Labor Discussion 3

----zql~=::;:~~-------------

• •

WOMEN TRANSFORMING AMERICAN LABOR

Edited by Dorothy Sue Cobble

ILRPress AN IMPRINT OF

Cornell University Press

Ithaca and London

• UNIONS FIGHT FOR WORK AND FAMILY

POLICIES-NOT FOR WOMEN ONLY

Netsy Firestein and Nicola Dones

Imagine not being able to attend a school performance of your five-year- old or not being able to stay home with your daughter when she gets sick. Imagine that your mom falls and breaks her hip and you cannot get paid time off to care for her. Imagine trying to find child care during your 4 p.m. to midnight work shift or having to choose between getting fired Or leaving your child home alone. Issues like these are faced by workers every day, yet they are often seen as personal problems rather than social issues in need of public so- lutions. And despite the growing number of workers taking care of elderly parents and other family members, the rise of single-headed families, and the increase of working mothers, we lack the basic social supports and social in- surance that would help workers manage the growing demands of work and family.

For many workers today, a good job means a livable wage, family health in- surance, a safe workplace, and retirement benefits. But increasingly it also means having workplace and policy supports that allow workers, both men and women, to care for their families. Such policies include quality, affordable child care and after-school care that correspond to work hours; flexible em- ployment schedules that workers control; part-time work with benefits; paid

Parts .of th.is article were adapted from Netsy Piresrein and Lauren Asher, "Putting Families First: ~Q\.~ Cahfornr.a Won the Fight for Paid Family Leave," Labor Project for Working Families report,

ttP./lwww,paldfamllyleave.org/pdf/paidleavewon.pdf (accessed June 6, 2006).

-------- s

"'---~~ Unions Fight lor Work and Family Policies 141

familyleave;paid sick days for workers or a family member; and quality elder- careservices that are affordable.

In this chapter, we look at how unions are helping to fight for the work and l~mlilypolicies that workers need. We describe two recent state campaigns: the campaignfor paid family leave legislation in California and the New York state campaign to make child care more affordable for working families. In each case,the policies would not have been passed without the leadership oflabor. Theyare examples of unions acting in accordance with the best and highest idealsof the labor movement. Rather than operating as a special-interest groupor mobilizing simply to benefit current members, unions worked to createbetter jobs and an improved quality of life for all workers. The paid familyleave law in alifornia, the first of its kind in the nation, created a new benefit for w rking families that affects every private-sector worker (and somepublic-sect r) in alifornia. 111 New York, union-sponsored legislation greatly expanded the number of working parents who could receive state sub- sidiesto help them pay for child care.

Howthe United States Compares

Whatmany of LIS d not realize is how di fferent the United States is for work- ing women and families than are other countries. A report by the Project on GlobalWorking Families (Heyman 2000) found that the United States lags be- hind other countries in many areas, including leave policies and services for

children.' Consider the following:

· Worldwide, 163 countries offer guaranteed paid leave to women in connection with childbirth; the United States does not.

.. ki g women's right to• At least seventy-six countries protect war 1]1 ,

breastfeed: the United States does not, in spite of the fact that breast- feeding has been shown to reduce infant mortality sevenfold. .

. d I -ld in all geographic re- • At least ninety-six countries aroun t le WOI .' '

- I I d te paid annual leave (vaca-gions and at aU economIC eve 5, man a tion); the United States does not. . I th

. h I th t fix the maximum eng · At least eighty-four countnes ave aws a . I hh a maximum engt

of the workweek; the United States d oes not ave . . d t y overtime per week.

of the workweek or a limit on man a or d 5 .d . d ith Ecuador an uri- • The United States is thirty-ninth (an he w I . R Schmidt "Getting Help with Child Care Ex- LindaGiannerelli, Sarah Adelman, and Stefallle.. 1 f '?ID""3 t0615 (accessed June 6, 2006).

cpenses,"2003, The Urban Institute, hltp:/Iwww.urban.01gJur. 1l1.

s

142 Netsy Firestein and Nicola Dones

, 11 t in early childhood care and education for three-name ) 1ll enro men . ld Nearly all European countnes perform better. Ato five-vear-o s. .

id fd eloping countries have higher enrollment rates than WI e range a ev the United States, despite being poorer. In the United States, eligibility for child-care subsidies are set so low that often even very low-income workers do not qualify. In the United States, low-income families spend 14 percent of their earnings on child care, whereas higher-earning families spend 7 percent.

For over a century, unions have fought at the bargaining table and in the legislature to improve the work and family lives of U.S. workers. From the five- day workweek to overtime cornpensation, from livable wages to retirement pensions, unions have pushed for and won vital work family supports. In 2001, a resolution from the American Federation of Labor-Congress of lndus- trial Organizations (AFL-CIO) Convention pledged the continued support of labor for working families, urging legislative action on a broad range of issues, including paid family leave and universal preschool. These issues are now part of the broader labor struggle that includes job outsourcing, loss of pensions, and increased health-care costs. Recently, unions have pushed for laws to limit mandatory overtime for health-care workers, provide unemployment insur- ance due to child-care responsibilities, expand the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), and use paid sick leave to care for family members.

Unions have always fought for change both through contract language and through public policy; on the work-family front this is the case as well. At the local level, unions have successfully negotiated family-friendJy workplace pro- visions and innovative arrangements with employers such as flexible work hours, elder-care benefits, and paid leave. Although there has been no research documenting the extent of bargaining on these issues, the Labor Project for Working Families (Labor Project) has tracked over three hundred contracts with comprehensive family-friendly provisions. However, we believe that this is just a small percentage of provisions that have been negotiated across the country. Unions have negotiated paid family leave, flexible work arrange- ments, and other innovative benefits including a child- and elder-care plan for hotel workers in San Francisco, a family-care plan for Oakland's transit work- ers, and a child-care fund for hospital workers in New York.' .unions are also endorsing the Work and Family Bill of Rights, a document

ongmally created by the Labor Project in partnership with labor leaders and updated by Take Care Net a t k f . .. ' ne war 0 Unions, advocates, and academics. It recognizes that workers h ' f d 'ave certain un arnenral fights related to work and

2Labor Project for Working Families "A J b d'C . ily Issues," http://wwwl' b . '~ .an a ~l e: Organizing and Bargaining for Work Pam-

. a orproJect.org/bargaullng/gUide.pdf (accessed June 6, 2006).

a _ ~

�s---------- _ Unions Fight lor Work and Fa ·1 P I· .rru y 0 rc.es 143

family.'Although the corporate work-family agend· .) ., a rernams narrow 1I1 scope labors VISionlooks to encompass the larger economic . t d he ri '.. . plC ure an t e nght of allworkers to care for themselves and their families with dignity.

Background

In 1993, the FMLA became law with the assistance of unions and other groups. It gives many working Americans the right to take up to twelve weeks of til/paid leave .when a ?ew child arrives, a family health crisis strikes, or they themselves are ill. The FMLA protects jobs and benefits, but it does not help pay the bill. Independent studies commissioned by the Department of Labor in 1995 and 2000 found that the primary reason people who need leave do not take it is that they simply cannot afford it. The research also found that nearly one in ten FMLA users is forced on to public assistance while on leave (Cantor et al. 2001). Asmore people became aware of a right they could not necessarily afford to

use, interest in paid family leave grew. Research and policy models looked at everything from unemployment insurance to social security to the commer- cial insurance market as possible vehicles for providing paid leave. In 1999, theNational Partnership for Women & Families, which led the nine-year fight to pass the FMLA, launched the Campaign for Family Leave Benefits to fuel a growing movement to make family leave more affordable.

Moreand more, these issues are being addressed by unions at the state pol- icylevel to meet the needs of all workers. Five states (California, Rhode Island, NewJersey, New York, and Hawaii) already have a temporary disability insur- ance program that provides partial pay for a workecs' own illness and to re- coverfrom pregnancy, usually referred to as pregnancy disability. Unions have helped to pass states laws allowing workers to use part or all of their paid sick

time to care for a sick family member." Unions have also been involved in campaigns for universal preschool in

many states. Georgia and Oklahoma provide preschool to all four-year-olds whoseparents want to enroll them. New Jersey and New York have preschool programs that target low-income children and many of the teachers in those programs are unionized. Florida passed a ballot initiative foe universal pre- school, but it is not yet funded (Muenchow 2004). In California, advocates

ersaI preschool for andunions are working on a state ballot

. .. . C • nntianve lor umv .'

the June 2006 election. Other states have efforts underway for similar pro-

3 .' N hsir http-jj\v\vw.takecarenet.org. For more information, see the Take Care et we st e, "".". d. .' f Work Pam-

4 Labor Project for Working Families, "A Job and a Life: OrganlZlng an BargaJnIll)g DC _ ." / id df (accessed June 6, 2006 . ily Issues," http://www.laborproJcct.orgibargalll1ng gUI e.p

p

144 Netsy Firestein and Nicola Dones

ny of these programs are still underfunded, the goal is tograms. Al thaug h ma . id f I ntary universal preschool. Parents still need to find and paypravl e ree, vo urnar v, . .

for child care for the rest of the day, but this IS a first step toward acknowledg- ing the importance of care and education for young children.

California-Labar's Winning Fight for Paid Family Leave

On September 23, 2002, California became the first state in the nation to pro- vide comprehensive paid family leave.' The new law, the California Family Rights Act (CFRA), gives most working Californians up to six weeks of partial pay to care for a new child or seriously ill family member (parent, child, spouse, or domestic partner). It is an extension of California's state disability insurance program, which has provided partial pay to workers taking time off for a nonwork-related serious medical condition since the 1940s. At least three factors made California especially fertile ground for a paid

family leave campaign. First, California already had a well-established system for delivering paid medical leave. Nearly all working Californians are covered by leave.

Second, a strong labor and advocacy base was in place. In 1999, with fund- ing from the Rosenberg Foundation, the Labor Project formed the Work and Family Coalition. This coalition brought state and local labor (including the Bay Area labor councils), advocacy, and community groups (including child- care organizations and legal groups) together to support one another's efforts and improve California's work-family policies on a larger scale. Paid family leave was one of the main issues on the agenda. The California Labor Federation (Labor Federation), which is the state-

level AFL-CIO, also recognized the organizing potential of work-family bene- fits and was interested in issues that resonated with women and low-wage workers. A strong, progressive, and politically powerful organization, the l.abor Federation saw improving state safety-net benefits, such as disability in- surance, as the best way to help working Californians. The Labor Federation was a member of the Work and Family Coalition and had a successful track record on related legislation including pregnancy disability leave and family Sick leave.

Third, California's favorable political climate made a difference. Califor- nia's large and diverse population supports many groups representing the in- terests of women, children, seniors, parents, immigrants, disabled popula-

F 5,~e~sy Fir~stein and L~uren Asher, "Putting Families First: How California Won the Fight for Paid arru y eave, Labor Project for Working Families, 2004, http://www. aidfamil leave.orgl dfJ aid leavewon.pdf (accessed June 6, 2006). P Y p P

� .....---------------- Unions Fight for Work and Family Policies 145

nons, and others with a stake in family leave policy . 11is also horne t0 numer- ousemployment law and civil rights organizations with expert' I. . . lseoncomp~ Issuesrelevant to paid leave. Many of these diverse organizations worked to passthe CFRA and FMLA, supported more recent family leave bills, and con- ducted outreach on family leave issues, For example, in the late 1990s the Legal AidSociety-Employment Law Center and the Asian Law Caucus began train- ingunions and other groups and established a hotline for workers with family leaveproblems. They and lllany other organizations were interested in paid family leave and had long-standing relationships with one another and with the Labor Federation and Labor Project.

Democrats had controlled California's Assembly, Senate, and governor's office since 1998, Although business interests hold plenty of sway on both sides of the aisle, California's elected Democrats, including then-Governor GrayDavis, had very strong ties to labor and were generally responsive to pro- gressive interests, The paid family leave bill was introduced at the start of an electionyear, with the state's incumbent governor running for a second term. Whether this timing would help or hurt the bill's prospects was unclear. Politi- ciansneeded votes from women, seniors, union members, and others likely to support paid family leave, The same politicians, however, also would be rais- ingmoney from corporate donors and seeking support from fiscally conserva-

tiveswing voters.

Blli/dillg the Campaign

The story of how paid family leave became California law follows the broad outlines of any successful political campaign, Advocates invested in building awarenessand relationships over time secured support from powerful part- ners,faced opposition and many unknowns, and succeeded through a combi- nationof grassroots mobilization, political pressure, legislative maneuvering,

mediaoutreach, and compromise. In late 1999, several important developments helped pave the way for a con-

certed paid leave campaign in California, First, labor achieved a major victory , , ' h ' , I ' ranee safety net when Governor In Its efforts to Improve testate s socra 1l1SU ..

, . ," C lif " SDI b nefit The first benefit mcrease mDaVISSigned a bill raismg a irorrna s e . . many years, it cleared the path for labor leaders to consider expandmg SDI to

'd' d h E ployment Development De- cover family leave, The same bill n-ecte t em, ', If' di ng paid family leave partment (EDD) to study the potentia costs 0 provl I , through SOl, EDD finished its study in summer 2000 and confirmed that paid

id d h h SDI at a very modest cost,family leave could be provi e t roug h D 'dIt' r grant from t e aVIdIn early 2001 the Labor Project secure a mu Iyea fib, 'I s a core group a a or and Lucile Packard Foundation, WIth tnese resource, fi r

" hat i ected to be a two- to ve-yea and other advocates began bUlldmg w at It exp

----~---r Netsy Firestein and Nicola Dones146

campaign, C id family leave, The advocates organized a broad labor.ror pal , 'I ( h ' , community, eoaaliti] 1101 1

the .

Coalition for Paid Farni y Leave t e CoalItIon), • •

whic, h iInc Iuded sentor's,iors women's child-care, legal,.. and health organlzallons,'. as weII as a dilver se group of unions' , drafted legislation, got. , technical asss-

tanee from th e Nationalc Partnership for Women & Families, gathered per. sonal stories that illustrated the need for paid leave; sought support from pro. gressive business owners; built union awareness by ~OJdl~lg work ~ops ~unng the summer and fall of 2001; and worked with Univer Ity of alifomia aca- demics to estimate the costs and benefits of paid leave, write p-ed, and pro. vide testimony,

In his letter to the editor, "Paid Leave: $2 a Month; Happy Workers: Price. less" (Santa Barbara News Press, July 24, 2002), Paul rfalea, the f under of Kinko's, Inc., stated, "Various things make peopl feel g ad ab ut their work, not least of which is when they feel respected and valued by their employers, When one of my co-workers grieved, [ grieved," He pointed out the common sense of offering such a benefit, "It seems that it would t bu ine s more if it didn't provide this type of insurance, especially in the e tough economic times." In her op-ed for the San jose Mercury News (J une 2 1,2002), KayTrim. berger, a California sociologist, wrote about Jeff Norvet, a Hollywood camera. man, and his family, who were struggling to survive during his wife's battle with a serious medical condition: "SB 1661 would clearly help families like the Norvets .. ,. Passage ofSB1661 would be a significant step f rward in assuring that we can give care to our loved ones and get care when we need it." The tes- timony and op-eds made clear that workers were in desperate need of a way to take care of family situations without putting their familie and their liveli- hood in jeopardy,

Although they did not expect the bill to go very far in its fir t year, the Coalition members wanted to build support for the campaign; they needed powerful political partners, One of the Coalition's founding members, the Labor Federation, became the bill's lead sponsor in August 200 I. As the bill gained momentum, the Labor Federation followed through with testimony, lobbying, and grassroots mobilization, using its political clout at crucial points throughout the campaign,

State Senator Sheila Kuehl (Democrat, Los Angeles) agreed to be the lead author., A Successful progressive legislator, Kuehl was respected by her peers across IdeologIcal lines and had a strong relationship with the governor. She Introduced hili SB1661 I'll F b 2002 d i , ' W '. e ruary ,an It SOon became her top pnonty. hen It was Introduced, SB 1661 provided twelve weeks of paid family leave,

with the costs evenly splir b tw I I e een emp oyees and employers

After the bill passed 't f A bl ' .. , 1 S rst ssern Y committee and as It worked Its waythrough the state legislatu tl C li , , re, re oa inon increased its organizing and pickedup more members and m d omentum. At the grassroots level, workers an

------------ •

·r------.......... Unions Fight for Work and Family Policies 147

uniono representatives0 handed out postcards at meet in gso "I got postcards Signedfull tnne-at the labor council , the labor studies p rogram as we II as to employ:es we represent. I feel so proud of the work I have done to get this bill passed, said Dave Hurlburt, shop steward from the Communications Work- ers of America (CWA) Local 94100 The American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), Service Employees InternationaJ Union (SEIU), Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU), United Food and Com- mercial Workers International Union (UFCW), and CWA locals across Cali- fornia got postcards signed, along with Central Labor Councils, transit work- ers, nurses, and machinists. Coalition members staffed tables at conferences and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of southern California set up a website letting supporters send faxes directly to their state legislators, On the media front, the Coalition launched a proactive press outreach effort. All this heightened activity and visibility kept feeding the momentum and led core Coalition members to devote even more time and energy to the campaign. There was intense opposition from the business community, in particular

the Chamber of Commerce, which argued that businesses, especially small ones, would be driven out of business or out of state if they had to pay their share of the benefit. They launched a countercampaign, sending legislators thousands of letters and faxes, In the end, the bill that passed in the legislature provided six weeks of paid family leave, all ern pjovee-fu nded. It took nearly a month for Governor Davis to sign the bill. He was also up for reelection in a surprisingly tight race, and he needed every vote he could get. The Coalition, which had grown from a small core to more than seven hundred unions, or- ganizations, and individual members, pulled out all the stops. There was in- tense media coverage; pressure from W0I11en'Sorganizations; and calls, post- cards,e-rnails, and letters from many unions, activists, national organizations, and the AFL-C100 On September 23, 2002, the governor finally signed the bill.

The selling points for the California program were numerous. It would help a wide range of people, from low-income to upper-middle-class and from newborns to the frail elderly; it built on a program that already existed and worked: it did not cost the state or employers any money; and the cost to

, id C il I d ted in 2003 inemployees was very low. Research on pal ranu y eave con ue . California showed that public support for paid family leave was huge, WIth al- most 90 percent of those surveyed favoring paid leave and the support ex- tended to all segments of society, Over 40 percent of respondents had taken a family or medical leave at some point during the previous five years and al-

o 10k I h t th auld need a leave III the next 1110sttwo-thirds thought It was 1 e y t a ey w fiveyears (Milkman and Appelbaum 2004) 0 0

Although California's paid family leave bill became law faster than even ItSfo did t come out of nowhereo Years admost ambitious supporters expecte ,It 1 o

no . d fd ots campaign and a voeaey e - coalition work, labor leadership- an grassro

,----OJ ::IJ ):":JJ...~ "

•

148 Netsy Firestein and Nicola Dones T

hi d this recent development. Still, it took a particular combina-forts stan d b e In . . .

0 f litical power leadership, resources, orgamzmg, consensusnon raw po I I '. '.

ildi fli t compromise and a certain amount ofluck to win. The Paidb ill mg, can IC, '. " .

Leave Coalition is now actively engaged ]\l an outreach camp.alg~ Involvmg education and media to inform California workers about their nghts to the new paid family leave benefit.

New York Unions-Expanding Child Care for Working Families

In 1994, with the realization that 1110reand more working parents were strug- gling to find affordable, quality child care, the New York Union Child Care Coalition was started.' Originally made up often unions, including the 1199 SEIU, Office and Professional Employees International Union (OPElU), and CWA District 1, the Coalition was committed to a comprehensive child-care, work, and family agenda. The main leaders initially were women within their own unions, such as Deborah King, executive director of the 1199 SEiU Em- ployer Training and Upgrading Fund lob Security Program, and Donna Dolan, the Work/Family Director for CWA District I. The Coalition grew to include twenty-five unions and won official recognition from the New York City Central Labor Council and New York state AFL-CIO, which identified ac- cess to affordable, quality child care as a top priority. The leadership also ex- panded to include male labor leaders such as Roger Toussaint, president of Transport Workers Union Local 100, and Ed Donnelly, legislative director of the state AFL-ClO.

The Coalition had a broad agenda. It sought to link union efforts to a broader statewide child-care agenda, to expand funding and services for qual- ity child care, and to make the labor movement a leader in addressing work and family issues. It also hoped to use these initiatives to develop women's leadership in the labor movement.

Improving Child-Care Services

The Coalition has made signif t trid .. . . . I can s n es 111 mcreasmg uruon member access

to child-care services. First, the Coalition worked to enrich Beacon School summer programs. The Beacon schools-based community centers are non- profit organizations attached to or near local schools that offer services and actrvtttcs for positive yo th d I . . . u eve opment III the local community. The Coali- non worked collaborativ I . h .e y WIt cornrnumrv groups to provide curricuJwn

6Much of the information on this _ . " . Sonte DuCote organ! f h N . P' og~am was drawn from interviews with and e-mails from

, ruzer 0 t e ew York Un Child C .. New York Union Child C C I·' IOn I are Coalition, and Deborah King, chair of the

1 are oa men.

--------

-------------- ... Unions Fight for Work and Family Policies 149

enrichment and to expand program hours . By aIso rnakimg contributions.. to the schools,'" such as sponsoring internships ' paymg" summer teachers, and conducting. I informational. . . outreach to unions and th e surroun dilUg commu- rury, t ie Coalitionc' was instrumental in. improving and expan d img an Impor-. tant program. JOf low-income and union families . Sin ce 1995 ) over two thQll- sand children between the ages of six and fourtee n from umon. famuies·1· have attended the programs free of charge.

Second, in 1998 the Coalition helped secure funding from New York City and the Department of Labor to expand the Satellite Child Care Program. The Satellite Child Care Program combined the best features of traditional family day care and center-based care. Originally restricted to the welfare-to-work population, new funding expanded the program to all working women. it linked family child-care providers, who provide child care in their homes, to a nonprofit agency. The women received training as licensed family child-care providers and became employees of the nonprofit agency through which they received comprehensive health, sick, and vacation benefits. They also became union members as employees of the Consortium for Worker Education (CWE).'

Tnkillg all a Political Campaign

In 1998, the Coalition partnered with the Child Care That Works Campaign (CCTWC), a group of statewide child-care advocates, to launch a political ac- tion campaign to address the lack of quality, affordable, and accessible child care for working families. The goals of the CCTWC were to increase child- care subsidy funding and improve child-care quality, access, and affordability.

That year, the Coalition and CCTWC developed a mobilization strategy. Union members stepped up to tell their personal stories and start a frank dis- cussion about why these issues were so important. Daneek Miller, bus driver and member of ATU Local 1056, was the first man to sit down and tell of his personal struggle trying to care for his family and drive a bns. "After my wife became seriously ill 1 struggled to find decent child care, but was unable to lind anything consistent. My only solution was to get the children up at 5 a.m. and take them to work where they rode my bus from 6 a.m. until it was time for school. Luckily, the school was close to the bus route so I was able to drop them off at a stop two blocks away. Each morning they rode the bus for over

two hours." The mobilization strategy included sending 30,000 postcards from union

members and advocacy groups to the New York Senate, Assembly, and gover- nor about the need for expanded child care; having rank and file union mem-

7 Funding from the New York state legislature was secured on a yearly basis. In 2005, the governor

vetoed the funds and the program folded.

-------~-'f 150 Netsy Firestein and Nicola Dones

t . h Miller's about their child-care problems• atb tesurnony sue as 1 c . leg-•

. ersI .preshen mgs:. and brinuinnging busloads of union members, working families, ISatrve ear , eral targeted lobbying days. Members fromand child-care advocates to sev (. ." . over twenty unions. pal ...trcipa ted I.n these lobbying days and met with their. dis-"

. b C hild-care 1

issues. .,

The CCTWC served .

as an initialtriet rcpresentauves a out I hil d .. ff t to cornmunrcate atorsgrassroots orgamzmg e lor . . WIth state. legis . W lee u-

catmg. limon. mem b·ers and their families about child-care Issues.. Over the next clew years, the C03 litionI continued to sponsor severallobbymg.. and. advo- caey days at WhircI1 uruon. members. presented stones about their child-care challenges and met with state legislators. ..

As a result of increased activity, the Coalition had many successes. In 1999 the governor approved an appropriation of $162 million more in child-care subsidies (which served an additional 13,000 working families) and $15 mil- lion for child-care construction and renovation projects. In 2000--2001, the Coalition won an additional $120 million to provide 29,000 more working families with subsidized child care. It also won $40 million for recruitment and retention to support a wage supplement for child-care workers-an esti- mated 35,000 child-care workers, most of whom are women, benefited from this appropriation. The money also provided an incentive for child-care workers to earn additional credentials and stay in the child-care field.

Expanding Subsidized Child Care for Working Families

How were these victories possible? In 1999, the Coalition had organized mem- bers to sign up for state vouchers and subsidized child-care slots (government subsidies for low-income families). It learned that union members were reluc- tant to apply for child-care assistance through the social service system and that the system was not oriented to serve working people-the hours were not convenient, the locations were difficult, and the process was long and tedious.

As a result of this feedback, the Coalition discussed these problems during several open meetings in early 2000, with a high degree of participation, and it decided to focus on expanding subsidized child care for working families.This decision resulted in tremendous enthusiasm and buy-in. The policy agenda reflected a broad discussion among Coalition members as to policies to rem- edy the problems, consensus on what to work on, and engagement in the pro- cess at all levels-a good example of how a public policy process should work.

The Coalition developed the idea of a pilot project, called the Facilitated Enrollment Project, which would increase access to child-care subsidies! vouchers for working people. It would raise the income eligibility for child- care subsidies from 200 to 275 percent of the poverty level and put the labor movement front and center in the fight for quality, affordable child care. Under the current eligibility guidelines, in order to qualify for subsidies a

.,.-------------dIII Unions Fight for Work and Family Policies 151

family.' of four could not earn more.) than $37 700' ,un d er th e proposed guide-. lines, a family of four could qualify when making up to $51,840 (275 ercent of the poverty level). p

In 2000, the Coalition won support for the pilot project from child-care ad- vocacy partners 1I1 the CCTWC, as well as backing from ke y Iegis. Iatirve 1eaders in both the state Senate and the Assembly . It began the cam patgn.. D'unng the next fe~ months, more th~n five hundred union members went to Albany for a lobbying day, presentations were made to legislators by union members telling their child-care stories, and members directly lobbied their ownlegisla- tors. The unions kept close tabs on what was happening in key legislative com- mittees. Union leaders wrote and lobbied legislator leaders, especially the three most powerful leaders and the governor. The 1199 SEIU, AFSCME, United Federation of Teachers, Union of Needletrades, Industrial and Textile Employees-Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees Union (UNITE HERE), and other major unions were engaged and involved. This had a signif- icant effect on the legislature.

That first year (200 I), the legislature approved $5 million for pilot pro- grams in parts of New York City. The following year, the Coalition won $10 million and expanded the program within New York City. Eventually, the Coalition was successful in securing $33 million for five regions (New York City, Monroe County, the Capital region, Oneida County, and Westchester) to provide child-care and after-school subsidies to working families.

As of this writing, the program is still funded and going strong. Eligible workers can now apply for the child-care subsidies during evenings and week- ends at worksites, union halls, and community-based organizations, thereby making them more accessible to workers. Based on feedback from workers, the application form was shortened and simplified and can be mailed or faxed. Outreach for the program is conducted through unions, employers, and community-based organizations. Unions have organized child-care informa- tion fairs and offer parent education on the types of care and on choosing quality child care. Subsidies average $5,000-6,000 per year, depending on family income and size and can be used to pay for formal, informal, and after- school programs. This makes a substantial difference to working families pay- ing for child care. About 50 percent of the families recelvl11g the child-care

subsidies are union members.

,-._. O:~:n ):., :13....

Developing Leadership In addition to the concrete economic gains the Coalition has garnered for working families, it has also helped rank and file members learn orgamza-

. . d r Most CoahtlOn members had tional strategies related to po IItICS an powe. little understanding of the intricacies of the state legislative and budgetary

p

152 Netsy Firestein and Nicola Dones

. th ampaign Coalition members became educatedprocess. In deveIopmg e c , about how pu bliclC program.or s are won For example, they have come. to under-

stand the need to h·ave support from £ ·,11 parts of the state and the different .p-

proaches that nee d t0 be taken with the Assembly, the Senate, and the gover-.

nor ,S 0 fliICe.Withi1 In the labor movement , they have learned that. some urnons

are more m. fluen ti13I with key legislators due to the concentranon.. of the" rnem- bership in various districts or because of partic.lIl~r hlst~nes or re~a~lOnshlps. Coalition members are becoming quite sophisticated In straregrzing about who should approach which legislator. The Coalition emphasizes democratic and inclusive processes. Monthly

meetings and subcommittee meetings are forums for al1~lysi and haring ex- periences and information. Relationships between uruon leaders and staff with power and influence in the labor movement are complex and delicate- the staff members depend on leaders for resources and advice, yet are aware that the leaders do not always fully share their agenda and are ambivalent about sharing power with women, perhaps even more so with women of color. The level of sophistication of many Coalition activists in dealing with this sit- uation is growing each year. Coalition members are winning increased respect from male trade union leaders as they continue to work on these issues.

In order to provide more leadership opportunities for Coalition members, the Coalition established several subcommittees, including outreach, fund- raising, and political action. The new committees are all led by women and address key areas of the Coalition's work, including service development and implementation) city strategy) and political action. Mentors with expertise in each area are assigned to work with the committees. For example, the political action director of the state AFL-CIO and the lobbyist for two of the large unions work closely with the political action committee. The Coalition re- cently received a grant of $20,000 from the CWE to provide leadership devel- opment for rank and file WOlTIenunion members on work-family issues. The first training had over sixty participants from unions such as the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, AFSCME DC 37, and UNITE HERE. The goal was to build a network oflabor women familiar with work-family is- sues who could return to their unions and carry the message forward by get- tmg their umons to adopt a work-family agenda. An additional grant from the eWE paid for training for another thirty union women. The Coalition is now working on leveraging city money for similar child-

care projects and continues to do outreach for the Facilitated Enrollment Project. They are also working to expand the project into areas where there are large percentages of union members. Recently, the Coalition started to advo- cate for paid family leave I·· . N

. po icies In ew York state. It remains committed todevelopmg leadership amo . ng limon women and to promoting work and fam-

----------- .

.....P....... --------- QII

Unions Fight for Work and Family Policies 153

ily issues within the labor moverne n t th roug h bot h collective bargaining and political action.

Labor's Role in Work and Family Policies

Work and family issues such as child care and paid familyI; leave are core umon. issues that affect most working families and union members-they are not for women only. AJt~ollgh I~anyunions are bargaining for these kinds of policies and benefits, the impact IS far greater when state and national laws are passed. In ll1an~~ases, unions arc in the forefront of these struggles for social supports and policies that allow workers to care for families while working to earn a liv- ing. There is huge potential in the labor movement to move public policy agendas. As we can see from the examples here, unions have the ability not only to lobby in state capitols but to mobilize their members to call, write, and visit their legislators and to turn out hundreds or even thousands of union members to events and rallies. By allying with progressive community forces, unions in many states are leading the way in lahor-community coalitions for

work and family policies. The most significant and broadly applicable lessons that campaign partici-

pants drew from the California experience included having a broad base, hav- ing the support of California's labor unions as well as a strong legislative au- thor, building a diverse coalition, having solid data to make the case, and having the resources to devote significant staff time to the campaign. The fact that the California Labor Federation was the lead sponsor cannot be underes- timated. It put significant resources into the campaign and was effective in lobbying and pressuring the governor; it was able to generate thousands of

postcards and messages to key legislators. The New York Child Care Coalition also has become a strong voice in the

state's public policy arena. It decided to focus on increasing access to state child-care subsidies by raising the eligibility levels, and it achieved remarkable success. The Coalition is now playing an instrumental role in getting labor and community groups mobilized around paid family leave legislation .. In 2005, a bill for paid family leave passed the state Assembly, and the Coalition

is working on passing it in the state Senate next. These two case studies are not isolated examples. Union-led work and fam-

ily coalitions are active elsewhere and are pursuing a range of issu~s. I~ 2006, legislation for some type of paid family leave had been proposed in mneteen states' In addition, labor-community coalitions in eight states (Washmgton,

g 8 For details see the National Partnership website, http://ww,v.nationalpartnership.or .

.

2

154 Netsy Firestein and Nicola Dones

. e Massachusetts Wisconsin, Georgia, New York, and Cali-N ew Jersey, Mam, ' .' . . c ia) ki together as the Multi-State Workmg Families Consortium,lornta , war mg . .

ti I shing legislation to address various worktirne Issues. Theseare ac ive y pu . .. coalitions involve state labor federations, labor councils, and vanous uruons working with community-based organi~atjo~s to acti~a~e union members and community activists on behalf of family-friendly policies. Each state has a slightly different focus-from expanding the FMLA to requiring employers to provide a minimum number of paid sick days that can also be used to care for families to more comprehensive paid family leave laws. In the 2005 legislative session, the Washington State coalition helped pass

paid family leave legislation in the state Senate, but narrowly failed in the House. Massachusetts introduced legislation requiring employers to provide a minimum of seven paid sick days that can be used for a worker's own illness or to care for a sick family member, and in 2006, it introduced a paid family leave bill modeled on the California legislation. Wisconsin introduced a bill that would allow, under the Wisconsin Family and Medical Leave law, employees to use up to sixteen hours per year for school conferences and related activi- ties. Maine passed a bill that allows workers to use a portion of their sick days to care for family members, and New Jersey has an active bill for paid family leave that builds on the state temporary disability program." Paid family leave and affordable child care are winning policy issues be-

cause they are important to everyone. Legislation was passed and funding was secured because a desperate need existed for such supports and unions made them a top priority. It is critical that we link work and family issues to the larger labor issues for all workers today. What do workers need? They need good wages, safe jobs, health insurance for themselves and their families, and retirement benefits-and they need affordable quality child care, paid sick days, paid family leave, flexible work schedules, and elder-care resources. These are not separate issues that we will win when we have won everything else; they are part of the fabric that is needed in today's workplaces, with today's workforce. No one is home baking chocolate chip cookies and taking grandma to the doctor. So we should stop acting like we all have full-time stay-at-horne wives and force our workplaces to reflect the lives we now lead. Unions often set the standards for the workplace through collective bargain- mg; now unions are setting the standards for good public policies so that workers do not have to choose between their jobs and their families.

c r~In ~.number of oth.er stat~s, including Illinois, Oregon, Iowa, Washington, New York, New Jersey, a I ?rllla, Pennsylvania, OhIO, and Michigan, there are efforts to organize famil child-care

~.rovl~ers,.ahndhseveral states ~ave enacted policies to allow these workers to unionize anX collectively argain Wit testate. As child-care workers be . d . . public funding for hild _ d .. come organize , uruons will have more of a voice in

C 1 -care wages an ,lt IS hoped, for broader funding of the child-care system.