Legislation watch
Mackinac Center for Public Policy
Capitol Building

2010 Senate Concurrent Resolution 35: Reject 3 percent state employee pay hike
  1. Introduced by Sen. Ron Jelinek (R) on March 3, 2010, to reject a 3 percent pay increase for unionized state government employees for the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1, 2010. Reportedly the raise will cost $77.3 million. A two-thirds majority is required to pass the measure.
  2. Failed 22 to 15 in the Senate on March 3, 2010, to reject a 3 percent state government employee pay increase for the 2010-2011 fiscal year (which begins on Oct. 1, 2010). Reportedly the raise will cost $77.3 million. A two-thirds majority is required in both the House and Senate to pass the measure, and the House leadership refused to bring it up for a vote.
    Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"

  3. Received in the Senate on March 17, 2010, to reject a 3 percent state government employee pay increase for the 2010-2011 fiscal year (which begins on Oct. 1, 2010). Reportedly the raise will cost $77.3 million. A two-thirds majority is required in both the House and Senate to pass the measure, and the House leadership refused to bring it up for a vote. Failed 23 to 15 in the Senate on March 17, 2010.
    Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"

  4. Moved to reconsider by Sen. Alan L. Cropsey (R) on March 17, 2010, the vote by which the concurrent resolution was not adopted. The motion failed by voice vote in the Senate on March 17, 2010.
  5. Received in the Senate on March 25, 2010, to reject a 3 percent state government employee pay increase for the 2010-2011 fiscal year (which begins on Oct. 1, 2010). Reportedly the raise will cost $77.3 million. A two-thirds majority is required in both the House and Senate to pass the measure, and the House leadership refused to bring it up for a vote. Failed 23 to 15 in the Senate on March 25, 2010.
    Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"

Comments

Re: 2010 Senate Concurrent Resolution 35 (Reject 3 percent state employee pay hike )  by changeagent on September 28, 2010 

[quote user="FreeSpeaker"]"impairing the obligation of contracts."[/quote]


In this case, as a party to the contract, they have the right to intervene in the contract.


 


 



Re: 2010 Senate Concurrent Resolution 35 (Reject 3 percent state employee pay hike )  by Admin003 on March 17, 2010 

 

Senator Switalski’s statement is as follows:


The Legislature faces two bad choices: Either we can spend money we don’t have, or we can cheapen our word. I believe freezing pay is the lesser of two evils.




Re: 2010 Senate Concurrent Resolution 35 (Reject 3 percent state employee pay hike )  by Admin003 on March 17, 2010 

 

Senator Bishop’s statement is as follows:




Not to beat a dead horse, today but this, in fact, is Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 35, the resolution to reject the employee pay raise. As the members will note, we took this up in the past and it was earlier in the month on March 3 when we took it up last time. Since then, we have had a chance to go back to our districts to talk to our constituents—to hear from the folks we represent—about what is important to them. We didn’t get the number of votes necessary last time, but I am hoping this time with the new information that we have been able to acquire from our districts and hindsight being as strong as it is, I think it is important for us to discuss this again and take it up for another vote.



I want to remind members that we have, again, 15 percent unemployment in this state. Businesses are fleeing our state. Families are going along with it. We hear it every day. Our economy is spiraling downward out of control, and yet, we have the audacity—and when I say "we," I mean the government by way of the administration—to propose the increase of pay to our state employees, while the rest of our state and the rest of our private sector see dramatic reductions in their benefits and in their salaries.



This is clearly leading against the will of the people that we represent. It is contrary to why I came to Lansing and why I serve in the position that I do and why you serve in the position that you do. We have the trust and confidence of the people we represent for a reason. It is our responsibility to represent them well. This is not representing them well when we don’t look at the writing on the wall. We have all of this happening around us.


We just saw one of the world’s largest corporations in GM fold up and go into bankruptcy. We are seeing our school districts fighting for their lives; law enforcement layoffs, so we don’t have cops in the street. Yet we are willing to pay our employees more, to the tune of $77 million, so that we have to cut back in other areas like law enforcement and education.


I would just like to know from those who decide to vote against this which priority item will you cut to stick to your guns on this pay increase. Which will it be: education, law enforcement, environment? What other hot-ticket items are you willing to ignore just to defend the status quo and allow this pay increase to go through?


I want to make a note that last week, there was a discussion about the legality. I want to refer to this claim of an unfair labor practice. There has been no discussion as to where the cite is on this, but the law is clearly defined when it comes to unfair labor practices in the U.S. Code, 29 USC 158 of the National Labor Relations Act, which limits the means by which employers may react to workers in the private sector and create labor unions, engage in collective bargaining, and take part in other activities to support their demands. However, specifically in Section 2 of that part of the code it says the act does not apply to federal, state, or local government workers—does not apply. However, our State Constitution, which I take very seriously, is very clear and unambiguous in Article 11, Section 5, where in it provides that the legislature within 60 days by a two-thirds vote of both chambers may reject the pay increase. Specifically, in the Constitution, the Legislature is granted the authority to reject the pay increase.


I would argue that we have the responsibility, under the circumstances, to step up pursuant to the Constitution and reject this pay increase.





 




 



View pre-2013 Comments.
Your new comments should be made in the box below.