Your monthly support provides voters the knowledge they need to make confident decisions at the polls. Donate today.
Massachusetts Question 3, Collective Bargaining for In-Home Child Care Providers Initiative (2006)
| Massachusetts Question 3 | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
| Election date |
|
| Topic Collective bargaining |
|
| Status |
|
| Type Indirect initiated state statute |
Origin |
Massachusetts Question 3 was on the ballot as an indirect initiated state statute in Massachusetts on November 7, 2006. It was defeated.
A “yes” vote supported allowing authorized in-home child care providers to collectively bargain with relevant state agencies. |
A “no” vote opposed allowing authorized in-home child care providers to collectively bargain with relevant state agencies. |
Election results
|
Massachusetts Question 3 |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
| Yes | 951,517 | 47.72% | ||
|
|
1,042,253 | 52.28% | ||
Text of measure
Ballot title
The ballot title for Question 3 was as follows:
| “ | Do 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? | ” |
Ballot summary
The ballot summary for this measure was:
| “ | 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. | ” |
Full Text
The full text of this measure is available here.
Path to the ballot
An indirect initiated state statute is a citizen-initiated ballot measure that amends state statute. There are nine (9) states that allow citizens to initiate indirect state statutes.
While a direct initiative is placed on the ballot once supporters file the required number of valid signatures, an indirect initiative is first presented to the state legislature. Legislators have a certain number of days, depending on the state, to adopt the initiative into law. Should legislators take no action or reject the initiative, the initiative is put on the ballot for voters to decide.
In Massachusetts, the number of signatures required for an indirect initiated state statute is equal to 3% of the votes cast in the last gubernatorial election. Massachusetts also has a distribution requirement that requires no more than 25% of the certified signatures on any petition can come from a single county.
The state Legislature has until the first Wednesday of May in the election year to pass the statute. If the legislature does not pass the proposed statute, proponents must collect a second round of signatures equal to 0.5% of the votes cast in the last gubernatorial election. The Legislature also has the power to place an alternative measure alongside the proposed statute via a simple majority vote of the state legislature.
A simple majority vote is required for voter approval. However, the number of affirmative votes cast for the measure must be greater than 30% of the votes cast in the election.
See also
External links
Footnotes
 |
State of Massachusetts Boston (capital) |
|---|---|
| Elections |
What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2025 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures |
| Government |
Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy |
