2010 Senate Concurrent Resolution 35 (Reject 3 percent state employee pay hike ) (Senate Roll Call 83)
Failed in the Senate (22 to 15) 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 to pass the measure. [History, Amendments & Comments]
The vote was 22 in favor, 15 against, and 1 not voting.
(Senate Roll Call 83)
[Comment on this vote | View others' comments]
|
|
|
|
In Favor
Against
Not Voting
Undecided
Reject 3 percent state employee pay hike
IN FAVOR
SENATE DEMOCRATS
| Switalski (D) |
SENATE REPUBLICANS
AGAINST
SENATE DEMOCRATS
| Anderson (D) | Barcia (D) | Basham (D) | Brater (D) | Cherry (D) |
| Clark-Coleman (D) | Clarke (D) | Gleason (D) | Hunter (D) | Jacobs (D) |
| Olshove (D) | Prusi (D) | Scott (D) | Thomas (D) | Whitmer (D) |
SENATE REPUBLICANS
none
SENATE LEGISLATORS WHO DID NOT VOTE
| Patterson (R) |
SENATE LEGISLATORS ALL VOTES
Senate Roll Call 83 on 2010 Senate Concurrent Resolution 35
Most Recent Comments
1) 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.
Reply
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.
Reply
Senator Jacobs’ statement is as follows:
I would venture to say that this poll also didn’t explain to people about the tax loopholes and incentives that we give away each year in this state. If people knew that we give away each year more than we take in each year, I think they would sit back and say, "Wait, something isn’t fair here." And this says a lot about fairness. Is it fair to ask our public employees to sacrifice when there is not a shared sacrifice or really shared investment by the constituents of this state as well as businesses? We all need to be brought to the table. We all need to be part of the solution. But this 3 percent solution only tries to balance the budget on the backs of state workers. It doesn’t make sense to do it this way. So, Mr. President, what I would ask is to come up with another idea that would bring in the business community as part of the solution. I would be happy to sit down and see what I could work out in my caucus to try to bring some votes to do something like this. So since nothing has changed since the last time we saw this, I am going to be opposing this concurrent resolution again because it is not fair.
Reply
View Full Conversation
