You are viewing this article in the AnnArbor.com archives. For the latest breaking news and updates in Ann Arbor and the surrounding area, see MLive.com/ann-arbor
Posted on Wed, Oct 31, 2012 : 6:30 p.m.

MLive Media Group: Vote no on Michigan's Proposal 2 to keep Michigan competitive for jobs and investment

By MLive Media Group

011812_NEWS_Student_MRM_02-.JPG

Graduate Students demonstrating their support of unionization.

AnnArbor.com File Photo

State ballot Proposal 2 promotes an over-reaching solution to a non-existent problem, and one that in turn would clamp untold shackles on a state that is rebuilding its economy.

A “no” vote is essential to keep Michigan competitive for jobs and investment. Don’t believe ads that have been telling you that this proposal is about preserving public safety or protecting the quality of education. That’s a blatant misdirection; this proposal is unions going on the offensive to embed in our state constitution rights that already are granted under state and federal law - the rights to organize for collective bargaining. It would create an environment where employees could be compelled into union membership — not through law, but through a contract stipulation.

Here, in plain language from the Citizens Research Council, is what the proposal is about: “… allow collectively bargained labor contracts to undo all previously enacted restrictions on the right to organize and engage in collective bargaining … and forbid the enactment of future legislation that would affect those rights.”

In short, any locally bargained contract term would supersede state laws. Not only that, but opponents argue the proposal would cause the repeal of as many as 170 existing laws, throwing several other legal and constitutional mandates into confusion and, according to the CRC, almost certainly into court.

The problem is, there is no problem. Michigan has the fifth-highest concentration of union membership in the country, and in the public sector, 55 percent of all employees belong to unions, according to the CRC. Backers of this proposal - and we will note that the petition signatures were collected by volunteers, rather than paid canvassers - are going on the offensive to build protections against perceived future threats, such as the bitter fights in other states over “right to work” provisions or specific laws that restrict work rules.

The truth is, Gov. Rick Snyder has said clearly and repeatedly that he has no interest in pushing those divisive battles; he convinced fellow Republicans to back off right to work. Certainly, there is no guarantee that will never be revisited in the Legislature, but that is an argument for when and if that day comes.

And even if right to work ever becomes law, it’s important to note it does not impair unions' rights to organize and collectively bargain. Constitutionally blocking even the ability to have that discussion would foolishly shackle Michigan in a battle to compete for investment and jobs.

Snyder was unsuccessful in another pursuit: trying to convince unions not to put this issue on the ballot.

The governor knows better than most that Michigan is in competition with other states in the Midwest, and throughout the country, which have far more business-friendly climates. Unions have a rich history in Michigan, but one lasting legacy is a reputation for making it difficult and costly to do business.

Adding aggressive constitutional primacy to union bargaining imperatives would be a disaster for economic growth; would make state budget building infinitely more difficult; and ironically, ultimately hurt the very people the proposal purports to protect: The workers who are counting on Michigan’s continued comeback to deliver a paycheck for them, and a future for their children.

Proposal 2 is unnecessary and reckless: We urge a "no" vote.

Read complete coverage on Proposal 2

This endorsement is the opinion of the editorial board of MLive Media Group, the parent company of MLive.com. The board is made up of the company's executive leadership, content directors and editors who oversee the 10 local markets that make up MLive Media Group.

Comments

Emmett Lathrop Brown

Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 6:39 p.m.

People love to trumpet their lists of who is or is not supporting Prop. 2. I really dont know the exact reasons these groups are supporting or opposing Prop. 2, but I do know it's one thing to vocally support a ballot initiative and quite another thing to fork out a bunch of dough, so I think it's more important to look at who is financially supporting or opposing Prop. 2. Supporters of Prop. 2 are mainly labor unions, whose members are the actual firefighters, police, and teachers who want better pay and more job security. Opposers of Prop. 2 include several business lobbying PAC's, Michigan Chamber of Commerce and many other business groups, i.e. people who would benefit from paying actual firefighters, police, and teachers less, and many support Right to Work legislature that would weaken Michigan unions. Both supporters and opposers of this bill make some valid arguments but I personally feel more comfortable having my police, firefighters, teachers, and other individuals that benefit from union membership guaranteed collective bargaining rights rather than keeping my fingers crossed that the trickle down approach of attracting big business with an exploitable labor force will eventually result in a higher standard of living for the average Michiganian. Similarly, did Wall St.'s success in de-regulating the real-estate industry result in better housing for the average American?

Andrew Meter

Fri, Nov 2, 2012 : 2:53 p.m.

What's with this "don't touch the Constitution" mentality? The writers of the constitution made it to be altered...second, the current Michigan constitution was only authored in 1963, so it's not like we're altering some ancient document like the Ten Commandments... http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(4jri2u555wic2b451lo51fnc))/mileg.aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=mcl-Constitution Read more: http://www.wxyz.com/dpp/news/political/exclusive-poll-proposals-2--6-battle-to-the-finish-line#ixzz2B4ozzLym

Tom Todd

Thu, Nov 1, 2012 : 9:21 p.m.

vote no and we are the new Mississippi.

greg, too

Fri, Nov 2, 2012 : 3:06 a.m.

Is that a good thing? I would maybe like to be the new Tennessee since they at least have some good whiskey.

Jim Walker

Thu, Nov 1, 2012 : 4:16 p.m.

Vote NO on 2. Michigan does not need any more reasons for companies to locate in other states. James C. Walker, Ann Arbor, MI

Emmett Lathrop Brown

Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 6:55 p.m.

If these companies wish to exploit their employees than you are correct, they would do far better to set up shop in one of the 23 states that have Right-to-work laws.

Ryan

Thu, Nov 1, 2012 : 3 p.m.

MLIVE Media Group may as well be Rick Snyder's lap dogs. All the proposal "advice" you have given your readers was torn straight from the Republican playbook. Most of the proposals on the ballot are pushback from the working class against the ruling class who are destroying our livelihood. Some people believe that putting these proposals in our Constitution is the only way to prevent the wholesale rape of the working class. So you don't want these proposals passed and the Constitution changed? Ok, stop passing Union busting, school destroying, common man destroying laws and we'll stop strying to stop you. Somedays I wish I was back in Iraq, at least the war was simple and I could fight those who were trying to harm me.

alan

Thu, Nov 1, 2012 : 1:13 p.m.

I wish that people would educate themselves. Federal law protects the right to bargain collectively for everyone except public employees. Proponents claim that this is about everybody but it's not. Opponents claim this will make it harder to do business but it has nothing to do with business because those employees already have these rights. By all means vote, but please understand what you are voting about.

Jerry Calhoun

Thu, Nov 1, 2012 : 11:39 a.m.

If bargaining rights are protected federally, then why is it Wisconsin was able to do what they did? Prop 2 is only here as a proactive measure to stop what happened over there from happening here.

northside

Thu, Nov 1, 2012 : 11:23 a.m.

If you like having a middle class, vote Yes on Proposal 2. It comes as no surprise to see MLive argue against it. Like the other papers cited by a commenter above, it is a business with its own vested interest in keeping labor costs low. The rationale given by is embarrassingly bad. To say there are no current threats to unions in Michigan is inexplicable - have MLive papers been paying no attention to what has been going on in Lansing the past two years?

Westfringe

Thu, Nov 1, 2012 : 3:53 a.m.

Vote yes.

jcj

Thu, Nov 1, 2012 : 2:42 a.m.

As a 45 year union member I say vote no on this bad idea!

StopCrying

Thu, Nov 1, 2012 : 4:08 p.m.

Unions are not needed in every business. Something like this will not encourage people to start businesses here in Michigan...which would be helpful ya know.

nowayjose

Thu, Nov 1, 2012 : 2:53 p.m.

You are either not a union member or a terribly misinformed one

Alex Franklin

Thu, Nov 1, 2012 : 2:11 a.m.

Let's focus on the facts: FACT: No other state has a constitutional amendment like this. FACT: Between 100 and 170 laws will be invalidated because of the passage of 2. FACT: The MLive Media Group, the Michigan Press Association, the Daily Telegram (Adrian), the Holland Sentinel, the Detroit Free Press, the Detroit News, the Battle Creek Enquirer, the Livingston Daily, the Lansing State Journal, the Michigan Sheriff's Association, the Michigan Association of School Administrators, and the Michigan Association of School Boards have come out against Prop 2. Join us against Proposal 2 in Michigan. Like us at facebook.com/votenoontwo. No corporate funding, no attack ads, just concerned citizens that think this is a very bad amendment.

Emmett Lathrop Brown

Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 5:57 p.m.

Let's focus on the facts: FALSE: Between 100 and 170 laws "will" be invalidated because of the passage of 2. not a "fact" just an inaccurate paraphrasing of a memo issued by Attorney General Bill Schuette, which has been quoted in several anti Prop. 2 ad campaigns. What it really says is that in his legal "opinion" (Schuette is a lawyer and a republican) there are "170" laws that "could" be "changed" or "nullified". The number 170 that Schuette comes up with is not even a "fact" nor will these laws magically vanish upon passage of prop 2 they will simply have the potential of being altered in court on a case by case basis.

Andrew Meter

Fri, Nov 2, 2012 : 2:54 p.m.

Seriously, MLive? Non-existent problem? Hmmm...I predict Right to Work will be signed by Snyder by June 1 if this doesn't pass. Who will be your teachers, firefighters, police officers, and nurses in 10 years if Prop 2 doesn't pass? Opponents want Prop 2 to fail for one reason: So teachers (mainly) and other public employees are paid less. Education has never been a lucrative career choice...but many teachers choose it because they want to make a positive difference in young people's lives, they can make a decent living, and they feel a "calling" to the profession. Let's not take away "decent living" from that equation, otherwise we'll get higher teacher turnover rates (not a good thing) and lower quality teachers in our schools, as well as lower quality police, firefighters, nurses, etc.

Tom Todd

Thu, Nov 1, 2012 : 9:44 p.m.

No other State has a reverse robin hood Governor, who puts up laws/ public acts/ to take from the middle class, go ahead vote no and we will be the new Mississippi!

HeimerBoodle

Thu, Nov 1, 2012 : 8:04 p.m.

Ok Dwight - although you haven't yet addressed which bears and the best bears (FACT: Black Bears).

nowayjose

Thu, Nov 1, 2012 : 2:52 p.m.

Wonder why school boards and sheriff associations are against prop two. Oh wait no I'm not they don't want collective bargaining so they can pay their employees terrible wages and benefits

alan

Thu, Nov 1, 2012 : 1:06 p.m.

I don't think that those are facts (except possibly the first). You are just repeating what you've heard.