Ann Arbor lawmaker backs effort to protect collective bargaining rights in Michigan Constitution
(This story has been updated to note that Gov. Rick Snyder has signed the emergency financial manager legislation.)
State Rep. Jeff Irwin, D-Ann Arbor, said today he'll stand behind a Democrat-led effort to protect collective bargaining in the Michigan Constitution.
State Senate Democratic Leader Gretchen Whitmer, D-East Lansing, and House Democratic Leader Rick Hammel, D-Mount Morris, announced at a Capitol rally this afternoon they would be introducing an amendment to the state Constitution to guarantee the right of Michigan workers to collectively bargain, a right many feel is under attack.
Jeff Irwin
Whitmer and Hammel said a series of bills have been introduced by Republicans in recent weeks that claim to be about balancing the budget yet would allow contracts to be broken, wages slashed, and benefits taken away from working families.
"They say we’re not Wisconsin, well then let’s prove it," Whitmer said in a statement.
Hammel cited language in the emergency financial manager legislation that would allow an unelected bureaucrat or corporation to throw out collectively bargained contracts.
The controversial legislation giving broad powers to state-appointed emergency managers of cities or school districts that fall into insolvency was signed by Gov. Rick Snyder today.
House Bills 4214, 4216, 4217, 4218 and Senate Bills 157 and 158 are now Public Acts 4 through 9.
The new laws allow emergency managers to terminate employee union contracts, fire local officials and even dissolve local governments and merge them with others.
Snyder and other supporters argue the legislation is intended to allow earlier intervention by the state before local governments in financial trouble reach a crisis level.
Snyder maintains he has no intention of getting rid of collective bargaining and wants to work cooperatively with unions at the negotiating table.
Irwin said he's still strongly opposed to the emergency financial manager legislation, which he characterized as "troubling" and an expansion of "already sweeping powers."
"It remains to be seen if the governor will abuse these new powers, but opening that door is a mistake," he said. "It's also ominous that these bills were rammed through at top speed at a time when the governor is proposing crippling cuts to schools and local units."
At the bill signing, Snyder praised lawmakers for making the tough decision to pass the legislation despite vocal opposition. He said it will ensure residents are not cut off from basic services and protect taxpayers from having to bail out municipalities that fail to take action.
“The goal is to allow the state to intervene at an earlier stage so that the need for an emergency manager can be avoided altogether," Snyder said in a statement. "If, however, an emergency manager is needed, then they need the tools to properly address these challenges.”
According to a statement from Snyder's office, the six bills signed by Snyder will update Public Act 72 of 1990, also known as the Emergency Financial Manager Act, by:
- Establishing more extensive criteria for review of a local government to indicate fiscal problems earlier and more clearly. There will be 18 triggers that can prompt a preliminary review, up from the current 14.
- Creating a process for reaching a consent agreement that would provide enhanced powers for current local unit administrators to deal more quickly with financial distress.
- Providing a 30-day window, at the beginning of the consent agreement, for collective bargaining to take place to deal with fiscal distress.
- Granting broad powers to the emergency manager if a local government is in receivership.
Snyder's office said a local government is removed from receivership when the financial conditions that brought about the financial emergency are corrected in a "sustainable fashion."
Ryan J. Stanton covers government and politics for AnnArbor.com. Reach him at ryanstanton@annarbor.com or 734-623-2529. You also can follow him on Twitter or subscribe to AnnArbor.com's e-mail newsletters.
Comments
HADES
Fri, Mar 18, 2011 : 2:25 a.m.
...and this is why I NEVER vote for a Democrat!
DonBee
Thu, Mar 17, 2011 : 5:27 a.m.
Hey Jeff - How about an amendment to allow porch couches and front yard bar-b-ques?
Mike
Thu, Mar 17, 2011 : 3:24 a.m.
The taxpayers have been awakened, this should have been slipped in during the Obamacare "bill". It's gonna be tough now since people are paying attention and are aware how much more they pay the "public servants" as well as how much it costs to fund one in retirement in their early fifties.
Stephen Landes
Thu, Mar 17, 2011 : 3:17 a.m.
The legislation is for "emergency financial management". If you don't want to see an emergency financial manager in your city or school district there is a very simple way to handle this: fix your local budget and act responsibly. This means everyone from voters and taxpayers to elected officials top public employees and their unions. If you don't want a financial emergency in your neighborhood make sure you balance your budget. That may mean -- gasp! horrors! -- that the cost of the services you decide to provide may have to be reduced or you may have to eliminate services. There is no money floating around to bail out those that can't manage their own budget. Michigan isn't the Fed: we can't print money to inflate the supply.
aataxpayer
Thu, Mar 17, 2011 : 3:03 a.m.
I am concerned about some provisions, but generally emergency financial managers should have significant powers so they can get a city or school district back on track and so city managers and unions both have incentives to avoid receivership or other triggers.
braggslaw
Thu, Mar 17, 2011 : 2:30 a.m.
I will make sure that I vote against him in the next election
David Briegel
Thu, Mar 17, 2011 : 2:53 a.m.
Against The Wind!
Dan Rubenstein
Thu, Mar 17, 2011 : 2:21 a.m.
Ryan - "According to a statement from Snyder's office"? Have you no pride as a journalist? Come on, man! Analyze! Think! Read it yourself!!
Mush
Thu, Mar 17, 2011 : 1:50 a.m.
The Tea Party is in charge Representative Irvin. They hate unions and will do almost anything to crush them. Your legislation doesn't stand a chance. Existing contracts, to include contracts with labor unions, will have to be honored because of Article I Section 10 of our state constitution: "No bill of attainder, ex post facto law or law impairing the obligation of contract shall be enacted". We'll have public unions at least until their contracts expire. Hopefully enough Tea Partiers will be voted out of office next year to preserve bargaining rights. Labor unions are nearly extinct in the private sector, but are holding their own in the public sector. They're the only counter balance to our ever more powerful plutocracy. Once they're crushed, we're all in trouble.
BenWoodruff
Thu, Mar 17, 2011 : 1:45 a.m.
I'm curious who these "public employees"who use Union Dues to influence elections are? I am a retired member of a public employee union, and we were barred from using dues money to pay for any kind of campaign or political donations. We had to set up a voluntary PAC fund for political issues. Anyone who gave had to sign a form that we had to submit to the county clerk and the secretary of state elections division. This is much different from the current rules since the Citizens United decision, where Corporations and Influence groups don't have to report and have no limits. Any flyers we sent out had to identify that we were the initiators. I know all this because I was the PAC Chairman.
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Thu, Mar 17, 2011 : 1:53 a.m.
Ben, You OBVIOUSLY confuse some of the posters in this and other discussions with people who have the barest of clue what they are talking about. In other words, with teapartyists on A2.com discussion boards, ignorance is bliss. Good Night and Good Luck
rcastentman
Thu, Mar 17, 2011 : 12:12 a.m.
With all due respect, this is pure political posturing. There is zero chance of getting something like this in the Constitution. And Irwin knows it. But he could sure use those union dollars in the next election!
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Thu, Mar 17, 2011 : 12:55 p.m.
@DonBee: Wrong. On health care reform alone, there are roughly 400 amendments on that bill that came from Republicans. The Democratic leadership of both houses met with so-called "moderate" Republicans and made substantial changes to the bill in order to get their votes, all to no avail. But go ahead and keep spouting the fiction you might hear on Faux Noise. Good Night and Good Luck
DonBee
Thu, Mar 17, 2011 : 5:33 a.m.
EMG and for 2 years the Democrats ignored the Republicans in Washington. They ended up with more Republicans. If the Republicans are too stupid to see the handwriting on the wall and not cross the aisle, they too will find more of the opposition in room after the next election.
johnnya2
Thu, Mar 17, 2011 : 2:30 a.m.
The thing you seem to forget is, it might not get through NOW. Remember that things change. When intelligent people get back in power, they will realize this is NEEDED and it will become part of the constitution. The main failure of liberals is tip toeing around the agenda. Republicans tell people they are going to screw the poor and middle class and help the rich, but somehow stupid people believe they are for them.
julieswhimsies
Thu, Mar 17, 2011 : 2:21 a.m.
Joe. Ed has been laid off by annarbor.com.
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Thu, Mar 17, 2011 : 1:57 a.m.
Joe: There is little if any common ground on positions that matter. He is staking out the alternative to the teapartyist agenda. I applaud him for so doing. I'm tired of the Democratic Party kneeling down in defeat. Good Night and Good Luck
Joe Hood
Thu, Mar 17, 2011 : 1:51 a.m.
@Ed -- our representative should be finding common ground, where he can, to make our situation better in Ann Arbor. That's what he should be doing.
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Thu, Mar 17, 2011 : 1:25 a.m.
Yes, the Democrats in the legislature should do absolutely nothing for the next two years because we know that the Republicans will not listen to anything they have to say. Good Night and Good Luck
David Parker
Thu, Mar 17, 2011 : 12:09 a.m.
Collective Bargaining Rights, what a deceptive term. a more accurate description is:: forced unionization and forced dues. Right to work states are the ones growing. While Michigan has literally been shrinking.
johnnya2
Thu, Mar 17, 2011 : 2:28 a.m.
really? would you like to provide a link or documentation showing the "growth" of right to work states? There is some growth on population only, but employment and economic activity not at all. The reason fro population growth in those states is something Michigan and no northern state can pretend to compete with, weather.
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Thu, Mar 17, 2011 : 1:47 a.m.
Joe: States cannot prohibit the formation of public sector unions. RTW laws merely state that one is not required to join a union if one works in a shop that is unionized. The do not make unions illegal. Federal labor law (the Wagner Act, the Taft-Hartley Act, and the Landrum-Griffin Act) permit the formation of private sector unions. State law cannot override those laws (something called the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution). Good Night and Good Luck
Joe Hood
Thu, Mar 17, 2011 : 1:33 a.m.
@Ed -- Nevada has 15.4% of their workforces in unions.
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Thu, Mar 17, 2011 : 1:23 a.m.
Yes, RTW states are soooooooo successful. The following are RTW states along with their current unemployment rate: Nevada (50) Florida (48) South Carolina (45) Kentucky and Georgia (tied for 42) North Carolina (41) Idaho (40) In other words, of the 11 states with the highest unemployment rates, 7 of them are RTW states. But keep on believin' that fairy tail. And the lemmings keep march toward the cliff . . . Good Night and Good Luck
Robert Stone
Wed, Mar 16, 2011 : 11:56 p.m.
I have to wonder how many people who support collective bargaining for public employees have actually thought about the situation. Unlike collective bargaining with private companies, public employee collective bargaining is a fundamental conflict of interests. Here's what happens: 1) Unions collect dues, and employees are often forced to pay them in non-right-to-work states like Michigan. 2) Unions donate money to political campaigns to help elect union-friendly officials. 3) Having received money from unions, the elected officials are now expected to "negotiate" with the unions, but they have received major help from the unions. So naturally they have a major interest in not negotiating very hard and essentially giving the union as much as they can get away with. If you can't see the fundamental conflict of interests here then I can't help you. Other people on the left have seen this conflict of interests in the past, for example Jimmy Carter. Federal employees do not have these collective bargaining rights. This conflict of interests does not exist with employee unions and private corporations because the employees don't elect the CEOs. I predict that Michigan will become a right to work state in the next year or two.
DonBee
Thu, Mar 17, 2011 : 5:30 a.m.
David Briegel - Big Business or Big Labor, what is the difference. If you are not a member of their tribe you are run over by their bus. Each party is beholden to one or the other. For the last 8 years the friends of Big Labor ran Lansing, now it is the friends of business. From my standpoint neither one is doing me any favors.
Dan Rubenstein
Thu, Mar 17, 2011 : 3:10 a.m.
This comment is very unconvincing. Edward R. Murrow and others point out how points #1 & 2 are misleading and/or false, how right-to-work does not correlate with prosperity (or sound public finances), and how capital supports politicians the same as labor. In addition, private sector union members often own company stock and thus vote for board directors, who appoint the CEO. Your hard-and-fast distinction between the logic of private and public unions is unpersuasive. But I also want to point out that Europe is chock-o-block with public sector unions. Why should U.S. public sector workers be entitled to less? Efficiency? Well, Canada, with over 70% public sector unionization, vs. 30% in the U.S., spends no more on government as a percent of GDP and handles its deficits. At any rate, I suspect the intent of this bill is to call Republican's "bluff" that all they care about is the economy. It's also a sop to unions. The real problem is the financial manager's powers to dissolve local governments and dismiss elected officials. I have not heard Republicans, Tea Partiers, or anyone else vigorously defend that provision, and I don't think we will, because as the public learns more about it, it will be wildly unpopular, deservedly so. It's not a left-right issue, it's a democracy issue.
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Thu, Mar 17, 2011 : 1:50 a.m.
@Joe, And federal law prohibits dues from being used to fund political campaigns. All union money to candidates comes through PACs to which contributions are voluntary. You need to brush up on your labor law, son. Good Night and Good Luck
Joe Hood
Thu, Mar 17, 2011 : 1:31 a.m.
@Robert -- Great post! @Dave and Ed: Sure money can buy elected officials but everyone can get/give money (small donations in the last election proved that). But you see nothing wrong with a no fiduciary responsibility? @Dave: you can opt to belong to a chamber of commerce, you are forced to belong to a union. You have no choice!
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Thu, Mar 17, 2011 : 1:09 a.m.
It is EXACTLY the same conflict of interest when big money donors work directly with politicians to get legislation they want. Apparently what's good for the goose IS NOT good for the gander? Good Night and Good Luck
David Briegel
Thu, Mar 17, 2011 : 12:52 a.m.
If you can't see the fundamental purchase of our govt and our very democracy by the Corporate Elite then you are the one with the problem! If you can't see the purchase of favorable tax treatment by our Corporate Elite, then you are the one with the problem! If you think that the money spent by corporations is to buy good govt, then you are the one who has a short sighted problem And you don't think the Chamber of Commerce collects dues? To buy good govt? Right!! Imagine breaking contracts and promises to a Bankster or a Corporation and getting away with it. Now you get the picture?
Cash
Wed, Mar 16, 2011 : 11:21 p.m.
Thank heavens for Representative Irwin.....hold their feet to the fire. Either they really are union busting or they aren't. Thank you, sir.
David Briegel
Wed, Mar 16, 2011 : 10:09 p.m.
I am thankful that Ann Arbor sent such a sane, rational citizen like Jeff Irwin to the radical lions den in Lansing! Had these TeaPublicans ran on this platform they never would have been elected in the first place!