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 17, 2012 : 7:31 p.m.

Protection of collective bargaining makes voting in favor of Proposal 2 vital

By Letters to the Editor

All workers in the State of Michigan need to vote "Yes" on Proposal 2 to ensure their rights to bargain collectively, since their very lives and health may depend on passage of this constitutional amendment. Collective bargaining includes the right to bargain for improved working conditions, including occupational safety and health, on the job.

Occupational safety and health has always been a major reason why workers will organize in the first place. Once organized, workers have access to their union Health & Safety Departments (though not all unions have them), with representatives who advocate for greater protective measures, stronger occupational health laws through OSHA, better enforcement of those laws, and more thorough health and safety educational and training programs. Active, educated members of a collective bargaining unit will use such safety and health information to help preserve their own lives, in addition to saving other workers’ lives and the lives of community members. Attacks on collective bargaining, as we have seen in recent years in Michigan and surrounding states, will have the effect of diminishing worker safety and health protections. The current GOP-controlled legislature is actively moving to reduce or do away entirely with MIOSHA regulations which are meant to protect Michigan’s workers.

The true intent of the GOP is to follow the dictates of the right-wing Mackinac Center and the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), who in 2010 communicated the following statement in an email, “Our goal is to outlaw government collective bargaining in Michigan.” One of the next likely steps to be taken by the GOP-dominated legislature in Michigan is to enact so-called “right to work” legislation. A recent study by Roland Zullo — Right-to-Work Laws and Fatalities in Construction — at the University of Michigan Institute for Research on Labor, Employment, and the Economy, concluded that fatality and injury rates are higher in so-called ‘right to work’ states.

My sense is that Zullo’s conclusions would be applicable across general industry and public work sectors. Police, Firefighters, Teachers, and all public workers deserve safer working conditions, which they should be able to sit at a bargaining table and work out with their employers. MIOSHA worker protections are like minimum wage - nobody can make a decent living on minimum wage, and workers are barely made safe by MIOSHA regulations.

Therefore, all Michigan workers should be able to bargain for better protective measures, for better safety equipment, for better emergency procedures above and beyond the meager protections afforded by MIOSHA regulations. By voting Yes on Proposal 2, workers across Michigan can fight back and prevent needless death and injury on the job.

Luis Vazquez

Ann Arbor

Comments

Greg

Sat, Oct 20, 2012 : 5:34 p.m.

Sadly the unions think they should never have to suffer, regardless if the rest of us are. Sure union members have been asked to take cuts just like the rest of us have. Difference is they have fought tooth and nail against ANY cuts, regardless of the ability of the public or business to survive tough times at the going rates. Guess they are the privileged and should not have to suffer what the rest of us do.

Bear

Sat, Oct 20, 2012 : 4:23 a.m.

You want to know what it's like? You want to know how easy teachers have it? Read up and open your eyes! Take off the blinders and take a good look around. Do you really want to hurt this State in the name of hatred and fear? http://blog.mlive.com/flintjournal/aheller/2012/09/teachers_lose_another_one_lets.html

Basic Bob

Sat, Oct 20, 2012 : 12:32 p.m.

Supporters of prop 2 "want to hurt this State in the name of hatred and fear"

Alex Franklin

Fri, Oct 19, 2012 : 3:48 p.m.

Why the proposal is a bad idea. 1) The existing laws that are invalidated would lead to much judicial chaos, as those will likely have their constitutionality questioned. That's 100-170 laws thrown into court, leading to what the labor-supporting Detroit Free Press calls "a mess". 2) Any future law, meaning regardless of the situation, is constitutional. This is a problem when you consider the Bay City agreement that allows teachers to be drunk on the job 5 times before dismissal, on drugs 3 times, and SELLING drugs twice! 3) The ballot proposal is an end-run around our legal system. The power to make, enforce, and interpret laws is removed because it is now in the Constitution. 4) The rights being discussed do not include the chance for a fair wage. Collective bargaining right already exist for the public unions for wages. So this is unnecessary, considering the consequences. 5) When there are ideas that are truly good - you usually find some support for them outside of "their side". That's why it is important to note that the Free Press (again, usually an ally to labor) is against it. 6) It sends a signal to the business community about the continuing conflict between business and labor indicative of 20th century thinking. That is - among others - why Prop 2 is a bad idea.

Bear

Sat, Oct 20, 2012 : 2:13 a.m.

the only places I can find this story on teachers allowed to retain their jobs while drunk is on questionable sites. I doubt the veracity of this statement. And NO, you cannot retain your teaching job if you are selling drugs. That just cannot happen. You get caught selling illegal drugs and you lost your teaching job and your ability to teach anywhere. BTW distribution of illegal drugs is a felony, not a misdemeanor. Selling drugs in school will get you locked up for a felony and you will lose your teaching certification which will result in you not being able to teach in Michigan. So your statement is exaggerated, at best. Collective bargaining rights are under attack. That's like saying that we need not protect ourselves against illegal wiretapping and surveillance because we already have a right to privacy. It is an ignorant argument. Free Press and Detroit News are both owned by the same company, so again, your argument is invalid. You haven't given a single, rational reason as to why proposal 2 shouldn't be passed. All you've done is parrot the talking points and lies the opposition is inundating the public with in order to confuse the issue. You are wrong and your reasons are invalid and fictitious.

Kevin

Fri, Oct 19, 2012 : 9:35 a.m.

cinnabar7071 I never said my job was so bad. I have proudly served the citizens of this state and hope to continue to do so. Having working equipment or proper staffing levels makes our jobs easier and keeps the very people complaining about us civil servants safe. But if you wish to believe the scare tactics of the opponents to proposal 2 good for you. ChelseaBob there are fewer and fewer state employees with pensions what part of anyone hired after 1997 does not get a pension do you not understand? And for those of us left that still do get a pension at least for corrections our fund actually has a surplus since so many of us seem to die very close to or just after retirement. As far as our contracts and being big or powerful the last contract we signed gave us a 3% raise over 3 years and increased our health care cost by roughly 10%. I know shame on us for being so darn greedy! But on the bright side we all pay for elected officials travel expenses for trips all over the state/country/or world. Like Snyders trip to china to open up more trade for us to import cheaper products and create less jobs right here in Michigan. Yes the unions are the bad guys in that scenario!

snapshot

Fri, Oct 19, 2012 : 5:42 a.m.

Lot's of rhetoric and scare tactics from proponents of proposition 2 but.......where's the money going to come from.......remember....what public employees "get" they get from all of us taxpayers. This proposition will roll back all cost cutting legislation that will save "us" taxpayers from going bankrupt supporting a minority workforce already over-protected. It will also remove any control over labor law from your "elected" officials. This is a misleading power grab for unions and will be financially devastating to the broad taxpayer base. You should be scared of this proposal, very scared. Vote no and keep democracy alive. Public employees work for the citizens....this proposal will make the citizens work for public employees. Vote no way for a big union payday..

Bear

Sat, Oct 20, 2012 : 2:58 a.m.

you said it, Kevin

Bear

Sat, Oct 20, 2012 : 2:56 a.m.

There are 92,691 public school teachers in Michigan. State and local law enforcement agencies employed about 1,133,000 persons on a full-time basis in 2008, including 765,000 sworn personnel. „From 2004 to 2008, state and local law enforcement agencies added about 9,500 more full-time sworn officers. There are currently about 5,619 full-time firefighters. I don't understand how you think that 1,232,310 employees constitute a "minority workforce", out of a total of 5,686,180 people employed in Michigan ... Making up fact from thin air, is what it sounds like you are doing, there sapshot!

Kevin

Fri, Oct 19, 2012 : 9:41 a.m.

Over protected workforce? roll back cost cutting legislation? And exactly what extra money are you talking about? Remove control over labor law from your "elected" officials? You do realize the law enforcement officers that do end up working a lot of overtime are forced to because there aren't enough people hired to do the job right? Labor law? Try being told every other day or so that you have to work 16 hours if you don't like it quit because we are short and you signed a contract. I like my career and feel fulfilled serving the great citizens of this state even the dumb ones.

CobraII

Fri, Oct 19, 2012 : 4:35 a.m.

Prop 2 is just a way for the unions to stay in lala land forever!!

Phil

Thu, Oct 18, 2012 : 7:44 p.m.

What exactly are you "protecting" when you enshrine collective bargaining? Essentially you're protecting unions from ever having to face reality when it comes to compensation (http://bit.ly/pn5weF), and ensuring that when you get locked into bad contracts (http://bit.ly/pZofYR), the state has no power to fix them, in fact they can only get worse.

Bear

Sat, Oct 20, 2012 : 1:23 a.m.

your question can be answered, but I'm sure you were being rhetorical. No, we are not essentially protecting unions from ever having to face reality when it comes to compensation. Teachers in Michigan are facing the reality that their paychecks have already been cut to the bone, they are paying more for their health coverage, they are also finding themselves having to worry about being stripped of much more. If your boss did this you'd probably quit and find another employer. Fact is, that a lot of good teachers in Michigan are currently looking to move out of this state and find better jobs in other states, states where they respect what a teacher is and stands for. Places where they get the respect they are due. When did it become fashionable in conservative circles to demonize teachers and other public workers? Your statements are bald-faced lies. Opinion not backed up by facts.

walker101

Thu, Oct 18, 2012 : 7:42 p.m.

This is jut a ruse and has no benefits other than giving more control to the union, why would the public workers need this when they already have collective bargaining rights? The deceiving advertising is hilarious when they say our children may suffer if this is not passed, might as well say he world is coming to an end, more believable.

ranger rick

Thu, Oct 18, 2012 : 5:49 p.m.

giving the union's even more power is like giving organized crime police protection. Enough of the guarantee's, corruption and over pay with lackluster performance based employment! I'm voting no on 2!

Bear

Sat, Oct 20, 2012 : 3:02 a.m.

Gee, that's funny you should talk about police protection, ranger rick, since they are one of the public unions we are talking about that are trying to protect their right to collectively bargain. Voting against police, firefighters and teachers is real patriotic.

bobslowson

Thu, Oct 18, 2012 : 3:25 p.m.

Pretty disturbing when our government starts to go the way of New Right Paul Weyrich / Breitbart / ALEC and all these other conservative groups that want to change constitutions to say marriage is one man one woman (so they can deny rights to same sex couples) based on some fairy tale, written in some book, by some so called prophet. If we can change the constitution for that. I say we change it for all these proposals . So voting No, Yes, Yes, Yes, No, No is a vote for the people!

Stan Hyne

Fri, Oct 19, 2012 : 2:05 p.m.

Is this amendment about same sex marriage ?

harry

Thu, Oct 18, 2012 : 4:55 p.m.

Public unions should be illegal. Even President Roosevelt ( the biggest liberal president ever) agrees.

DonBee

Thu, Oct 18, 2012 : 3:54 p.m.

bobslowson - Your vote is a vote for a Federal Judge to step in during bankrupcy and sell most of the state land to private concerns, to close state parks and vacate state funded pensions. It is not about the people, it is about putting the state into bankrupcy.

katmando

Thu, Oct 18, 2012 : 12:35 p.m.

reason pension are costing so much now is not because of the people collecting but because they where being raided and underfund in the first place. The governments and corporation were using this funds to pay for their pet projects and now the money isn't there.

Jay Thomas

Sat, Oct 20, 2012 : 6:49 a.m.

Bear... you have spammed this topic as much as it is possible... but you call everyone who disagrees with you a "troll". That's rich.

Bear

Sat, Oct 20, 2012 : 1:08 a.m.

exactly! And did you notice, not one of the trolls even bothered to reply to this charge. Because it's true! An easy fact to ascertain? Of course not! They don't have anything intelligent enough to present as a valid argument. It's those teacher, firefighter, garbage collectors, office workers, drivers, and others working to keep this nation running. You know, the one's with the cadillac benefits package and 'bloated' wages. You want to see cadillac benefits and bloated wages, look no further than your state legislators. Look no further than the multitude of school administrators who are sucking up school funds while not teaching one single lesson, except how to bloat their ranks with more administrators being hired than teachers.

katmando

Thu, Oct 18, 2012 : 12:30 p.m.

without this you are giving corporations the to fire at will. Collective bargaining is the heart and soul of the middle class without it there wouldn't be a middle class. If you have ever really worked in a right to fire you would know this it levels the playing field between the buisnesses and the employees.

Jrileyhoff

Sat, Oct 20, 2012 : 6:18 p.m.

I am in my late 40's and have always held "at will" employment positions. It's been clear to me that if my work were unsatisfactory, I would be let go. Seems fair to me. For the record, this has never happened. I have enjoyed positive working relationships with my colleagues and supervisors. Never felt the need for a union to protect my jobs.

ChelseaBob

Fri, Oct 19, 2012 : 1:11 p.m.

Katmando- This won't give corporations anything. It is for public employees only.

Mike

Thu, Oct 18, 2012 : 12:03 p.m.

Collective bargaining is already a right. Voting for this will throw the balance of power to the unions and destroy this state financially. Taxes will increase to cover their bloated wages and benefits and laws that stop their over reach will be repealed. This is a wolf in sheeps clothing..................

PattyinYpsi

Thu, Oct 18, 2012 : 1:16 p.m.

Oh, dear heaven! Save us from the bloated wages of the middle-class worker! The teachers who make so much money they have to dump much of it into Swiss bank accounts and avoid paying taxes! The police who rake it in to such an extent that their Cayman Islands bank is on speed dial! And let's never forget the firefighters who are so goldarn rich that they can install car elevators in their gigantic new mansions! YES! The BLOATED WAGES of the.... Oh. Wait. Never mind.

Morris

Thu, Oct 18, 2012 : 11:38 a.m.

It looks to me that people want to enjoy their rights and privileges under Federal laws life while being served by under paid public servants. Emphasis on servants! If you want quality people in fire, police, teaching, etc. don't deprive them of both the dignity and compensation that recently passed laws are stripping them of.

Mike

Thu, Oct 18, 2012 : 12:05 p.m.

It used to be that people who worked for the government were "public servants" now we are the "servant public" who work for less money to support the great pensions and wages received by our "public servants"

ChelseaBob

Thu, Oct 18, 2012 : 11:05 a.m.

This is typical of politics these days. This law has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with shielding public employees unions from economic reality. You are going to have to pay for some of your pensions and health care, just like the rest of us. It would be nice to get it all without contributing, but you'll bankrupt state and local governments. The fact that this constitutional amendment even got on the ballot is embarassing.

Bear

Sat, Oct 20, 2012 : 12:47 a.m.

what's embarrassing is the level of political illiteracy here. You want an embarrassing proposal? How about prop 6. Opponents have used the scare tactics and lies to put off voters who might not know the facts. One such tactic, received in the mail screams in capitol letters, "it will be built with foreign workers and foreign steel!" Really? You mean Canadian workers and Canadian steei? On the Canadian side? Yeah, and it says it will cost billions that could be spent on "better schools, more police and more firefighters." Notice how they don't say, "more teachers"? And this stupid proposal 5 that will shackle Michigan financially, creating another fiscal crisis for conservatives to find a bogey man to blame for. Economic reality? Did you just skim over the material I've posted? Are you that uninformed or just willfully ignorant? The rreason there is a shortfall is because politicians haven't been funding it fully for decades. The legislature created the shortfall through it's practices. THAT'S what needs to be fixed, not blaming it on public sector unions. You want more police and firefighters, yet you won't support them. Nice!

Stan Hyne

Fri, Oct 19, 2012 : 2 p.m.

Well Said

Halter

Thu, Oct 18, 2012 : 10:08 a.m.

Must Vote NO on 2 if you want any chance to keep MI heading toward economic recovery. Disagree 100% with the Opinion piece here, Luis.

Kevin

Thu, Oct 18, 2012 : 9:47 a.m.

I am A public servant, have been for 18 years. I am a corrections officer. I find it offensive when people make remarks about collective bargaining for public employees leading to higher costs. For 1 thing people that hired into state employment post either april or may of 1997 no longer get pensions. Second those of us left (not many since we are outnumbered by newer employees) have sat back quietly as the politicians on both sides have called us greedy, or worse but have in the 18 years I have been an employee borrowed from our pension fund 3 times to help out the general fund. (we as union members voted in favor of said borrowing). Third I'm sorry people think us greedy corrections officers bargaining for things like working weapons for our transportation runs with the convicted felons the public is scared of sounds so horrible. Our making sure our radios are in working order so we can communicate during mass movements of prisoners within the prison. Or other silly things like making sure our SCBA (self contained breathing apparatus) equipment works when dealing with fires set by unruly inmates. Corrections officers along with local and state law enforcement just want our right to bargain in good faith to remain intact. Oh and the misinformation about our pensions increasing sounds great except it is untrue. Proposal 2 won't force companies to form unions and wont force people that don't want to be in unions to join them. What it will do is stop governor Snyder from taking the pensions that those of us that are left have. He has tried twice to make us pay first 3% which a judge said was illegal then 4% which he lost again but has said he will appeal, just for the few of us left to keep our pensions. And if you ask why I think I deserve a pension. I signed a contract that said if I worked x amount of years in a prison I would be entitled to a pension.

Jay Thomas

Sat, Oct 20, 2012 : 6:42 a.m.

You won't get what you want by playing the "I am offended card." I am sure that as a public servant (your words) you make more than the average Michigander. What does it mean when the servant makes more than the person employing them? Also, most of us don't have defined benefit pensions... so now you are in the same boat as the rest of us.

Bear

Sat, Oct 20, 2012 : 3:13 a.m.

chelseabob, you are proving yourself to be too ill informed to speak intelligently on this issue. Especially with this comment! And cinnebar, you are making things up. Kevin never said his job was so bad. He said, " I signed a contract that said if I worked x amount of years in a prison I would be entitled to a pension." That means the pension is part of his compensation. If you make less than Kevin, maybe one reason is you don't have to work under as stressful or dangerous conditions as he does. or Police officers, or firefighters, or even teachers. So, what is your problem again?

PattyinYpsi

Thu, Oct 18, 2012 : 1:13 p.m.

@ChelseaBob: Exactly! So true! Just the way municipalities have responded to the public outcry about how we need more police and firefighters--as more and more police and firefighters are fired or lost through attrition! Yes, indeedy--municipal bodies ALWAYS listen to the public outcry and then do exactly what the public wants! And just wait until all, not just some, of the prisons are run by for-profit corporations. Imagine how responsive they will be to a public outcry when the guards are desperate for new or working equipment! Right on, ChelseaBob! Right ON!

cinnabar7071

Thu, Oct 18, 2012 : 12:18 p.m.

Kevin, if your job is so bad why have you stayed for 18 years?

ChelseaBob

Thu, Oct 18, 2012 : 11:07 a.m.

Kevin- If this is about working weapons or radios all your union has to do is make noise. The public outcry would force the State to take care of those things.

Bear

Thu, Oct 18, 2012 : 8:53 a.m.

So, now you naysayers have asked for a comprehensive argument; well, you've gotten one. I, personally am sick and tired of people villifying honest working people and using scare tactics to attack them. Shows a lack of character and honesty, in my book. I support teachers, firefighter, police and unions! They are what has made this country great! You didn't see any CEO's putting their lives on the line responding to 9/11 did you? And the underfunding of pension funds that created this shortfall wasn't done by teachers, firefighters, police or public sector unions, was it? And it wasn't any of them that created the implosion of wall street, banks or the mortgage crisis either. THAT'S WHY WE NEED PROPOSAL 2! To protect ourselves from unscrupulous people who would rob candy from babies and then blame the baby.

Bear

Thu, Oct 18, 2012 : 8:40 a.m.

and to answer those who talk about this $50 billion shortage in pension funding. (which btw, is national figures and not just the state of Michigan as some wouldhave you think.) Here are some suggestions: Pension funds are financial institutions. They are financial intermediaries. They perform much like commercial banks in lending to other non-financial institutions. In 2008-09, the Federal Reserve bailed out the banks to the tune of $9 trillion. They did this by providing zero interest loans to banks for nearly four years now. The Fed did it also by buying up bonds, especially mortgage notes, from the banks at their full purchase value instead of depressed market values. They did it by buying bonds from the banks, for which it injected real cash. The Fed in this manner not only bailed out banks and investment banks, but big conglomerates like GE and GM and their credit arms. So why shouldn't it bail out DBPs, which are also financial institutions, in similar fashion? The Federal Reserve therefore should: • Provide short term 2, 5 and 10-year bridge loans to pension funds whose funding falls below 70%, at the Fed's current "bank bailout" rate of 0.25% interest. • The Fed should further allow pension funds to issue their own bonds, much as corporations now issue bonds, and the Fed should purchase those bonds to provide additional funding as necessary to DBP funds, much as the Fed directly purchases Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac mortgage bonds today to aid other bank mortgage originator and mortgage servicer companies. In addition to Federal Reserve action, additional measures to defend DBPs must include the following:

DonBee

Thu, Oct 18, 2012 : 3:52 p.m.

$50 billion is a Michigan figure, in fact it is just the state pension shortfall for PUBLIC employees who fall under the state program. http://pensionfacts.blogspot.com/ the national total is running at about $1 - 2 Trillion dollars, depending on whose numbers you use.

katmando

Thu, Oct 18, 2012 : 2:13 p.m.

hey chelsaebob: It is working a lot better than the previous 8 years under republican control

ChelseaBob

Thu, Oct 18, 2012 : 11:31 a.m.

And all of this will create jobs? How has that been working the last 4 years?

ChelseaBob

Thu, Oct 18, 2012 : 11:30 a.m.

Bear- So you want a state constitutional amendment, a federal bailout and more regulation?

A2comments

Thu, Oct 18, 2012 : 11:02 a.m.

Wow...

Bear

Thu, Oct 18, 2012 : 8:44 a.m.

• Restore jobs and wage growth. The most important long-run source of restoration of pension fund solvency is the creation of jobs at an historically acceptable rate, as well as policies to ensure the labor force annual wage gains are equivalent to average annual productivity gains. • A sustained economic recovery — not the current three-year "stop-go" economy — would raise rates of return on normal pension fund investments to restore losses of recent years, and eliminate the incentive of pension funds chasing high-risk "alternative" investments in speculative financial instruments.

Bear

Thu, Oct 18, 2012 : 8:41 a.m.

• Pension funds should be prohibited from partnering in investments with hedge funds and other high risk taking financial institutions and financial instruments. • The Pension Act of 2006 should be fundamentally amended to discourage or prevent single employer plans' conversion of DBPs to hybrid Cash Balance Plans and 401Ks. • Cities and local municipalities should be reimbursed for losses due to banks' fraudulent promotion of derivatives and interest rate swap deals of the last decade, much as other institutional investors have been reimbursed for fraudulent subprime mortgages of recent years. • Pension funding contribution holidays should be legally banned. Diversion of pension funds resources to health and welfare funds should be further prohibited. • Corporate bankruptcy laws should be amended to prevent dumping of single-employer plans. All non-pension assets in bankruptcy should be ruled subordinate to pension assets, requiring all other assets disposed of before pension funds are considered. • Restrictions on employers exiting from multi-employer plans should be strengthened. • Public employee DBPs expenditures on paid consultants should be limited by law to no more than 1% of funding levels. • Employers should be prohibited from exempting "contingent" workers from participation in DBP plans and should be required make pension fund contributions for all part time and temporary ("contingent") workers proportional to their total hours worked. • Federal legislation should establish a national 401K pool and require all current 401K plans to be transferred to such pool, to be administered as a supplement to the social security system. Employers' future contributions to the pool should be funded by a business-to-business intermediate goods value added tax of 1%.

Bear

Thu, Oct 18, 2012 : 8:23 a.m.

The crisis in Defined Benefit Plans is a crisis that has been brewing for decades but has appreciably worsened since 2000, and significantly further deteriorated after 2007. It is fundamentally a crisis of falling and insufficient contributions, not of excess liabilities or benefit payments. The solution therefore must address the true causes of the crisis, and not the false causes of excess or unaffordable benefit levels and the cutting of those benefit levels. Employers, both private and public, are now using the crisis they created that reduced contributions for decades to attack benefits. Fundamental solutions to the pension funding problems in DBPs must rectify the source problems on the contributions side of the fund ledger. This is one reason we need to have Proposal 2. If these underhanded corporations and legislators are allowed to they will work to destroy unions, in both the public and private sector. After that, none of us are safe. Proposal 2 takes one tool out of these thieve's bag of tricks. It's called 'fighting back'. Don't tread on me!

Bear

Thu, Oct 18, 2012 : 8:18 a.m.

but the fearmongers love to play on the ignorant for their vote. And let's blame it on teachers. I, personally know teachers who have seen their paychecks shrink, their pensions disappear and their health benefits cost more and more. They are given less to do more with. They are having to spend precious time in meetings and enduring programs that do nothing to help either students or teachers. They only help fatten the numbers of administrators while we are reducing the number of teachers we have and often, especially in the urban areas, the quality of educations suffers the most. Proposal 2 say "enough is enough" you will not impoverish us as people. You will not play partisan games with our livlihood. Vote "YES" on Proposal 2 and help to make michigan stronger, our schools better and keep unscrupulous legislators from driving good teachers away from Michigan with these repressive tactics inspired by ALEC and Corporate America. Don't tread on me!

Bear

Thu, Oct 18, 2012 : 8:08 a.m.

Corporations have not hesitated to take advantage in recent years of the funding gap that they (and politicians) have worked to create over the past three decades. The deep problems of the U.S. economy over the past decade and especially since 2007 have exacerbated the collapse of contributions to the funding gap, as jobs and wages have both declined steeply and then failed to recover for the past four years. Seeing the opportunity to exploit the funding crisis of DBPs, corporate America has intensified its offensive. On the multi-employer side, the manipulation is evident in a series of banks' reports claiming that the funding gap is even greater than it is. The battle revolves around pension assumptions, in particular about rate of return on pension investments. By making extreme low-ball assumptions on returns, banks' research departments and corporations argue that the gap for multi-employer plans is significantly higher than the PBGC has even estimated. Their conclusion is that major reductions in pension benefits are required — even though benefit payments are not the source of the problem. This strategy of overestimation of the funding gap, by cherry-picking the worst assumptions and then extrapolating the losses in a straight line out for decades, has been adopted as well by public DBPs, state politicians in general and Republican governors in particular.

Bear

Sat, Oct 20, 2012 : 12:20 a.m.

ChelseaBob, who do you think is attacking public uniions and why do you think they are doing it? Who is funding attacks on teachers and why do you think they are doing it? It has EVERYTHING to do with corporate greed and corporations who wish to get at the money that the public sector spends. Does this answer your question? The two go hand in hand.

ChelseaBob

Thu, Oct 18, 2012 : 11:27 a.m.

What does this proposal have to do with corporations and corporate greed????? It's about pubic employees unions.

Bear

Thu, Oct 18, 2012 : 8:10 a.m.

An extreme over-exaggeration, alarmist case is New Jersey governor, Chris Christie, who has estimated a $2.5 trillion funding gap in 2010. Christie's answer to the shortfall in New Jersey is a massive gutting of public employee pension benefits. Christie fails to explain, however, how a total benefits increase of only 0.6% in 2010 for public workers somehow added $1 trillion to the combined states' pensions shortfall. Christie also conveniently ignores the fact that his state, New Jersey, only made 31% of the required contributions to its employee pension fund in 2009 (in contrast to New York's 100%), thus contributing significantly to its relatively low funding ratio of 66%. That ratio was worse only in Illinois, with a 51% ratio, and West Virginia and New Hampshire — also dominated by Republican governors — with ratios of 56% and 58%. In other words, those governors complaining the most about state pension funding gaps are typically those who created those gaps by refusing repeatedly to make the required contributions to their pension funds in the first place. Single-employer pension funds are also under direct attack, exemplified by the latest efforts of American Airlines to project massive losses in its fund as a way to justify dumping its pension on the PBGC, the latter already experiencing rising losses and demands to take over private plans. American Airlines would add $9 billion to the PBGC's already projected losses of $26 billion. Their game here is to force Congress to bailout the PBGC at taxpayer expense, thus in effect having American's pension fund "socialized."

Bear

Thu, Oct 18, 2012 : 7:52 a.m.

It is interesting to note that the negative fearmongers posting on here pointedly avoid addressing what ALEC and other special interests are doing in attacking public sector unions. Their aim is to do the same with other unions so they can avoid having anything to do with taking care of their employees and go back to the good old days, when they could fire someone on a whim, didn't have to worry about workplace safety because it was cheaper to pay off the family of a killed or maimed worker than put in place safety measures and could pay dirt wages because the individual worker has no power to protect his job. Convenient. Also, a great many of the arguments foisted upon us here against proposal 2 are uninformed. Just throwing numbers around with no idea how these numbers came to be, what the real problems are and picking on the boogey man that you are told to villify. Amazing the level if ignorance passed off as fact here.

Bear

Sat, Oct 20, 2012 : 3:22 a.m.

yeah mcminer, it IS 2012, a time when unions find themselves being savagely attacked in the next phase of battle against the middle class. And if you wish to see the early 1900's repeated, keep being apathetic and uninformed about what is going on around you until it's too late and you are left wondering just what happened to the prosperity in this country. It wasn't public unions who killed it, it wasn't private unions either. It was the corporations and their paid-for conservative legislatores.

Stan Hyne

Fri, Oct 19, 2012 : 1:45 p.m.

The public sector has unions.

harry

Thu, Oct 18, 2012 : 4:47 p.m.

Unions have no business in the public sector. For a union to hold the state hostage until there demands are met is morally wrong. We can see this by the outragous benefits teacher have received but are being slowly taken away. Retirement as early as 57 with a pension that is unmatched by any private company. Medical benefits with no deductible our out of pocket expenses?????!!!!

bobslowson

Thu, Oct 18, 2012 : 12:10 p.m.

Totally agree bear the "The New Right" is destroying our country one citizen at a time.

motorcycleminer

Thu, Oct 18, 2012 : 11:33 a.m.

Sorry bear its 2012 not 1935...

average joe

Thu, Oct 18, 2012 : 7:51 a.m.

Unions already have the right to bargain. There is absolutely no need to put it into the constitution.

RoboLogic

Thu, Oct 18, 2012 : 3:58 p.m.

I am a UAW member, yet as a critical thinker...I find your assessment totally logical.

Bear

Thu, Oct 18, 2012 : 7:59 a.m.

There is absolutely EVERY reason to put it into the constitution. To KEEP those rights as they are being assailed throughout the U.S. by unscrupulous corporations who've been buying up legislators left and right. You must not have any inkling about just what ALEC represents. Your argument fails simply because, legislators currently can create an economic crisis, spread falsehoods and lies, and implement legislation to TAKE those rights away. Similar to what happened in Wisconsin. It was proven (after the fact) that the pension argument was a lie. Pensions were funded by union memebers themselves, not taxpayeers. The courts have struck down the legilation limiting collective bargaining by public unions in Wisconsin, but the fight isn't over. And who's paying for that fight? Taxpayers. We need this so that the legislators cannot take those rights away, as they have publicly announced are their intentions.

A Voice of Reason

Thu, Oct 18, 2012 : 3:03 a.m.

Yes, no, no, no,no, and no! That is how I am voting and the second "no" is for Proposal 2. Is this the same guy that got so upset at a vendor because someone was reselling blue berry pie at the farmer's market? Credible! No one in their right mind would think about amending the constitution for this kind of nonsense.

PattyinYpsi

Thu, Oct 18, 2012 : 1:07 p.m.

Yes, indeed.... A Voice of Reason.

Ricardo Queso

Thu, Oct 18, 2012 : 2:12 a.m.

Just what are your statistics to back up your claims of workplace injuries and death? Did a clerk at the Secretary of State office get a paper cut?

Mike

Thu, Oct 18, 2012 : 12:58 a.m.

Prop 2 has absolutely nothing to do with the average working person who, through NLRA has the right to collective bargaining. Prop 2 is ALL about the large public sector unions trying through an amendment to codify collective bargaining which is purposefully NOT covered by NLRA. Essentially the MEA and SEIU have taken it upon themselves to try and find a way for their union leaders to further insure their pockets continue to get lined. It has NOTHING to do with working people in Michigan. Take a quick look at the history of NLRA and FDR's comments about public sector unions and learn exactly why there is no federal protections.

Bear

Sat, Oct 20, 2012 : 3:37 a.m.

Dennis P. You are incorrect about public sector unions "standing fast" on concessions. If you did your homework properly, you'd find that public sector unions have been making concessions for years. One thing they WON'T CONCEDE, is their right to bargain collectively. There is a reason for that. It is what makes a union, a union! And stong arm tactics? What do you think disregarding and dissolving standing union contracts is? This is one of the new powers of an EMF under Snyder. It has everything to do with working people in Michigan, regardless of what kind of garbage you are spreading like manure.

Bear

Sat, Oct 20, 2012 : 3:28 a.m.

tell that to these hard-working people, Mike. See what their answer would be. http://www.maff.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=125:letter-from-the-director-

DennisP

Thu, Oct 18, 2012 : 11:07 a.m.

And that's the real truth here. No one should deny the value of private unions. In fact, large businesses often do better by means of collective bargaining as a means of establishing uniform labor rights and duties. The private sector unions all came to the table and negotiated concessions when needed. The public sector unions would stand fast resulting in layoffs and closures of firehouses and police precincts. For goodness sakes, the teachers in Detroit went on strike only a few years back. It was illegal but Judge Susan Borman in Wayne County was too politically spineless to order them back to work. The DPS ended in the hands of an emergency manager. Now we have proposals to constitutionalize collective bargaining AND to strike down the EM law. These public unions aren't interested in bargaining--they are interested in strong arm tactics. This is not a case where the unions fear their town councils or school boards. It's us they fear. Their real employers and voters. We are demanding accountability through our elected representatives (who would much rather kowtow to the MEA, AFSCME and SEIU). Now we have to do it again. Prop 2 must go down in resounding defeat.

Jay Thomas

Thu, Oct 18, 2012 : 12:21 a.m.

Equating the financially devastating effects that collective bargaining has had on cash strapped municipalities with worker's safety is a typical straw man argument. Democrat mayor after democrat mayor are not in favor of this (in case someone thinks this is a purely partisan question). Should the public (in their ignorance) vote for this they are voting for giving the unions a loaded gun to hold to their own heads and ROB THEM every year til the end of time.

Bear

Thu, Oct 18, 2012 : 8:04 a.m.

this is typical fear-mongering at it's worst. Show me how this is supposed to happen. What are your arguments to support such nonsense?

DonBee

Thu, Oct 18, 2012 : 12:19 a.m.

Mr. Vazquez - Where will we find the additional billion dollars a year to close the gap this will open on Public Sector worker's pension and health care costs? Who will we turn to when the police and fire departments go on strike? Where will we find the $50 billion dollars the public sector pension funds are already short? How will we deal with the crowded classrooms when even more teachers are laid off to balance school budgets? When you can provide rational answers to these questions, I will be happy to take another look at proposal 2. Until then my vote is NO!

Bear

Sat, Oct 20, 2012 : 4:07 a.m.

And for your information, I saw a 30% reduction in my pay last year. I don't think that teachers, firefighters, police or other public employees should suffer that reduction just because it happened to me. That is a ridiculous and selfish idea. I lost that much money directly because of what Snyder did in his first year of office. I am slowly recovering, since, Snyder, now is slowly, quietly, replacing the cuts he made in that direction. But it was no fun to have that happen so suddenly and I don't think that the very people we depend upon to teach our children, protect our safety, make the cogs of our government and society function should be villified and have their pay cut in a similar fashion, just because it happened to me. That is just plain stupid.

Bear

Sat, Oct 20, 2012 : 4:01 a.m.

DonBee, you are being misleading in your bottomline statement. median income for all of michigan is a larger pool to draw upon. And how do you justify teachers having to take a 'hit' as you put it, if education is sooooo important. Would you use these conditions as a good reason to reduce your own wages? Your argument is lacking in logic. Oh, and I personally know teachers who have worked here for over 10 years, have a master's degree and have seen their annual pay reduced over the past several years. This isn't anecdotal or 'average median', or any of that sort of slicing and dicing of information. These are REAL people. It makes me angry that you would pull out some lame justification for your double standard. And apparently, in the list I put out there, you failed to see where the dots connect and misunderstand just what it means in the big picture. I suggest you take a closer look and quit being intellectually lazy. You can vote as you wish, but don't try to tell me your vote is an 'informed' one. It isn't.

Bear

Sat, Oct 20, 2012 : 3:51 a.m.

Average Salary Percent Change Rank 2009 Rank 2008 Rank 2007 2008 to 2009 2007 to 2008 2007 to 2009 Michigan 17 $52,300.00 12 $53,410.00 8 $54,683.33 -2.08% -2.33% -4.36% http://www.teachersalaryinfo.com/average-teacher-salary-michigan.html You can also easily get these figures for yourself from the bureau of labor statistics.

DonBee

Thu, Oct 18, 2012 : 3:46 p.m.

Mr. Bear - Of your 17 reasons only the first applies to the shortfall in the state pension fund, which is what I was referring too. As to the laws preventing police and firefighter strikes proposal 2 is silent on retaining these laws and they are part of "Collective bargaining" so - they will end up in court fighting over whether they stay or go. All 4 of comments are about PUBLIC union issues, not about private union issues. They all hit on ALL taxpayers in the state of Michigan. I could care less what this proposal does or does not do for private employers, they have the ability to pickup and move if they want to and the proposal imposes too many conditions on them. The taxpayers of the state are the ones who will feel this impact the most. As to public school teachers and salary reductions, show me a source that the average step table amount has gone down in the state, salaries overall are down because so many senior teachers have retired and been replaced by younger teachers (US Dept of Labor BLS) in Michigan. Show me where the average for a teacher with 10 years experience and a Master's degree is less than it was. As to reduction in teachers, yes it is happening, in many cases districts (AAPS is a good example) chose to take the major reductions out of the teacher count, rather than fix other spending issues (in the case of AAPS - the $4 million increase in administrative overhead - mostly do to increases for administrators). Not all districts have the same issues but most do. As to reduction in pay, teachers on average have done better than the average Michigan household who say pay fall by $7,000 a year from 2007 to 2011 (Dept of Labor BLS). Median income for a HOUSEHOLD in Michigan is down, now just over $45,000 from $52,000 in 2007. Show me a teacher who has taken that kind of beating on income.

Bear

Thu, Oct 18, 2012 : 8:37 a.m.

When was the last time you saw police or firefighters go on strike? So, suddenly this is supposed to happen? There are laws in place, that will not be affected by proposal 2 which prevent such strikes from taking place. Excuse me, but there has been a steady decline in teachers salaries in Michigan since 2007. And they are still being villified and demanded to do more, with less. Since peaking at 117,973 in the 2004-05 academic year, the number of public school teachers in Michigan has shrunk by nearly 9 percent, a loss of about 10,000 jobs, according to the Center for Educational Performance and Information. That number tracks the 8 percent drop in public school students, to 1.56 million, that Michigan has seen over the past five years. Governor Snyder, in his wisdom, has given away tax breaks to corporations and cut educational spending. School districts this fall must absorb a cut of at least $370 per student that's part of an overall 2.2 percent cut in state funding. If you think this was all because of collective bargaining you are dead wrong! Nobody wants an 'average' teacher. But that's just where we are heading if we don't protect our teachers and other workers, both in the public and private sector.

Bear

Thu, Oct 18, 2012 : 8:04 a.m.

10. Legislation and court decisions over the past decade have promoted and permitted "Cash Balance Plans" as convenient hybrid transition forms from defined benefit plans to 401Ks. 11. Phony business bankruptcy policies have permitted easy dumping of pensions on the PBGC, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation that ensures DBPs. 12. Easing of restrictions facilitate companies leaving multi-employer plans, and single employers exiting the PBGC. 13. The Pension Protection Act of 2006 allowed pension funds to partner with high-risk speculators like hedge funds, resulting in pension funds' headlong rush into speculative investing in subprime mortgages and other high risk real estate and financial markets, the consequence of which was massive fund losses in 2000-02 and again in 2008-10. 14. Low rates of return in general over the last decade on investments by pension funds, attributable largely to protracted recession after 2008 as well as the Federal Reserve Bank's policy of zero interest rates for four consecutive years now, has forced many pension funds to seek and take high risk investing, as they try to "chase" the necessary 7.5% rate of return on investment. 15. Funds are drained by the practice of paying excessive million dollar fees to pension advisers and consultants, especially in the public sector. 16. New financial regulations introduced in 2010, requiring valuation of funds at actual market value, exclusive of smoothing and fraudulent actuarial assumptions, have "torn the veil" from the exaggerated assumptions of pension fund earnings, forced funds to value at actual market rates, and thus opened up even greater funding gaps. 17. Corporations have been allowed to divert retained earnings, which should otherwise have been contributed to their pension funds, and are used instead to buy back company stock and make dividend payouts.

Bear

Thu, Oct 18, 2012 : 8 a.m.

The following is a partial summary short list of 17 reasons underlying the problem of insufficient contributions and assets, that in turn explains much of the pension fund asset shortfalls and falling ratios: 1. Two recessions since 2000 and two bouts of "jobless recoveries" (2002-05 and 2009-12) resulted in falling contributions to the funds. 2. Structural unemployment due to offshoring and free trade has reduced contributions in many industries, especially technology and manufacturing. 3. Pension surplus "skimming" in the 1980s and constant "pension contribution holidays" since the 1990s have lowered the contributions base of the pension funds. 4. Single employer and public employer manipulation of actuarial assumptions, such as phony overstated rates of return and projected hirings that never happen, covered up the growing pension shortfalls. 5. Rules since the 1990s have allowed the diversion of pension funds to cover 20% of rising employer health care insurance costs. 6. A deep depression in the construction and transport sectors over the past decade has intensified since 2007, with devastating effect on multi-employer plan funds. 7. De-unionization of the workforce has further allowed employers to exit multi-employer plans, further reducing contributions — similarly for unionized single employer plans and, increasingly as Republican governors get their way in many states, for public employee plans as well. 8. U.S. job markets have shifted to part time and temp "contingency" jobs for tens of millions of workers, who are excluded from participating (and thus contributing) to DBPs. 9. Government policy now emphasizes growing 401K plans, and encouraging and subsidizing employer shifting from defined benefit pensions to 401K and other defined contribution plans.

Jack Campbell

Thu, Oct 18, 2012 : 12:01 a.m.

Voting yes. Working people have got to make a living. Our economy is dependent on the middle class, not the wealthy elite.

bobslowson

Thu, Oct 18, 2012 : 12:12 p.m.

I can't believe I voted you up Jack!

Ricardo Queso

Thu, Oct 18, 2012 : 2:10 a.m.

Oh OK Mr. Obama talking points.

motorcycleminer

Wed, Oct 17, 2012 : 11:55 p.m.

Prop 2 is BS.... period

motorcycleminer

Thu, Oct 18, 2012 : 11:31 a.m.

love bears sarcasam..this from a " pie in the skyer " who wants all of us to foot the bill for his " free " energy along with all the other kermits who can't quite live in the real world...thank god for OZ

Bear

Thu, Oct 18, 2012 : 8:01 a.m.

what a very intelligent and informed opinion.

Macabre Sunset

Wed, Oct 17, 2012 : 11:47 p.m.

This would effectively end Michigan's recovery. Voting against Proposal 2 may be the most important vote we make in this decade.

Basic Bob

Thu, Oct 18, 2012 : 1:10 a.m.

I agree, there will be no one left to pay the bills if Prop 2 passes. Fortunately I am willing to work out of state and commute back on the weekends, but it is a travesty that I can't sell my house and still have to pay taxes to this godforsaken state. I guess I can change my permanent address to an out of state flop.

michael Limmer

Thu, Oct 18, 2012 : 12:14 a.m.

the IRS reported income results for that year, I believe it was 2010. The top 1 % got 93% of that increase in income. Workers in America have their wages going down as corporations sit on piles of cash. If that is anti-corporation rhetoric, so be it. But the facts still stand. And that is not silly, but the truth.

michael Limmer

Wed, Oct 17, 2012 : 11:44 p.m.

Wish we didn't have to do this (making it part of the constitution), but if we don't ALEC will make us a right to work (for less) state. Remember that many of the auto factories in the south have employees working full time and still able to get food stamps and other assistance so that the foreign car makers can have larger profits. Remember that in the last year that income data is available, that 93% of all of the increase in income went to the top 1 per cent. If we don't band together, then you, by yourself, have to fight the entire HR department for a raise or better benefits. Are unions perfect? Of course not. But then, neither are corporations.

bobslowson

Thu, Oct 18, 2012 : 12:14 p.m.

Pretty disturbing when our government starts to go the way of New Right Paul Weyrich / Breitbart / ALEC and all these other conservative groups that want to change constitutions to say marriage is one man one woman (so they can deny rights to same sex couples) based on some fairy tale, written in some book, by some so called prophet. If we can change the constitution for that. I say we change it for all these proposals . So voting No, Yes, Yes, Yes, No, No is a vote for the people!

Ricardo Queso

Thu, Oct 18, 2012 : 2:08 a.m.

That is a bald face lie. Pass this proposal and you can say goodbye to new business. Take a look at the new Motor City, Nashville. Not exactly hurting. And if you opened a book you would realize that your precious pension funds are comprised of ... corporations!

Angry Moderate

Thu, Oct 18, 2012 : 12:28 a.m.

And the Detroit auto companies shutting down plants, laying everyone off, and moving to Mexico is better than what they have in the south? LOL.

Macabre Sunset

Wed, Oct 17, 2012 : 11:50 p.m.

That's a skewed and incorrect statistic, dependent more on the assumption that wages and the stock market are some sort of common pool rather than completely separate entities. Given the 50% drop in the market in 2008, it was inevitable that any increase in stock prices would produce capital gains temporarily out of line with recent years. You wouldn't say 93% of increases went in one direction any more than you'd say 500% of any perceived increase went toward wages in 2008. Different scales. When combined, you get silly results. But thanks for the standard anti-corporation rhetoric.