Michigan Votes Forum

Contact your state representative and urge them to eliminate job killing provisions inserted into House Bill 4788 (HB 4788). The bill would mandate that the privatization of support staff would be subject to collective bargaining. Whoever (Rep. Bert Johnson and Tim Melton) slipped this garbage into this legislation should be subject to mandatory drug screening. That may seem harsh but consider this, in Birmingham we contracted our transportation and custodial services. This was not an easy decision, but we SAVED over $3.5 MILLION annually by doing this. Where did that money go? It went to KEEP TEACHERS EMPLOYED. Out of all the school districts in Oakland county we are the only one that did not announce massive teacher layoffs for the coming school year. This is why districts contract non-classroom services, to save money for programs and teachers. Why in the world would these two legislators insert job killing language in the face of the worst economic crisis Michigan has ever faced? As I speculated, maybe a test is in order.

Contact your representative and urge them to eliminate the changes to PERA from HB 4788, or ask them to remove the "tie bar" to the other education bills. The "tie bar" is a tactic to gain approval of multiple bills together. This bill has been tie barred to House Bills 4787 and 4789.

Rep. Schuitmaker, having reserved the right to explain her protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement:

“Mr. Speaker and members of the House:

HB 4787/ 4788 - Turnaround schools

This legislation aims to impose sanctions on the worst performing public schools, most of which are high schools in high-poverty, urban areas. Unfortunately, many of the reforms in this legislation have been seriously watered down. At the same time, it holds charter schools to a more stringent standard than traditional public schools, making it even harder for charter schools to try to help where traditional public schools have failed.

This legislation also makes changes to union collective bargaining powers that are totally unrelated to the issue of failing school reforms. It reverses a number of cost-saving provisions that benefit unions at the expense of students. It even allows unions leverage over areas they should not control, such as the school start date.

For these reasons, I cannot support this bill at this time.”

Rep. Meekhof, having reserved the right to explain his protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement:

“Mr. Speaker and members of the House:

This legislation aims to impose sanctions on the worst performing public schools, most of which are high schools in high-poverty, urban areas. Unfortunately, many of the reforms in this legislation have been seriously watered down. At the same time, it holds charter schools to a more stringent standard than traditional public schools, making it even harder for charter schools to try to help where traditional public schools have failed.

This legislation also makes changes to union collective bargaining powers that are totally unrelated to the issue of failing school reforms. It reverses a number of cost-saving provisions that benefit unions at the expense of students. It even allows unions leverage over areas they should not control, such as the school start date.

For these reasons, I cannot support this bill at this time.”