2011 House Bill 4522: Require public safety arbitrators consider ability to pay (House Roll Call 237)
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.
View All of House Bill 4522: History, Amendments & Comments
The vote was 107 in favor, 1 against, and 2 not voting.
(House Roll Call 237)
Comment on this vote View others' comments Add to scorecard
|
|
|
|
In Favor
Against
Not Voting
Undecided
Require public safety arbitrators consider ability to pay
IN FAVOR
HOUSE DEMOCRATS
HOUSE REPUBLICANS
AGAINST
HOUSE DEMOCRATS
none
HOUSE REPUBLICANS
| Potvin (R) |
HOUSE LEGISLATORS WHO DID NOT VOTE
| Howze (D) | Santana (D) |
HOUSE LEGISLATORS ALL VOTES
House Roll Call 237 on 2011 House Bill 4522
Comments
1) 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.
How will the abritator acquire such information when municipalities do not honestly reveal their financial standings. I hope you are not considering heresay!
Arbitrators have no business considering the ability of a locality to pay for the services it wants. That is up to the voters.
Your new comments should be made in the box below.
