[Vision2020] Panel Rejects Day-Care Rule - Working at Home
Sue Hovey
suehovey at moscow.com
Wed Feb 28 13:29:38 PST 2007
There's another problem attached to working from home. It's the lack of validity often attached to a "working from home" job. I'm not talking about professional validity, but family validity. Maybe others have figured out how to do it, but many of the women who work from home are still seen by family members--husbands and dependent children as being there for them regardless. Even with an office in the home, "where's the peanut butter?" or "why did you wash only one of my white socks?" intervene---you get the drift--if you aren't a husband or dependent child.
The solution. Well women who work at home take their children to daycare if they can afford it and god only knows what they do with their husbands.
Sue Hovey
----- Original Message -----
From: Megan Prusynski
To: vision2020 at moscow.com
Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 10:10 AM
Subject: [Vision2020] Panel Rejects Day-Care Rule - Working at Home
I work at home here in Moscow. It's really easy to do and quite common in my field (graphic & web design) and I know of other designers in the area that do the same thing. I work for an organization based in Virginia, actually most of our web designers telecommute, as it saves on overhead as well as allowing us to be home with our families (which for me means I don't have to abandon my "furry children" all day). I also do freelance work from home. No commute so I use fewer fossil fuels, saves my employers and clients money since there's less overhead, and I get to work in my pjs if I so desire. Win-win situation! :)
As for the day care bill, I am very sad to see this happen in Idaho. I used to intern for IdahoSTARS, a local non-profit that works to improve child care in the state (actually I worked with several of the people quoted in the article) so this issue really hits home. We definitely need better standards to improve child care in this state, and it's very sad to see that all the hard work done by the agencies hoping to improve Idaho's child care situation was in vain on this bill. It is blatant disregard for less fortunate working families in this state. How can mom stay home with the kids if she has to work two jobs just to support them on our extremely low minimum-wage? I certainly hope that things improve for child care in this state. Kinda makes me glad I don't have (human) children...
peace,
~megan
On Feb 28, 2007, at 11:45 AM, vision2020-request at moscow.com wrote:
Tom asks:
"And just what work-at-home opportunities are there here in Vandalville,
Roger?"
Web designer. Medical transcriptionist. Legal transcription.
Appointment coordinator. Data entry. "Virtual Assistant".
The stuff is out there. It's just a matter of looking for it. And it
may not even be *in* Moscow. But you will be.
I do know a young lady who has done pretty well for herself with website
design. She says she enjoys showing up to work in her jammies.
DC
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 11:45:55 -0800
From: "Saundra Lund" <sslund at roadrunner.com>
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] ign'ant Idahoans against daycare
To: "'Sue Hovey'" <suehovey at moscow.com>, "'Debbie Gray'"
<graylex at yahoo.com>, "'vision2020'" <vision2020 at moscow.com>
Message-ID: <011a01c75b71$1045a420$1401a8c0 at pooh>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In part, Sue Hovey wrote:
"Just another example of the workings of those whose aim it is to protect
children from conception to birth."
BINGO!
Thanks, Debbie, for posting the article -- it was very informative,
distressing, and the outcome was ***incredibly*** disappointing :-(
Saundra Lund
Moscow, ID
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do
nothing.
- Edmund Burke
***** Original material contained herein is Copyright 2006, Saundra Lund.
Do not copy, forward, excerpt, or reproduce outside the Vision 2020 forum
without the express written permission of the author.*****
-----Original Message-----
From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com [mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com]
On Behalf Of Sue Hovey
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2007 9:33 PM
To: Debbie Gray; vision2020
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] ign'ant Idahoans against daycare
Yes, I'm a bit puzzled, too, at the contention this bill would somehow force
parents to use day care. Tom Loertscher with his "what can we do to keep
mom's at home?" probably voted against the minimum wage bill, too. I've
always thought of him as one who isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer,
even compared to JoAnn Wood--though she isn't ignorant, I think, just mean.
Of course the not so subtle message from these folks could be, "a loving
mother doesn't use day care, because we aren't going to provide you with the
legal means to protect your child...." Just another example of the workings
of those whose aim it is to protect children from conception to birth.
Sue Hovey
----- Original Message -----
From: "Debbie Gray" <graylex at yahoo.com>
To: "vision2020" <vision2020 at moscow.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2007 4:42 PM
Subject: [Vision2020] ign'ant Idahoans against daycare
So is the whole point that these ignorant people are
trying to make daycare unsafe so as to keep moms at
home? Or what? And even if moms (OR DADS) wanted to
stay at home to care for their children 24/7, how many
can afford to do that these days? Shouldn't it be a
CHOICE??? Oh wait, R's don't like that word.
Debbie Gray
spokesman review
Panel rejects day-care rules
House committee limits supporters; 2 members suggest
mothers stay home
Betsy Z. Russell
February 27, 2007
BOISE With some members saying mothers should stay
home with their
children, members of a House committee on Monday
killed legislation to
require minimum safety standards and criminal
history checks for Idaho day
cares.
"It's gut-wrenching for me," Rep. Tom Loertscher,
R-Iona, said before the 6-5 vote against the bill.
"What can we do to keep mom at home?"
Loertscher said he "cannot imagine" ever taking a
child to a day-care
center and said, "There is no substitute, there is
absolutely no
substitute for families taking care of children."
Rep. Steven Thayn, R-Emmett, said, "Being separate
from your mother
there's reason to believe this could be harmful."
The House Health and Welfare Committee kept backers
of the day-care
licensing bill waiting until long after 5 p.m. for a
hearing that was
scheduled to start at 1:30 after it was put off last
week then limited
them to three minutes apiece to testify in favor of
the bill.
A stunned Cathy Kowalski, a Coeur d'Alene early
childhood consultant who
has worked on the bill for three years, said, "I
think it is a committee
whose members are definitely out of touch with the
needs of their
constituents, and I think the working families in
their districts need to
let them know."
Sylvia Chariton, who testified in favor of the bill
on behalf of the
American Association of University Women of Idaho,
said, "It's ridiculous
those men live in a time warp, when 60 percent of
all mothers of children
under 6 years of age take them someplace to be cared
for."
Rep. George Sayler, D-Coeur d'Alene, the bill's lead
sponsor, told the
committee, "For working parents it is a vital
concern."
His bill, HB 163, originally would have set minimal
health and safety
standards, training requirements, and staffing
levels, and required
criminal history checks for day cares caring for as
few as two unrelated
children, but he offered amendments to raise that to
apply only to those
caring for six or more children. "We're not trying
to be burdensome,"
Sayler told the committee.
Karen Mason, executive director of the Idaho
Association for the Education
of Young Children, told of complaints her group has
received about
children being locked in rooms at day cares with no
escape, infants never
taken out of playpens, and unqualified caregivers
with criminal
backgrounds.
Elena Rodriguez of Idaho Voices for Children said,
"The current lack of
adequate standards for child care puts children at
risk. That's what we
want to correct."
More than 70,000 Idaho children under age 5 are in
day care, Rodriguez
told the committee.
All the testimony was in favor of the bill, except
that of one state
representative, Rep. JoAn Wood, R-Rigby. Wood
testified that when she
served on the Health and Welfare Committee 25 years
ago, "we had almost
the same information brought to us."
At that time, she said, the panel opted against
state licensing for
centers with fewer than 13 children. "I would plead
with you I think it's
working well," Wood told the committee. "We just
don't see the problems
there in the rural area where I am."
Rep. John Rusche, D-Lewiston, a physician who serves
on the committee,
disagreed. He said he's seen terrible cases,
including a toddler who
drowned in a horse trough that wasn't separated from
the day care and
other children with severe injuries suffered in
unsafe day cares.
Nine Idaho cities, including Coeur d'Alene, have
stricter day-care
licensing rules, but operators who run afoul of city
regulations can move
outside city limits.
Boise businessman Bill Ziegert told the panel, "Our
world has changed, and
we no longer live in a society where all preschool
children stayed at home
or were left with relatives." He said for his
employees day care is
essential, and he called the bill "important and
necessary."
Rep. Pete Nielsen, R-Mountain Home, said he thought
that if the committee
agreed to amend the bill, the backers would only try
to remove the
amendments in the future. "They only submitted the
amendments to try and
get us to buy off on this," he said.
Rep. Lynn Luker, R-Boise, urged support.
"When I first saw this bill I was not in favor of
it, but with the
amendments I am more supportive of it. Because in
our society, it's
different than it was 15 or 20 years ago," he said.
Rep. Paul Shepherd, R-Riggins, said, "It's a tough
one for me, because my
district has some large communities that it will be
a positive thing, but
I also have way more communities that it will be
detrimental. I don't see
why we need to address it."
Wood told the panel, "I think you're going to put a
lot of young women
that babysit out of business."
In the final vote, the committee's three Democrats
and two Republicans
voted in favor of the amended bill. In addition to
Rusche and Luker, they
included Sharon Block, R-Idaho Falls; and Boise
Democrats Sue Chew and Margaret Henbest.
Six Republicans voted against the bill even as
amended: Reps. Nielsen,
Loertscher, Thayn and Shepherd; Janice McGeachin,
R-Idaho Falls; and Jim
Marriott, R-Blackfoot.
Sayler said afterward, "What can I say it's
disappointing. I'll tell you,
frankly what I heard was not concern for children it
was concern about
regulation. Our society has changed."
Ziegert, the Boise businessman, said, "It was
amazing to me, that you
could have all of the testimony in support of it,
people with facts and so
forth," and still the committee rejected the bill.
Kowalski said, "The problem has not been solved.
The issue will not go
away."
House Bill 163 originally would have set minimal
health and safety
standards, training requirements, and staffing
levels, and required
criminal history checks for day cares caring for as
few as two unrelated
children.
%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%
Debbie Gray dgray at uidaho.edu
"We must be willing to get rid of the life we've
planned,
so as to have the life that is waiting for us."
--Joseph Campbell
%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
=======================================================
List services made available by First Step Internet,
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
http://www.fsr.net
mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.4/705 - Release Date: 2/27/2007 3:24 PM
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20070228/001ff69c/attachment-0001.html
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list