Legislation watch
Mackinac Center for Public Policy
Capitol Building

2011 House Bill 4522: Require public safety arbitrators consider ability to pay

Public Act 116 of 2011

  1. Introduced by Rep. Jeff Farrington (R) on March 28, 2011, to add to the criteria that must be considered by “PA 312” binding arbitration panels. These arbitrators have the power to impose contract terms between municipalities and public safety unions in the event of a collective bargaining impasse. The arbitrators would be required to consider the interests and welfare of the public and the financial ability of the community to pay. They would not be allowed to consider the ability to raise additional taxes.
    • Referred to the House Government Operations Committee on March 28, 2011.
      • Reported in the House on June 14, 2011, with the recommendation that the substitute (H-5) be adopted and that the bill then pass.
    • Substitute offered in the House on June 14, 2011, to replace the previous version of the bill with one that revises various details. The substitute passed by voice vote in the House on June 14, 2011.
    • Amendment offered by Rep. Richard LeBlanc (D) on June 14, 2011, to allow arbitrators to grant retroactive pay and benefit hikes. The amendment failed by voice vote in the House on June 14, 2011.
    • Substitute offered in the House on June 14, 2011, to replace the previous version of the bill with one that generally is more accomodating to the preferences of government employee unions. The substitute failed by voice vote in the House on June 14, 2011.
    • Substitute offered by Rep. Jeff Farrington (R) on June 23, 2011, to replace the previous version of the bill with one that reflects the terms of a House Republican majority compromise with government employee unions. The substitute passed by voice vote in the House on June 23, 2011.
  2. Passed 107 to 1 in the House on June 23, 2011, to revise the criteria that must be considered by “PA 312” binding arbitration panels. These arbitrators have the power to impose contract terms between municipalities and public safety unions in the event of a collective bargaining impasse. The bill reflects the terms of a House Republican majority compromise with government employee unions. It would expand the scope of this law to consolidated multi-government service authorities (but not 9-1-1 call centers); place a 180 day deadline on the process; and require arbitrators to consider the financial ability of the community to pay, and the pay and benefits of comparable private sector employees, in addition to other government employees. Arbitrators would not be prohibited from considering the community's ability to impose additional taxes.
    Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"

  3. Received in the Senate on June 28, 2011.
    • Amendment offered in the Senate on June 28, 2011, to revise a detail related to the bill's extension of the binding arbitration mandate to multi-government fire and police authorities. The amendment passed by voice vote in the Senate on June 28, 2011.
  4. Passed 27 to 10 in the Senate on June 29, 2011, to revise the criteria that must be considered by “PA 312” binding arbitration panels. These arbitrators have the power to impose contract terms between municipalities and public safety unions in the event of a collective bargaining impasse. The bill reflects the terms of a House Republican majority compromise with government employee unions. It would expand the scope of this law to consolidated multi-government service authorities (but not 9-1-1 call centers); place a 180 day deadline on the process; and require arbitrators to consider the financial ability of the community to pay, and the pay and benefits of comparable private sector employees, in addition to other government employees. Arbitrators would not be prohibited from considering the community's ability to impose additional taxes.
    Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"

  5. Received in the House on June 29, 2011.
  6. Passed 109 to 0 in the House on June 29, 2011, to concur with the Senate-passed version of the bill.
    Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"

  7. Signed by Gov. Rick Snyder on July 20, 2011.

Comments

Re: 2011 House Bill 4522 (Require public safety arbitrators consider fiscal interests)  by mkymtn2 on June 28, 2011 

 


Seems to me that this vote flies in the face of Republican
goals for Michigan to become a ‘right to work’ state – or do they.  It will be interesting to see how our
recently elected representatives negotiate their way around the notion of which
union is more ‘deserving’ than another……given their (not all) own associations with one
or more of the various unions.


 


The notion that arbitrators might be required to consider
the financial ability of the community to ‘pay’ is ridiculous.  That should be left to the individual
communities and the taxpayers. This vote is more accurately characterized as a 'rollover' in favor of the unions.



Re: 2011 House Bill 4522 (Require public safety arbitrators consider fiscal interests)  by wjhill on May 18, 2011 

How will the abritator acquire such information when municipalities do not honestly reveal their financial standings.  I hope you are not considering heresay! 



Re: 2011 House Bill 4522 (Require public safety arbitrators consider fiscal interests)  by gypsy on April 19, 2011 

Arbitrators have no business considering the ability of a locality to pay for the services it wants. That is up to the voters.



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