5 University of Michigan union contracts ratified in advance of right to work
Right-to-work legislation takes effect Thursday, but five University of Michigan unions won't have to worry about its impact for several years.
University of Michigan
Knowing unions would be open to making concessions, U-M agreed to negotiate early. The fifth agreement, with the lecturers union, was negotiated in advance of it expiring this spring.
And while the four- and five-year contracts aren't as long as those reached by some schools and municipalities —such as Wayne State University's eight-year agreement with its faculty union— U-M could face serious, and expensive, backlash for helping unions skirt the law.
A house subcommittee has recommended penalizing the university by cutting 15 percent of its appropriations, or $41 million, if officials didn't achieve adequate cost savings. When Republican representatives proposed the measure last week, U-M administrators had already signed off on the agreements and sent them to union memberships for ratification.
Throughout the bargaining process lawmakers' threats to withhold funding created a tense atmosphere between the university and unions, according to officials from the school's lecturers union.
Bonnie Halloran, president of U-M's lecturers' union, has said the subcommittee recommendation to cut funds is unfair. "Nothing illegal is being done," she has said.
U-M Board of Regents chairwoman Denise Ilitch said the school "can't respond to threats."
U-M nurses protest right-to-work legislation in December at the state capitol.
AP Photo | Carlos Osorio
Yet architects of the proposed penalty say it's not a threat, but a measure meant to hold officials accountable.
"I think we've sent a pretty serious message here," Rep. Al Pscholka, R-Stevensville, told MLive after a subcommittee on higher education, which he chairs, passed the measure in a 4-3 party-line vote March 19. "And hopefully it's received. The message is: Protect taxpayers. If you're going to do contracts, make sure that you come up with real taxpayer savings."
In an interview Tuesday, Pscholka said the length of the five-year lecturers contract is "curious" given that the last contract was for three years. He said his committee is mainly concerned with contracts related to U-M's education arm, such as the lecturers and graduate employees unions, and not those related to the health system.
None of the contracts in question, he said, appear to achieve adequate cost savings.
"What they've told me is that they have all this leverage to do all of these great deals for taxpayers and that they're saving taxpayers money," Pscholka said of U-M. "I have not seen any taxpayer savings at all."
Between March 21 and March 25 all five U-M unions ratified their contracts. Each agreement includes lower increases in base pay than previous contracts and all raises are lower than 3 percent.
The five agreements represent 11,600 employees, or the vast majority of union workers at the university. There are nine unions at the school and, collectively, members pay at least $5.36 million in annual dues.
- The 1,100-member house officers union, which represents medical residents training at the health system, ratified a four-year contract that expires June 2017. Pay increases range from 1.5 percent to 1.85 percent.
- The lecturers union, which represents 1,500 non-tenured teachers at the school's three campuses, agreed to a five-year contract. Ann Arbor lecturers will receive no raise in fiscal 2014, a 1.5-percent raise in 2015, 2-percent raises in 2016 and 2017 and a 2.75-percent raise the last year of the contract.
- The 1,800-member Graduate Employees Organization, which represents graduate students who also teach, ratified a four-year contract that will expire in May 2017. The contract renegotiated raises set to take effect in September from 3 percent to 2 percent. It includes 2-percent raises each year, lower than the nine-year average of 3.3 percent.
- The 2,400-member American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees agreed to a four-year contract expiring in June 2017. The new contract includes two years of lump-sum payments in lieu of base increases, followed by a 1 percent raise and then a 2-percent raise the final year of the contract. Over the past three years, the union members had averaged a 2.2-percent annual wage increase.
- The 4,800-member Michigan Nurses Association ratified a five-year contract, which will expire in June 2018. For the first year of the contract, nurses will receive a 4 percent raise, which was stipulated in the union's prior contract. For the next three years nurses will receive 1.25 percent raises, with certain nurses receiving $1,000 lump-sum payments, according to an MNA official. The last year of the contract includes a 1 percent raise. Throughout the contract, nurses can move up a payment ladder and receive step increases. The union's prior contract provided for 3 and 4 percent raises over the course of three years.
Kellie Woodhouse covers higher education for AnnArbor.com. Reach her at kelliewoodhouse@annarbor.com or 734-623-4602 and follow her on twitter.
Comments
katmando
Fri, Mar 29, 2013 : 1:01 a.m.
If this law was so good and right why did they add funding law with it so that people couldn't vote on it?
Hot Sam
Thu, Mar 28, 2013 : 12:39 p.m.
I'm glad all these government entities are so flush...means they won't be coming to us for more dough anytime soon right? Right?
Laurie Barrett
Thu, Mar 28, 2013 : 12:36 p.m.
Most of the work groups in the University and Hospital are unionized--Groundskeepers, nurses, security, housekeepers, and others. The only groups not unionized are the administrators (would be an oxymoron), and the sprawling enormous service staff--office workers, clerks, assistants, and so on. This latter group is the least well paid and most exploited group in the system. One would think they would benefit by unionizing. Anyone who didn't want to be in the service staff union could opt out per RTW, but then they'd probably be the first to go during layoffs.
clownfish
Thu, Mar 28, 2013 : 12:36 p.m.
There seems to be a common thread running around here, the idea that unions have not done their "fair share". Is this true? Ann Arbor teachers approve tentative agreement that could result in 3-percent pay cut.-a2.com 6 days ago. Ypsi bus drivers took a cut. In 2011 the police and fire dep of A2 let 20 people go, that is a pay cut of 100%, most state employees took or will be taking unpaid furlough days, as will many federal workers hit by the sequester, some will be taking almost a 20% pay cut when that happens. The UM is not hurting, they have thousands of people that come every day and pay to go to school, pay for medical services, pay for football tickets etc. People come from all over the world and compete to get into the UM, should the people that make that happen not be rewarded?
Krupper1
Thu, Mar 28, 2013 : 11:28 a.m.
Workers lose their right to choose so Union bosses can keep soaking them through dues. And, I'm a union member.
Roger Kuhlman
Thu, Mar 28, 2013 : 3:57 a.m.
Wages and benefits paid to the average Michigan worker in the private sector have declined over the past five years while those in the public sector have not been hurt. That is crazy. Most people work in the private Sector and pay for the costs of government and its public sector workers. Should public sector workers be getting a significantly better deal than the rest of us.
drew_blows
Fri, Mar 29, 2013 : 1:02 a.m.
Please cite your sources
Roger Kuhlman
Thu, Mar 28, 2013 : 3:24 a.m.
Government employees and the leadership at UM is supposed to work for the citizens of Michigan. Now they are turning this equation around and making the citizens of Michigan to work for public employees. I think there will be increasing anger in the Public about this fact. The citizens of Michigan need to take away the Golden Goose that gives special benefits and privileges to unionized publc employees.
eagleman
Thu, Mar 28, 2013 : 8:47 p.m.
I make roughly $30,000 a year. How is that a "golden goose"?
Ken
Thu, Mar 28, 2013 : 2:42 a.m.
Taxpayers are the losers in these putrid deals. We can be be patient. After five years it's goodbye and good riddance unions.
Basic Bob
Thu, Mar 28, 2013 : 1:29 p.m.
@clownfish, Please help us out with a comparison of median wage and benefit declines in the public unions versus the average Michigan worker. With the reduction of wealth of average workers and the negotiated increases in compensation for union workers, the only option is to stop replacing them when they retire.
clownfish
Thu, Mar 28, 2013 : 1:16 p.m.
Unions have been taking it on the chin for years. If you read the comments here you can see the results. As union membership as wained, so has the aggregate wealth of the "middle class" . If one graphs it, the two mirror each other fairly close. For example: "Wages and benefits paid to the average Michigan worker in the private sector have declined over the past five years"
Steve
Thu, Mar 28, 2013 : 2:29 a.m.
So now the legislature is trying to pass punishments for doing something that is LEGAL. Maybe they should start saving taxpayer money by not trying to impose punishments that will not stand up in court. In time many of the people who have forgotten why a Union was necessary will be fighting to bring them back!!
bobslowson
Thu, Mar 28, 2013 : 2 p.m.
Yep...our government in Lansing are spoiled vindictive children
Seasoned Cit
Thu, Mar 28, 2013 : 2:14 a.m.
We all have to admit that the RTW legislation sure got the attention of Union Leaders and isn't it amazing how quickly contracts can be negotiated and finalized when the Union Leaders' backs were up against the wall. Usually Unions aren't in such a hurry and even use the pressure of strikes to put the folks on the other side of the table under pressure. I wonder if Lansing had any idea that there would be such a flurry of signed contracts before the 28th,
Mike
Thu, Mar 28, 2013 : 1:59 a.m.
If only all union members wore tape on their mouths...................
drew_blows
Thu, Mar 28, 2013 : 1:06 a.m.
Congrats to the five Unions that ratified their contracts. The contract stability is not only good for the employees but the University. For those of you who are anti Union, crying foul that it was done to avoid RTW, I will ask you do to one thing: please post where you work so all my Union Brothers and Sisters in this area can decide whether they wish to spend their Union dollars in your place of employment.
M-Wolverine
Thu, Mar 28, 2013 : 1:47 p.m.
Well, to be fair, shouldn't you have to post where you work so people can decide if they want to spend their non-union dollars supporting your place of employment? Or were you just setting up straw men?
drew_blows
Thu, Mar 28, 2013 : 1:09 a.m.
Angry Moderate: I am hoping you will be the first to accept my challenge.
1bit
Wed, Mar 27, 2013 : 11:45 p.m.
@AM: You do realize that there is a difference between a public University and a government institution, right? The legislature does not own nor does it run the University of Michigan. Regents are elected and they approved the contracts. The doublespeak you posted is emblematic of the problem of these representatives, who use twisted logic to justify their tantrums when they don't get what they want. These representatives are hypocrites as I posted. They run on a platform of small government, but when it suits their whim they will create laws/penalties to prove they are the overlords of their fiefdom. It is pathetic, ironic and cliche.
clownfish
Thu, Mar 28, 2013 : 12:39 p.m.
The will of the government has yet to go into effect. No laws were violated. Both sides agreed on the terms.
Roger Kuhlman
Thu, Mar 28, 2013 : 3:28 a.m.
Without funding from the state of Michigan, UM would probably go out of business. If UM does not respect the will of state government, it should have its funding curtailed significantly.
Angry Moderate
Wed, Mar 27, 2013 : 10:18 p.m.
1bit, the University is a government institution, and it gets money from the government. The government can't "interfere" with it--they own it, they make the rules.
johnnya2
Thu, Mar 28, 2013 : 2:52 a.m.
Yeah, you may want to re-read that whole Michigan CONSTITUTION. It helps to get educated before you open your mouth. The legislature can NOT interfere with the BUSINESS of the University of Michigan. That is why there is a separate ELECTION for their Board. If they cut off the funding it would be a slam dunk violation of keeping the U autonomous in decisions.
Darth A
Thu, Mar 28, 2013 : 1:55 a.m.
Again, check your facts. Although it receives funding from the state, the University is governed by an independent panel called the Regents and even the Governor cannot gainsay policy created or changed by the Regents, as long as the policies do not break state laws.
york twp. moderate
Wed, Mar 27, 2013 : 9:21 p.m.
"Knowing the unions would be open to concessions..." The University was smart to agree to these contracts. They knew that the Union bosses were willing to negotiate contracts that were not necessarily in the best interests of their members. Instead the bosses were more concerned with preserving their powerful, highly paid union positions. Just read the terms that the University got from each union. This has also been the case at other public Universities where Union bosses have been racing to beat the deadline and accepting long term contracts that force their members to continue to pay high dues, with little or no improvement in working conditions or benefits.
DBH
Thu, Mar 28, 2013 : 11:32 p.m.
Whether or not 1300/4000 is representative of the membership is relative to how that 1300 voted. Since they voted 94% to 6% in favor of the contract, the 2700 who did not vote would have had to vote by a margin of 71% to 29% against the contract in order for the contract to have been rejected by the 4000 members as a whole. Possible, but pretty unlikely.
nursereadytogo
Thu, Mar 28, 2013 : 9:16 p.m.
Again 1300/4000 is not representative of membership. Poor turnout. Rushed and done in secret.
DBH
Wed, Mar 27, 2013 : 11:04 p.m.
And yet the nurses union and the lecturers union contracts both passed with 93-94% of the membership voting in favor. If the membership wasn't happy with their overall contract, they very well could have voted it down.
GoNavy
Wed, Mar 27, 2013 : 9:14 p.m.
5 years isn't forever. These contracts won't stop the march of time. Unions have simply bought a few more breaths before they slip below the surface.
Darth A
Thu, Mar 28, 2013 : 2:02 a.m.
And we will return to the days of the Robber Barons which fostered the need for unions in the first place. I recently moved to Virginia from Michigan. I was saddened to find that although faculty salaries have increased greatly in the 25 years since I was last here, the staff and area worker wages are less than 10% greater than the early 1980's. 'Right-to-work' often equals 'right-to-not-share-the-wealth-that-the-workers-created'.
Kellie Woodhouse
Wed, Mar 27, 2013 : 9:02 p.m.
Readers: I've updated this article with comments from Pscholka and additional information from the nurses union.
clownfish
Wed, Mar 27, 2013 : 8:07 p.m.
We can see clearly how feel about "the workers get(ing) the short end of the stick" by how they voted down the contracts. The 4,200-member Michigan Nurses Association ratified a five-year contract, The 1,100-member house officers union, which represents medical residents training at the health system, ratified a four-year contract The lecturers union, which represents 1,500 non-tenured teachers at the school's three campuses, agreed to a five-year contract The 2,400-member American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees agreed to a four-year contract The 1,800-member Graduate Employees Organization, which represents graduate students who also teach, ratified a four-year contract What is this word "ratify"? Is that kind of like saying "Yes, we like this". Democratic local control, formerly a core value. Is there any other law that has yet to go into effect that punishes people for not abiding by the law before it goes into effect? Sure would be nice to put this to the people, too bad the GOP decided to make that harder, I guess because they want to listen to the people more and govern from the top less?
nursereadytogo
Thu, Mar 28, 2013 : 1:58 a.m.
For the nursing contract. Of the 4000 nurses only 1300 voted is that really representative of the membership. This surprise contract was done without membership input and knowledge.
clownfish
Wed, Mar 27, 2013 : 8:10 p.m.
"We can see clearly how -workers- feel about..." sorry.
treetowncartel
Wed, Mar 27, 2013 : 8:02 p.m.
Which 5 contacts?
DBH
Wed, Mar 27, 2013 : 7:49 p.m.
Ms. Woodhouse, is there any information available regarding what the votes of the 5 unions were, i.e., how many voted for the contracts and how many voted against? The union membership itself (not just the leaders) voted on these contracts, right?
DBH
Thu, Mar 28, 2013 : 11:28 p.m.
@nursereadytogo, thanks for your reply. Taking your numbers at face value (4000 members, 1300 voted, 94% voted in favor), if the 2700 non-voting members had actually voted, the 2700 members would have had to vote more than 71% against the contract for the contract to have been rejected. While that would be possible, it seems unlikely with 32.5% of the membership having voted 94% to 6% in favor of the contract. So, while only a third of the membership voted, the vote overwhelmingly in favor of the contract is strong evidence that the membership as a whole would have voted it in if everyone had voted.
nursereadytogo
Thu, Mar 28, 2013 : 9:14 p.m.
DBH. I am not sure why nursing did not get out and vote. Could some of it have been apathy..."my vote will not make a difference." The short notice. Told on the 15th voting started on the 20th, prime vacation time for a number of staff. Staff who do not read email, those out on LOA. Available sessions to vote. Parking stinks at the times of day for voting and listening, getting away from patient care to vote and listen to them explain; if you stayed it took an hour hard to get away. Afraid to ask if you had to listen or could you just vote. I really can not answer. I think we did membership a disservice by this action.
LuvAA
Thu, Mar 28, 2013 : 2:24 p.m.
Ms. Woodhouse, based on Nursereadytogo's comments, I'm interested in knowing how many total members for each of the 5 unions in discussion (as well as other union contract stories) there are, and of that number, how many voted. Thank you.
DBH
Thu, Mar 28, 2013 : 3:08 a.m.
@nursereadytogo, do you know why 70% of the nurses union membership did not vote? Do you know what the average turnout in past elections has averaged? Do you have some reason to believe (other than a gut feeling, if true) that the results of the vote by the nurses did not reflect the sentiments of the membership as a whole?
nursereadytogo
Thu, Mar 28, 2013 : 2:06 a.m.
DBH if only 1/3 of the membership voted I would not call that on board. This was a rushed deal with no input from membership.
nursereadytogo
Thu, Mar 28, 2013 : 2:04 a.m.
Nursing only had 1300 total votes out of ~ 40000 members. Representing about 30 % of membership. Of those who voted 94% voted in favor of ratification.
DBH
Wed, Mar 27, 2013 : 11 p.m.
Thanks, Ms. Woodhouse, on the interim report. For these two unions, then, it appears the membership is strongly on board with the contracts, and the prospect of having to pay dues for the durations of the new contracts did not dissuade their passage.
Kellie Woodhouse
Wed, Mar 27, 2013 : 8:53 p.m.
The nurses union got back to me and told me it was a 94 percent vote in favor of ratification.
Kellie Woodhouse
Wed, Mar 27, 2013 : 8:32 p.m.
I'm trying to get this for all unions. The nurses union wouldn't tell health reporter Amy Biolchini the exact vote, just that it was a majority. The lecturers contract passed by 93.5%.
Ignatz
Wed, Mar 27, 2013 : 7:49 p.m.
Seems to me that by ratifying these contracts, the majority union members do not mind supporting an organizational framework that gets them better pay and benefits. Those who complain how they don't like a small portion of their dues being spent on causes they do not agree with have a right not to work in a unionized environment. They knew the conditions when they took the job and are better off for it, I might add. As for the view that by extending contracts is a way of circumventing the law, good! I'm glad the Repubs who blatantly sided with corporations get a little steamed. BTW, there were years where not everyone got a raise, so it's not all, "... champagne wishes and caviar dreams". In general though, the University runs itself successfully enough to ensure a constant flow of students willing to pay the high tuition and fees. If a corporation did that, there would be no complaints, would there?
Roger Kuhlman
Thu, Mar 28, 2013 : 3:36 a.m.
Why should people who want to work for UM have to be forced to be part of a Union. That is like some private business requiring its employees to sign up with the Tea Party and give it funding. I thought Democrats and liberals were the party of 'Choice.'
Darth A
Thu, Mar 28, 2013 : 1:52 a.m.
For Angry Moderate, the University has been incorporated for almost the entire time of its existence. Also when you consider its business model, the ties with for-profit corporations, and the sports franchise, it can definitely be considered a full blooded corporation.
Angry Moderate
Wed, Mar 27, 2013 : 8:10 p.m.
It's hilarious how you think this is about corporations. Notice how all of these contracts being discussed are with public universities, counties, and city governments?
USRepublic
Wed, Mar 27, 2013 : 7:47 p.m.
Ms. Ilitch is fool hearty and spoiled... Maybe if the University negotiated a 5 yr. exclusive with Domino's Pizza she would get the point.... But then again....
antikvetch
Wed, Mar 27, 2013 : 7:46 p.m.
When did tape-over-the-mouth officially jump the shark?
EyeHeartA2
Thu, Mar 28, 2013 : 1:20 p.m.
I think the tape looks nice, in a "Pulp Fiction" sort of way.
beardown
Wed, Mar 27, 2013 : 7:39 p.m.
"The message is: Protect taxpayers. If you're going to do contracts, make sure that you come up with real taxpayer savings. We haven't seen any yet." So withholding millions of dollars, which will lead to the loss of jobs and loss money into the economy, is protecting the taxpayers? Please stop trying to protect us from evil unions and start protecting us from Lansing.
Charley Sullivan
Thu, Mar 28, 2013 : 11:37 a.m.
Eyeheart: I realize from reading your posts that you somehow think that anyone involved in anything on here has an automatically suspect opinion, but yeah, at least I'm up front about who I am, and I don't try to pass myself off as some unbiased arbiter of knowledge. I await your name being made public, so we know where your talking points come from . . . Roger: That idea has been proposed, to be sure. Essentially, this is what has been happening, by degrees, as the state contribution to all public universities in Michigan has declined both in real terms and as a percentage of operating budgets. Now several things would happen if U-M were cut loose: highly subsidized in-state tuitions would move up to the market value, as would the admissions criteria for in-state applicants, who would have to compete with the (statistically speaking at least) stronger out-of-state applicant pool. But the Michigan brand would stay strong, and Republicans in Lansing and Ann Arbor would have lost one of their favorite whipping boys.
Roger Kuhlman
Thu, Mar 28, 2013 : 3:43 a.m.
@Charley S. If UM is basically self-funding, shouldn't the citizens of Michigan through the legislature cut it loose entirely and end its state funding? Then UM as a quasi-private business could do whatever they like and risk only their own money.
Roger Kuhlman
Thu, Mar 28, 2013 : 3:38 a.m.
Public employee unions are bankrupting state and local governments. Hasn't anyone been taking notice of what is happening in Detroit?
EyeHeartA2
Thu, Mar 28, 2013 : 3:01 a.m.
"........ as a member of one of these unions." That clears up A LOT. Now we know where the talking points come from.
Charley Sullivan
Thu, Mar 28, 2013 : 2:06 a.m.
ANGRY: You (and I and other taxpayers) are, at best, a minority stakeholder in the salary I work very hard to earn as a member of one of these unions. State contributions to U-M are now less than 20% or so (someone feel free to fact-check that on me). Essentially, the university now self-funds, through tuition, grants and fundraising. On the other hand, the legislature is fully tax-payer funded. So if you want to vent your anger, that might be a better venue. And if you don't like your private-sector salary and benefits, you could always try unionizing . . . it sorta works.
Angry Moderate
Wed, Mar 27, 2013 : 9:30 p.m.
How on earth did you get that from my post? I said that everyone else earned their money too--you know, the taxpayers who have to cover these contracts.
clownfish
Wed, Mar 27, 2013 : 9:08 p.m.
ANGRY, you don't think nurses EARN there money? How about medical residents? In 2003, regulations capped the work-week for residents at 80 hours.
Angry Moderate
Wed, Mar 27, 2013 : 8:07 p.m.
"loss money into the economy" Actually, this allows the taxpayers who EARNED that money to spend it in the real economy rather than being hoarded by greedy government employees who alread have excellent salaries and benefits.
Dave
Wed, Mar 27, 2013 : 7:36 p.m.
Snyder is NOT anti collective bargaining. The point of the penalty is to make things fair for the workers. The workers get the short end of the stick as the unions are all in it for the dues and want to finalize the contract so they give up stuff for their members. Unions get dues for the next few years. Government gets a little break. Workers get stiffed. If I were in a union I'd be pretty upset that they bargained with the mentality that they needed to wrap things up before the law changed. Again...the whole point of the penalty is to prevent this stuff from happening.
clownfish
Wed, Mar 27, 2013 : 8:41 p.m.
The lecturers contract passed by 93.5%. Stiffed.
clownfish
Wed, Mar 27, 2013 : 7:58 p.m.
If you were in a union you could run to represent the union in negotiations and decide whether you wanted to do a contract now or later. Those that do the actual bargaining obviously wanted to do t now. If the workers don;' like the union, they can De-ratify, elect new representatives or be at-will and seek a better job. Turns out that most union members do not feel like they get the shaft.
beardown
Wed, Mar 27, 2013 : 7:45 p.m.
So he is pro collective bargaining by neutering the people who do the collective bargaining. That makes a lot of sense. Most union dues, or at least the ones that I have worked for, took very little money out of my take home pay. "Again...the whole point of the penalty is to prevent this stuff from happening." If they had done this after the RTW goes into effect, then yes, punish them. But prior to the law going into effect will just lead to a lot of litigation and end up costing the state more than any possible fuzzy math savings they may have thought they were getting.
goosenews
Wed, Mar 27, 2013 : 7:35 p.m.
Why does it seem like the unions and public employers (city,county, universities) are in bed together?
Roger Kuhlman
Thu, Mar 28, 2013 : 3:49 a.m.
Because they are in bed together. Ann Arbor, Washtenaw county, and UM are controlled by liberal democrats and one their most important special interest constituencies are Public Employee Unions. If these Unions want great deals, they are bound to get them from their good friends liberal democratic politicians. Corrupt.
easy123
Thu, Mar 28, 2013 : 12:31 a.m.
Because they are Democrats - lol
justcurious
Wed, Mar 27, 2013 : 8:49 p.m.
I agree but it looks like the people who we elect are in the pocket of the unions, caring little for the needs of the people who elected them. Washtenaw County = Union, University of Michigan = Union.
clownfish
Wed, Mar 27, 2013 : 8:09 p.m.
Because you get your news from people that tell you this? The history of union/management is adversarial, not physical attraction.
Angry Moderate
Wed, Mar 27, 2013 : 7:33 p.m.
Why is it that government employees feel entitled to constant raises every year, regardless of how well they do their jobs or what happens with the economy, cost of living, or inflation? There's a reason it doesn't work this way in the private sector.
Roger Kuhlman
Thu, Mar 28, 2013 : 3:58 a.m.
Wages and benefits paid to the average Michigan worker in the private sector have declined over the past five years while those in the public sector have not been hurt. That is crazy. Most people work in the private Sector and pay for the costs of government and its public sector workers. Should public sector workers be getting a significantly better deal than the rest of us.
johnnya2
Thu, Mar 28, 2013 : 2:45 a.m.
They negotiate a CONTRACT that is benefiicial to BOTH parties. One of the things I continually hear from businesses is COST . This gives the government cost certainty on labor. It means they know what they should be paying out in salaries for the next FIVE years. If you think that is not common, then you probably are not very important in your work because they decide what you make and you are willing to accept whatever they tell you they want to pay you. Members of unions can negotiate as a whole. If you think it does nto work that way in the private sector. I suggest you look at the CEO of any major corporation and read their contract. Each of them have increases or set numbers in the contract. They also have retention bonuses and many other things in their CONTRACT. I would also say look at the contract of any sports professional. I see most of them having set dollar amounts and wage increases built into their contracts. The fact that you do not expect a raise every year tells me more about you and your value as an employee than it does about government employees. Oh and how much salary has Mr Pscholka given back of his TAXPAYER funded salary? I want to see some savings in his position as well, or I guess his full time pay for part time work is ok
Darth A
Thu, Mar 28, 2013 : 2:17 a.m.
As a former U of M employee who got downsized along with 10% of our division, I disagree with the notion that University jobs are cushy and protected. Our unit actually provided much needed local job training and we helped a lot of folks get into new jobs and careers. Now, the efficacy of the unit has dropped 50%. It is not a bed of roses.
Angry Moderate
Thu, Mar 28, 2013 : 12:42 a.m.
Peter, multi-year employment contracts with guaranteed raises are incredibly rare in the private sector. 1bit, talking about small government doesn't even make sense in the context of a PUBLIC school. There is no market at work here.
easy123
Thu, Mar 28, 2013 : 12:30 a.m.
I guess the folks replying seem to be in the public sector. With the recession, an average Mich. worker had a wage loss of 20% , and had to pay for the medical insurance. I guess manna (tax money) truly comes from heaven. This place sounds like wayne county - I am justified to may a ton of money on the backs of students and true tax payers. The recession have proven once and for all, you cannot survive with business. Keep leaching it and you will end up like Flint
1bit
Wed, Mar 27, 2013 : 11:46 p.m.
@AM: You do realize that there is a difference between a public University and a government institution, right? The legislature does not own nor does it run the University of Michigan. Regents are elected and they approved the contracts. The doublespeak you posted is emblematic of the problem of these representatives, who use twisted logic to justify their tantrums when they don't get what they want. These representatives are hypocrites as I posted. They run on a platform of small government, but when it suits their whim they will create laws/penalties to prove they are the overlords of their fiefdom. It is pathetic, ironic and cliche.
Peter
Wed, Mar 27, 2013 : 11:15 p.m.
Are you trying to claim that contracts are less common in the private sector?
Angry Moderate
Wed, Mar 27, 2013 : 10:19 p.m.
1bit, the University is a government institution, and it gets money from the government. The government can't "interfere" with it--they own it, they make the rules. There is nothing remotely hypocritical about government involvement in negotiating contracts for government employees.
1bit
Wed, Mar 27, 2013 : 10:12 p.m.
I think the better question is why legislators feel it is their obligation to interfere with good faith negotiations of the University with its unions? Typical hypocrisy of the "not for big government" crowd who all against government interference except when they are in charge of government.
Great Lakes Lady
Wed, Mar 27, 2013 : 9:53 p.m.
People in the private sector have seen their medical / retirement benefits erode to nothing, while those benefits are enjoyed in the gov't / union sector.
Angry Moderate
Wed, Mar 27, 2013 : 9:26 p.m.
One can ask for higher pay without having it guaranteed in a contract years in advance--just like nearly everyone in the private sector does.
Peter
Wed, Mar 27, 2013 : 8:55 p.m.
Then why did you bring it up? Regardless, they fight for better pay because if they don't, they'll end up working for nothing. The market at work!
Angry Moderate
Wed, Mar 27, 2013 : 8:51 p.m.
Peter, the question was why public employees feel entitled to it, not why private companies don't do it. BHarding, household plumbers do not get guaranteed raises--they are paid one job at a time. If he didn't do a good job, you could refuse to use him at the higher rate. Bankers don't have guaranteed raises either--they don't have contracts, and actually many of them have been laid off or had their pay cut (through smaller bonuses, which are a big part of their compensation structure) since the financial crisis.
justcurious
Wed, Mar 27, 2013 : 8:47 p.m.
It's called supping out of the government feed trough. Unbelievable numbers of workers in this country are doing that. It's all part of Big Government.
clownfish
Wed, Mar 27, 2013 : 8:35 p.m.
Unions negotiate lengthy contracts with private companies all the time. I had some examples but our moderators decided it violated a guideline.
clownfish
Wed, Mar 27, 2013 : 8:34 p.m.
The profits for Credit Suisse dropped a massive 24% last year, and their stock was mostly flat, yet they still handed out a 33% bonus to both their CEO and Chairman. Then there was Hostess management that gave themselves bonuses just before declaring bankruptcy. It works all kind of different ways in the private sector.
BHarding
Wed, Mar 27, 2013 : 8:26 p.m.
Plenty of people in the private sector are seeing their wages increase......certainly my plumber! Also Bankers, but let's not talk about bankers..........all sorts of workers in construction have regular cost-of-living increases. There are many many jobs in the public sector that pay less than their private sector counterparts.
Peter
Wed, Mar 27, 2013 : 8:23 p.m.
Because in the private sector, the CEO and board milk every drop of profit until the business collapses, and float away on their golden parachutes.