the 2006 Massachusetts ballot measures