New Search

If you are not happy with the results below please do another search

30 search results for: seiu

1

The SEIU May Get a Child Care Reward for Its Political Support

Here’s some legislation that would be a reward for the SEIU for all of its political donations during last year’s election.  Unsurprisingly, the bill summary is misleading:

This act would expand the tiered-rate structure for the childcare assistance program to meet the federal benchmark for access to high-quality childcare for all age groups of children, with higher rates paid to licensed child care centers that have achieved higher quality ratings in “BrightStars”, the state’s quality rating and improvement system. A requirement that childcare providers must raise tuition rates for all other public or private paying families in order to receive higher state rates is removed.

The law already provides for tiered payment rates.  All this bill would do is dramatically increase the amount that taxpayers are required to pay.

Taking the taxpayer’s point of view puts another light on the section removing a “requirement that childcare providers must raise tuition rates for all other public or private paying families in order to receive higher state rates.”  Right now, the law simply states that taxpayers won’t pay more than child care providers charge their unsubsidized customers.  This bill would allow providers to charge those families who pay for their own care less.

One consequence of this change in incentives is obvious: To the extent that the market rate for child care is less than the government’s rate, providers will have incentive to fill up available space with subsidized customers unless families can pay more.  If this creates a crisis, then (from the Big Government perspective) so much the better.  The politicians will be able to cash in on the promise of giving away “free” care to everybody.

2

Another Union Win in Rhode Island (SEIU Childcare Edition)

Yesterday, I noted that legislation in the budget currently under consideration in the Rhode Island House would not, in fact, provide more money to support all-day kindergarten.  Rather, it would give districts the portion of extra state aid that they would have received if their kindergarteners counted as full students in the funding formula even if they don’t have all-day kindergarten in the upcoming school year.

The original version of that legislation would have accelerated the funding formula phase-in to give switching districts the full state aid for all-day kindergarten.  If the General Assembly were to put that language back in, it would come at a cost of about $2.8 million.

Put that on the scale next to the fact that the General Assembly’s budget provides an extra $2.15 million for an increase in payments to state-subsidized childcare workers whom the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) successfully (and controversially) unionized after the General Assembly opened the door for it.  So, rather than helping to provide full-day classes for over 2,000 Rhode Island children, the General Assembly has chosen to give a boost to the cost of a service already being provided by 540 adults.

That’s not really the trade-off, though.

Because this would be the first contract that includes union dues, the actual providers (many low-income, themselves) won’t see all of that extra money.  We don’t know how much the SEIU’s dues will be, because as the Providence Journal article on the budget provision points out, the budget itself is the first indication anybody in the public has that a contract agreement has been reached, but we can put together some rough estimates.

In similar contracts across the country, dues tend to be flat fees of $25 to $35 per month or percentages ranging from 1.3% to 2%.  By the flat fee method, figuring 540 providers, the union dues would cost $162,000 to $226,800.  Going with percentages, the annual dues would be $719,550 to $1,107,000.

In other words, half or more increased cost of providing this service could be going directly to a labor union.

That, of course, depends on providers’ deciding to stay with the union.  Based on the U.S. Supreme Court’s Harris v. Quinn decision last year, it appears that childcare providers cannot be forced to join the union.  No doubt, the SEIU will tell providers that the big increase was entirely its doing, and cutting the union out of the loop would mean no future increases.  In that light, the portion of the $2.15 million that does not go to dues could be seen as some extra sweetener to make the union medicine go down.

3

Rhode Island Suffers a “D” Rating in Workplace Freedom for Gov’t Workers

Public employees in the Ocean State enjoy fewer freedoms than their counterparts in most other states The state of Rhode Island scored a disappointing “D” on the annual 50 State Labor Report produced by the Commonwealth Foundation, entitled “The Battle for Worker Freedom in the States: Grading State Labor Laws.” States that suffer from this […]

6

Ending Another Union Money Transfer

The characterization is perhaps too tidy, but many policy decisions in Rhode Island can be explained under the premise that politicians are striving to funnel money to labor unions in an effort of mutual assistance.  The RI Center for Freedom & Prosperity offers an example in its public comment in support of a proposed Trump administration rule removing the ability of states to send federally backed provider payments to third parties:

It is also morally unjust that federal dollars, earmarked for home care services, could have dues automatically siphoned-off by state government unions from workers’ paychecks, then transferred to the unions, with some of the funds ending-up in the political campaign coffers of SEIU. If the proposed rule is enacted, it would be just and proper that 100% of the allocated federal funding for home care services should first go to the workers; and it would then be up to the unions to collect dues – on their own – from those who freely choose to join.Earlier this summer, after a major push by SEIU and other progressive activists, legislation that had been on the back burner was rammed through Rhode Island’s General Assembly and signed by the Governor. This new law could transfer control of the home care services industry from the private sector to the government and its union allies. This proposed rule, by removing the government as its potential partner, would create less of an incentive for SEIU to attempt to unionize this industry.

At the same time, the burden on state taxpayers would rise, as the government would surely provide frivolous and unnecessary benefits to allow unions to offer a more compelling reason to unionize.

The new law in Rhode Island seeks to lure home care workers, most of whom are now employed under a successfully operating private ‘agency’ system, to register with the government, becoming quasi-public employees, with their names and other personal information then to be turned over to SEIU labor bosses for the purposes of unionization efforts.

Policymakers in Rhode Island strove to make this look like some sort of system innovation to provide better services, but it’s just an opening for labor unions to collect a cut of federal money.

7

Home Care: When Everybody Works for the Government and Government Works for the Unions

The RI Center for Freedom & Prosperity is warning that the Rhode Island government’s dogged push to unionize home care workers despite recent Supreme Court precedent in the opposite direction could very well make the state a target for lawsuits:

The Rhode Island Center for Freedom & Prosperity warns SEIU and the state government that it could face legal peril if they do not fully comply with the new federal restrictions expected to be in place this fall, as it pertains to the attempted unionization of the home care industry.

“The landmark Janus decision by the US Supreme Court, combined with the expected implementation of the Medicaid Provider Reassignment Regulation Proposed Rule by the federal government, means public employees can no longer be forced to support the political agenda of their designated union. It also means the government can no longer aid unions in their attempt to skim dues from precious Medicaid dollars, intended for the care of our loved ones.” explained Mike Stenhouse, CEO for the Center.

Voters can tell whose side their elected officials are on by how they respond to these changes in federal labor law.

There isn’t really any question, in Rhode Island.  The governing Democrats believe that unions represent a critical partner in their control of the electorate.  Taxpayer dollars flow to the unions and then to the politicians (through jobs, donations, “independent” campaigns, and other routes), and unions organize employees into a voting block for the high-tax, big-government policies that the state’s dominant party is selling.

8

Is the Game About to Change for Labor Unions?

9

When True Fascists Show Their Faces, Media Doesn’t Care

First the fun political-media gotcha point:  Can you imagine if even a single video anywhere close to these from anti-Trump “protests” in San Jose had been captured at a Tea Party rally a few years ago?  The news media would have assumed that every conservative and Republican was fully implicated in the “atmosphere of violence” even as they were paraded before the cameras to denounce the entire movement.  When it turns out that the fascist thugs are on the political Left, we get vague descriptions of them as “protesters,” and mealy mouthed attempts to blame the victim:

Another video captured a female Trump supporter taunting protesters before being surrounded and struck in the face with an egg and water balloons.

I haven’t seen any video of the woman “taunting protesters.”  That might just be the journalist’s interpretation from the fact that she kept up a brave front while a mob — almost all young men — surrounded her with Mexican flags, swearing at her and then throwing eggs and other things at her.  It’s disgusting, not a mere altercation.  (One might infer, naturally, that left-wing journalists believe that overt support for Trump is tantamount to a taunt.)

And don’t think for a moment there aren’t organizations behind these “protests.”  Watch the video of the woman being mobbed, and you’ll see an SEIU sign start to make an appearance before quickly disappearing, perhaps because the labor activist holding it (one assumes) spotted the camera scanning the crowd and thought better of being visible at that moment.

In some respects, this isn’t exactly a new development.  After all, powerful people in government, academia, and the media have been excusing violent “idealists” on the Left for decades.  But even if left-wing violence is getting no worse, the possibility becomes greater that it will destroy us as the progressives succeed in wearing away the foundations of our society, especially if we don’t name its practitioners for what they are.

10

A Look at the Child Care Provider Contract

Yesterday, I noted that Providence Journal reporter Katherine Gregg had apparently acquired a copy of the agreement between the state and the SEIU Local 1199 regarding independent child-care providers whose clients receive state subsidies.  Upon my request, at that point, the state finally sent me the contract, too.  The following are my notes while reading the contract.

It’s important to note that it isn’t clear which provisions are actually new.  For example, the provision of vacation time isn’t new; it’s been in the state’s regulations for the program for years.  I haven’t gone through to compare the contract with all pre-existing rules.

Another important note is that it is explicitly left to the legislature to provide the funding for all of these programs, although cuts would require “good faith” negotiations with the executive branch to figure out how to deal with reductions

Pay and raises:

  • A 3% increase in base pay
  • Another $10 per week per infant
  • Another 1% increase in “step pay” for all providers
  • Up to another 3% increase depending on education level
  • $500 bonus for becoming licensed
  • $50 per child per year “registration fee” (provided that families without subsidies have to pay the fee, too)
  • $100 bonus for enrolling in direct deposit
  • Two weeks of paid “vacation” (This is really an existing benefit that allows the provider to be paid for up to two weeks for children who do not attend during those weeks. However, if parents use the funds for an alternate provider, the “vacation” pay doesn’t apply.)
  • Pay for holidays and professional development days

Benefits

  • Efforts to ensure professional development, including college courses (see my prior post for information on the millions of dollars available through the Dept. of Education)
  • $250,000 fund (jointly administered with the union) to supply “training and support”
  • $250,000 “quality incentive pool”
  • One-time gift of a free computer that becomes the “sole property of the provider”
  • Free courses on the computers and software they’ll be using as part of their job
  • Agreement to initiate a “bulk purchasing” program for providers to acquire furniture and playground equipment; books, toys, and puzzles; disability insurance; tax services; home inspection and maintenance services; Internet connectivity; and other items they may think of
  • Agreement to explore enrollment of providers in the same federal program for low-or-no-cost Internet that public schools and libraries receive
  • Agreement to seek to sign up providers for a federal food program (which likely includes an administrative fee for the provider to implement and maintain)

Unionization perks

  • Binding arbitration
11

The Deal for Child Care Providers

Katherine Gregg has more details on the agreement that Governor Gina Raimondo has agreed to give independent child-care providers whose clients receive government subsidies and who have organized under the SEIU:

In the current budget year, which began on July 1, the agreement promises 3-percent reimbursement rate increases, with an additional $10 per week for each infant. 

In the second year of the contract, the rates rise at least 1 percent, with additional rate increases of 1 percent, 2 percent and 3 percent pegged to education-levels. 

Those working on a GED   — or high-school equivalency diploma — would get 2 percent. Those with three college credits or more would get 3 percent. The 4 percent would go to those with a college-level “associate degree,’’ which very few of those in this mostly female workforce have now. 

The majority (61 percent) had a GED, but 14 percent did not even have that and only 4 percent of the childcare providers surveyed by SEIU 1199 in January had a college education. 

The new contract anticipates expanded “access to college-credit bearing courses in English and Spanish.’’

They also all get free computers for online billing and training purposes.  (Whether that means the state will pay for their Internet service, I’ll have to check the contract, which I’ve requested regularly from the state for months.)

Readers may recall recent news about a related program to pay for child care workers to receive college degrees in early childhood education (to add even more unneeded early-grade teachers to the Rhode Island marketplace).  That program is not limited to the SEIU members, but they’re included.  The Rhode Island Department of Education tells The Current that the total grant is projected to be over $3 million, with $1.8 million passing through T.E.A.C.H. RI, $1.1 million going through the Community College of Rhode Island, and $38,000 going through Rhode Island College.

According to Kathy Gregg, the SEIU members receive a $500 bonus for becoming licensed.  Once they’re licensed, providers working out of their homes are eligible for the T.E.A.C.H. scholarships, which (in addition to paying for almost all of the tuition) give participants $585 in “bonus pay,” $50-per-semester travel stipends, and up to around $300 per semester in weekly “paid release time” (that is, approximately another $1,000 in additional cash).  As reported above, once they’ve earned college credits, and then a degree, they get more money from the state in pay.

With this package of giveaways handed over by the governor and the General Assembly (which had to approve the budget), it’s not surprising that the SEIU local 1199 is able to demand one of the highest dues rates in the country.  According to Gregg, the rate is 2%, capped at $65 per month (or $780 per year).  Of all of the similar contracts listed on ChildCareUnionInfo.com that have a set payment or a cap, only Illinois is higher (2.1% capped at $75 per month).

If all 526 members hit the cap, state taxpayers would be sending the SEIU $410,280.

12

Getting Out of the Union You Didn’t Know You Joined

Tom Steward profiles, for the Minnesota Bureau of Watchdog.org, a woman who receives state subsidies as a care taker for her special needs daughter.  Being generally supportive of labor unions, Renee Katz (no known relation) signed a card “supporting an election to form a union.”

She didn’t realize that meant she would automatically become a member of that union if it won the election.  So, “she was outraged to learn that 3 percent of their gross wages [i.e., subsidies for her daughter’s care] would be taken for dues for a union she didn’t realize she joined.”

With the Supreme Court’s ruling that her union (the SEIU) cannot compel either her membership or her dues-like “fair share fees,” Katz has been trying to end the payments.  It became such a hassle that she switched to a whole different care program:

But Katz turned to a different opt-out option. The care recipients she helps have since switched to another state plan, under which PCAs cannot be union members, due to employment laws.

“They (care recipients) didn’t want to deal with the union. They didn’t want them calling anymore, they didn’t want them hounding them,” said Belisle. “And they believe that their salary and tracking information the union wants, their address, their phone numbers and everything else, they don’t believe they (unions) have a right to them.”

As I mentioned during budget season, Rhode Island’s version of this issue is limited to child care providers (also SEIU), and although no details have been released, the dues appear to be substantial.  I’m still trying to get details of the contract, but on based on total dollars, it appears that the governor’s office and the General Assembly gave the union a nice boost in the first contract to forestall providers’ coming to Katz’s conclusion.  That is, our elected officials negotiated sufficiently generous terms that the providers will calculate that being part of the union is definitely in their interest.

And thus is captured another group with a personal interest (and union organization infrastructure) to ensure that nobody is ever elected to office who might actually negotiate on behalf of the taxpayers who have to subsidize the scheme.  One might quip that we taxpayers have, in effect, found ourselves having joined the union, too.  How many of us are imitating Renee Katz and, rather than trying to get out of the deal, are simply moving to other states, beyond the reach of the state government?

13

New Childcare Union Info (More Money than Stated)

Childcare subsidy data from the state Executive Office of Health and Human Services (EOHHS) suggests that the numbers from the House Speaker’s office that I posted were too low.  The difference is that the legislative source included only childcare subsidies paid through the Department of Human Services (DHS), but the total should also include subsidies paid through the Dept. of Children, Youth, and Families (DCYF).

Including both departments, the baseline number for the upcoming fiscal year (FY16) is actually $63.2 million, making the $2.15 increase in the rates paid to private providers an overall 3.4% increase.  The FY15 total was $54.5 million, making the total increase from one year to the next $10.85 million, or 19.9%, raise included.

No agents of the state government will share details of the contract negotiated with the SEIU, but if the range of possible dues is 1.5% to 2.0%, then the total that the state will pay to the labor union in the upcoming fiscal year will be between $980,250 and $1.32 million.

14

Follow-Up on Childcare Subsidy Increase

Last week, Rhode Islanders learned of a $2.15 million increase in state childcare subsidy rates for providers.  Although details of the first-ever agreement with the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), which now represents the private, independent providers, have still not been released, the House Speaker’s office has provided The Current a few additional budgetary numbers.

The $2.15 million is being added to base spending of $58.9 million, or a 3.65% increase, overall, bringing the total to $61.1 million.  If these provisions of the budget pass as currently written, it will represent a $7.45 million bump in spending for these payments over the current fiscal year, or a 13.90% increase.

Despite requests to multiple government agencies, the state has still not released any details of the agreement, including dues.  Child Care Union Info, with which the RI Center for Freedom & Prosperity has worked in the past, reports a wide variety of dues from other states, although some of the contracts have been terminated.  At the higher end are states in which the union’s dues are calculated as a percentage of subsidies, sometimes with a maximum.

In Michigan and Massachusetts (which is SEIU), the rate is 1.5%.  In Washington (also SEIU), it’s 2%.  Either rate would put the SEIU’s take in Rhode Island around $1 million, or about half of the total raise that the budget would grant.  (Given Rhode Island’s small size, the union would be likely to seek dues at the higher end.)

As I stated in a release just put out by the Center, the governor and General Assembly could have increased payment rates without the involvement of a union, if needy families are having difficult finding childcare providers.  As yet, there has been no claim of such difficulty.  In 2013, the law was changed (in a way that is likely unconstitutional) to give independent childcare providers more leverage, and now the Speaker of the House tells Providence Journal reporter Katherine Gregg that he believes they “deserve to be paid a fair and equitable wage.”

Clearly, these providers have advocates at the State House, and those advocates could have provided the same raises at a lower cost to taxpayers by cutting out the SEIU.  However, between 2004 and 2014, the SEIU gave $30,333 to Rhode Island politicians, according to the Board of Election’s campaign finance Web site.  This makes the interaction win-win-win for everybody except those who have to pay the bills.

UPDATE (2:57 p.m., 6/17/15):

See here for updated numbers.

15

SCOTUS Implication: RI Can’t Force Child Care Providers to Join or Pay Union

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Harris v. Quinn, today, should reverse efforts in Rhode Island to force independent child care providers whose clients receive state subsidies to join a union or to pay “free rider” fees for a union’s negotiating services.

By way of review, last year, the General Assembly passed, and Governor Chafee signed, legislation to allow independent child care providers who have clients receiving subsidies through the state’s Child Care Assistance Program (CCAP) to join a labor union.  The legislation also required providers who didn’t want to join the union to pay a “service charge” for “negotiation and administration of the written contract” that could amount to as much as full dues.  It’s a gray area, but presumably, the state can’t pay parents different subsidies depending on whether or not their providers are in the union.

(In the House, the first five sponsors of the bill were Slater, Diaz, Almeida, Blazejewski, and Handy; in the Senate, they were Goodwin, Jabour, Pichardo, Crowley, and Ruggerio.)

The RI Center for Freedom & Prosperity became deeply involved in pushing back against the suspiciously tilted elections that unionized the providers under the SEIU.  The Current-Anchor  also paid the election some attention, including incidents of state police threatening to arrest private citizens who wanted to observe the proceedings.

According to the governor’s office, negotiations with the SEIU are currently underway, but members of the public (who will be paying the bill) will have no window into them until the deal is done.

The Harris ruling, written by Justice Samuel Alito, pertains to personal assistants for disabled recipients of state aid in Illinois, often their parents or other relatives.  However, the reasoning is the same — mainly that the providers are not full state employees, that their immediate clients are not the state, but the families that they serve, and that the negotiable aspects of their relationship with the state are severely limited.

It is therefore almost certain that a lawsuit by any child care providers who do not want to pay the SEIU “service charges” out of their pay checks will prevail.  It’s always been questionable whether the union could do much for the providers, other than to siphon away money intended to help families pay for child care, but now providers will likely receive any benefits without paying any costs.

For that reason, the Center is calling on the executive branch, in Rhode Island, to halt the proceedings and the legislature to repeal the law.  As the press release states, the Center is also considering the possibility of requesting a stay on any action that would commit taxpayers to unconstitutional costs.

16

Sometimes It Feels Like Obama’s Turned Government into a Syndicate

So, today Instapundit links to a Daily Caller story about members of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) riding along with the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) when SEIU-friendly workers in non-union businesses make complaints about safety violations (which subsequently aren’t substantiated by inspectors):

OSHA deputy assistant secretary Richard Fairfax wrote in a February 21, 2013 clarification letter that union agents can accompany OSHA inspectors to site visits at companies without collective bargaining agreements. …

Maurice Baskin, an attorney representing the Associated Builders and Contractors and the National Association of Manufacturers, said in testimony before the House Subcommittee on Workforce Protections that OSHA’s clarification letter violates the OSH Act and the National Labor Relations Act.

Put this in the file for “Obama uses government agency to help unions (which help Democrats).”

The other day, I came across a Washington Times story reporting that the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is playing favorites when handing out potential election-fodder:

Twenty-eight of the Democrats’ requests have been completed. Most resulted in the EPA release of documents with some reports that a search yielded no records. The other requests are being processed or await assignment. …

Republican political committees have filed just four requests since 2012, and none of those has been fulfilled. One request that has languished for more than two years sought correspondence between John F. Kerry, a senator at the time, and EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson.

File this one under “Obama uses government agency to give Democrats electoral advantage.”

Of course, a quick skim of news stories involving the EPA brings us to another bulging file labeled “Obama uses government agency to change law without changing law.” Also in the drawer are files for “Obama uses government agency to stop political opposition” and (maybe most ominous) a folder simply labeled “NSA spying.”

I can’t shake the feeling that we now have exactly the sort of government that our founding documents strove so hard to prevent, one that sets the government against the people… or at least those who won’t get in line.

17

There’s a Larger Lesson to Be Learned from the Soviet-Style Pension-Settlement Election

Patrick highlighted, earlier, the peculiar ballot and rules of the voting by which retirees can approve or (by some miracle) reject the negotiated settlement of a pension-reform lawsuit (which has come about by peculiar rules, as well):

… if you’re sent a ballot but never get it, you voted yes. If you forget to return your ballot with a “no” vote, you voted yes. If you have no idea what this is about and you don’t return the ballot, you voted yes. If you moved and the ballot doesn’t make it to you in time, you voted yes.

This may be the most stark example in recent years (which tells you something about how important the settlement is to political insiders), but the only thing that’s really new about this “election” is that the local media is actually adopting a mild tone of incredulity, this time. It was only a few months ago, after all, that the SEIU held a successful election to unionize independent child care workers whose clients receive government subsidies. Amidst unjustified threats of arresting observers and other peculiarities, most of the coverage and incredulity came from, well, us.

That election achieved a pro-union vote just shy of the Crimea’s “Soviet-style, 97-percent vote to secede from Ukraine.”

And yet, a small, private free-market think tank — the people raising questions about these and other harmful and suspect Rhode Island realities — is the organization that sparks the most skepticism in local political reporting.

Of course, this is exactly the sort of thing that a villain would say, but with Rhode Island’s economy falling apart and with Rhode Islanders giving up hope, it just might be time for certain folks to readjust their understanding of whom the good guys and the bad guys are.

19

Lies Behind Closed Public-Sector Doors

Of the six locations at which home child-care providers voted to pay dues to the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), volunteers for the RI Center for Freedom & Prosperity managed to get close enough for actual observations at only one, having arrived before the armed policeman was at the door.

Among the more curious notes from that polling place was one about a woman waiting in line to vote, who said that somebody she knows used to work at “the Center” and didn’t meet the director until she’d been there for five years. Given my organization’s involvement in the issue, I don’t think it’s a stretch to infer that she meant our Center and that the intended message was that we’re a shadowy organization with suspicious motives.

The thing is, the Center hasn’t been around for five years. More than that, it’s not so big that employees can avoid each other and the boss. And more than that, CEO Mike Stenhouse is the one primarily tasked with interacting with everybody in and associated with the organization.

It’s a small thing, I know, but even as cynical as I am, I still find it surprising when people simply make things up for political ends. Which naturally feeds back into my cynicism. If unionizers will make stuff up about an organization that questions their promises and their methods, would a bureaucracy put a small thumb on the scale to help a favored president win reelection? What are the people who make decisions, including voters, actually being told is true?

Anyway, back to trying to figure out how to get accurate, consistent transparency data from RI government agencies.

Oh, by the way: As the observer in question left the location, the policeman outside said she’d be arrested if she went to any other polling places. She didn’t.

21

The Projo needs self awareness, not self defense.

The response PolitiFactRI editor Tim Murphy tacked onto the end of Jennifer Parrish’s objection to PolitiFact’s treatment of her is in keeping with something that I’ve found worrisome, lately.

Understandably, Murphy defends his department, but he does so in the form of an argument, without responding to or even acknowledging Parrish’s legitimate concerns. There’s no concession that the paper’s other sources were SEIU clients; there’s no explanation about why PolitiFact picked a particular fact to check; there’s no promise to look into claims made by the union. His commentary gives the impression of one party to a debate responding to another, not the disinterested judge that PolitiFact claims to be.

Murphy’s response brings to mind a recent column by Mark Patinkin, in which he defends newspapers — beginning with the cover price, but delving into the value proposition. He notes the number of reporters, some specialized; he talks about their watchdog function and the value of editors.

Arguments are possible, but for now I’d highlight what he doesn’t include: any sort of introspection about the paper’s responsibility to prove its value and question whether it’s doing the things that make a watchdog and layers of editors valuable. Maybe Rhode Islanders need and want a watchdog against powerful organizations that strive to change policy to their own benefit, not individual child care providers who are part-time advocates against those forces. Maybe skepticism about the watchdog function is justified when it looks like the DNC is doing the paper’s page layout.

Maybe when folks dip into the “splintered, random view” that Patinkin says he gets from online news, they see that the “informative portrait” they get through the paper is leaving out or amplifying details in a way that serves an agenda other than informing the consumer.

22

Politicized Fact-Checking Strikes Child-Care Unionization

A “mostly false” ruling on an issue related to unionization of child care providers offers insight into the operation of the Providence Journal’s PolitiFact team and may indicate that the target of the investigation is not the one who has been discredited.

26

Public Dollars for Business Benefits

An in-home child-care worker who has come forward supporting unionization of those with similar businesses has also advocated for a national tax on Christmas trees and special treatment of farms for the estate tax.

YOUR CART
  • No products in the cart.
0