Michigan Votes Forum

Introduced 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 to pass the measure

The vote was 22 in favor, 15 opposed and 1 not voting

(Senate Roll Call 83 at Senate Journal 0)

Click here to view bill details.

 

Senators Whitmer, Prusi and Cherry moved that the statements they made during the discussion of the concurrent resolution be printed as their reasons for voting “no.”

The motion prevailed.

Senator Whitmer’s statement, in which Senators Jacobs, Thomas and Hunter concurred, is as follows:

Sadly, here we go again. Michigan is facing another budget deficit, and the Senate majority wants to balance it on the backs of the state’s hardworking public employees, instead of making concessions themselves. Every time state government is in a crisis, the leadership of this body asks state employees to make more sacrifices when they made none. Today is another example of this hypocrisy.

From fiscal year 2004 to fiscal year 2011, state employees have made concessions that have resulted in $700 million of savings to our state. They have taken unpaid furlough days, given up earned leave time, paid higher premium shares for their health insurance, and had increased co-pays and lost overtime. Have you done any of those things? No. All of this was for the good of the state. Framing this as a raise is ridiculous and a partisan spin.

This so-called pay increase of 3 percent is not really a raise at all. It was adopted in exchange for agreed-upon reductions in benefits that amount to a 4.35 percent cut—a cut in total compensation. And while the concessions these employees have made can’t be touched or undone, the Senate majority is trying to renege on our end of the bargain.

Our state employees have and continue to act in good faith, but today the Legislature is not doing the same. These employees are vital to providing the services that Michigan residents rely on every day to survive. These are the men and women in Child Protective Services who help keep kids safe. They are the people in the Department of Human Services who make sure families and seniors have the assistance they need to put food on their tables. Do any of you worry about how you are going to put food on your table? These are the police officers and firefighters who help keep our communities safe.

Let me tell you something. Child abuse does not take a furlough day, hunger does not take a furlough day, and crime does not take a furlough day. Then why should we ask the people who combat these challenges to take furlough days? These men and women do not look at their jobs as just another paycheck. In turn, state government should not be looking at them like just another price tag. These certainly aren’t nonessential services, and they’re surely as important to the people in your districts as they are to the people in mine.

When there is a constituent concern, who does your staff pick up the phone and call? What if there was no one on the other line of that phone, no one to solve that problem, no one to help that person? Are these really the services we want to target to realize cost savings in state government?

If these drastic times call for drastic measures, then why not make them yourselves. It’s the height of hypocrisy when the majority wants to cut state employees to save $48 million but not willing to cut their own lifetime health care benefits or reduce the drastic disparity in partisan office budgets.

Also ironic, the spokesperson for one of the groups, who is a chief proponent of state employee cuts, was once one of, if not the highest-paid state employee in Michigan history. Now he wants cuts from all the other state employees. I am proud to represent the majority of Michigan’s hardworking, dedicated state employees. But more importantly, I am proud to have them represent me and represent our state.

I will not support reforms at their expense, and I am ashamed that more people in this body don’t’ value our public employees the same way. I abhor the politics of fear, but when we take measures like this, it is only a matter of time before someone falls through the cracks and have a devastating story in Michigan. We can’t afford to let that happen, and because of that I am going to be voting “no.”

 

Senator Prusi’s statement, in which Senators Cherry, Hunter, Brater, Scott, Clark-Coleman and Basham concurred, is as follows:

It has become very politically popular to demonize public employees and state workers, but I think if the general public was aware of some of the sacrifices they have already made, the polls would look a little different. We should not operate under polls regardless.

I think people need to be aware that there are 17 percent fewer state workers on the payroll today than there were eight or nine years ago. No one has seen a corresponding diminishment of the services required or the needs to be satisfied from the constituents we represent. Their workloads haven’t shrunk by 17 percent; it has been growing commensurate with the economic crisis here in the state of Michigan.

Would you like to go to work in one of our maximum security institutions and work with the very worst people in our society day in and day out and be told by the State Legislature that the work they do is important, but we don’t value it enough to give you the raise you bargained in good faith for? You bargained to replace all the concessions—the $700 million as the previous speaker represented. I don’t think any of us would want to do that and be told that our jobs are worth less.

Would you like to ride along with one of our state troopers when our at-post trooper strength is as low as it has been in the last 20 years? Have you seen crime, traffic, or any of the problems that our state troopers wrestle with go down? I don’t believe you have. Those troopers are out there every day protecting us and our families, and I think they are worth the money that they earn and more on top.

How would you like to sit at the desk of a DHS workers with 700-800 cases open? These are people desperate because of the economy, trying to find a way to feed their families, get medical care, and to pay their bills and heat their homes. Those DHS workers who sit at those desks every day are not faceless numbers. They are not just some equation or bottom line. They are human beings just like everyone else, and they are doing the very best they can to help those disadvantaged people in our state recover and get back on their feet.

I think it is an atrocity that we will tell these people—after the $700 million that they have sacrificed, after the collective bargaining agreements that go forward in the future with two-tiered health care programs, saving the state hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars in the decade ahead—after all they have sacrificed year in and year out over the years that we are coming back for one more bite at the apple and another.

When is enough enough? I think now is enough. These state workers have demonstrated time and again their willingness to sacrifice and work hard on behalf of the people of the state of Michigan. I think for us slap them in the face and tell them they are worth less, I think, speaks ill of this body. I would encourage members to vote “no” on this concurrent resolution.

 

Senator Cherry’s statement is as follows:

I just want to point out a couple of things so that we don’t forget what it is we are doing today. I spent last week or the week before talking to Department of Human Services workers who were doing an informational picket at the time. As was said earlier, they have caseloads of about 800 people. They don’t take breaks. They work through. They don’t have enough time to service the clients they have. They have given up, as was said, furlough days even at a time when the need for their services continues.

So my point to all of that is that those workers are just an example. If the $700 million in cuts that workers have taken already and this year they have agreed in negotiations to cut $50 million out of their package of pay and benefits, this pay raise costs somewhere between $35 million to some $40 million. In effect, they are taking a pay cut this year. Even though we’re just voting to stabilize their pay, understand that they are taking a pay cut this year. We need to recognize that.

To make sure that we are being clear to everyone, this vote is a vote to cut pay. It’s not just to stop a pay raise. They have already agreed to, as I said, $700 million in the past and $50 million in cuts this year, which is more than what that pay raise costs.

 I have read the comments from varous people who voted "NO" on this measure.

The bottom line is that their heads are in their hearts. No one want to hurt any employee financially. But, state employess are wll paid and with the State economy where it is, we it is foolish to add $77 Million dollars to the States already red ink.

If the State employee do not recognize that this action is required, they should all be furloughed without pay to make up the 77 Million.

When are our Elected officials going to get it?????

 

 

  

Perhaps the 22 Michigan Senators who voted for this abomination should read the United States Constitution, Article I, Section 10, which is titled "Powers prohibited to the states."  Among those prohibited acts are the passage of bills of attainder, passage of ex post facto laws or laws "impairing the obligation of contracts."

 

Senator Prusi’s statement is as follows:

You know, I understand the majority’s desire to get this issue out there again. It plays quite well when you look at the polls that 75 percent of the people think that this is something which needs to happen. But I don’t think in that poll was it explained fully to people that state employees have already sacrificed $700 million, that their ranks are down 17 percent, and there has been no corresponding fall-off in the needs and the duties which these workers have to perform. I think if people were to understand that this 3 percent raise isn’t something which is handed out willy-nilly, their contract was four years long—0 percent, 0 percent, 1 percent, and then this 3 percent back-loaded at the end. They’ve extended their agreements, and they’ve gone back to the table and negotiated further concessions on top of the $700 million which the state has saved through their willingness to bargain collectively and to negotiate concessionary agreements. In fact, they have lost up close to 5 percent in total compensation to date, and this 3 percent doesn’t even make up partially for what they’ve given up in the past.

So I think if people were to understand just exactly what has been going on over the last five or six years in state government and with state employee contracts, those people would come to understand our corrections officers, our state troopers, our DHS workers, and our frontline DNRE people who are out there doing their jobs. This is Ag Day. The people who inspect our food supplies, inspect our farms, and work with our farmers, they’re included in this as well. You want to go after these folks.

I have a great deal of respect for the folks and the business leaders for Michigan—the CEOs of our major corporations—have done a tremendous job in struggling through this economy and keeping their businesses afloat. But I find it rather disingenuous when people who are making seven-figure salaries are targeting people who are in the middle class in the state of Michigan. A 3 percent cut to $1.5 million salary or a $5 million salary, that’s not a real sacrifice. But I’ve not heard them offer up any sacrifices. I’ve not watched them offer up pay cuts commensurate with what they are asking for here, as they go around and beat the drum across the state for us to do what they are asking us to do here.

There is just a touch of hypocrisy there when people making those kind of incomes want to attack people in the middle class and people who are struggling here and doing the work which we count on them to do to keep our families safe and to keep government functioning here.

On top of the concessions they have already given, I believe taking this 3 percent away from them is a slap in the face to people who have already sacrificed, who go in and protect our families day in and day out and do the hard work we ask them to do. I would ask members to vote "no" on this resolution.

 

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.

 

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.

 

 

 

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.

FreeSpeaker:

"impairing the obligation of contracts."

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