Local Issues and Governments

Re: 2011 House Bill 4522 (Require public safety arbitrators consider fiscal interests)

mkymtn2 — Tue, 28 Jun 2011 15:14:19 GMT

Normal 0

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)

wjhill — Wed, 18 May 2011 23:52:30 GMT

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)

gypsy — Tue, 19 Apr 2011 13:38:54 GMT

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

Re: 2011 House Bill 4522 (Require public safety arbitrators consider fiscal interests)

WCTaxpayer — Tue, 19 Apr 2011 02:32:15 GMT

I would prefer the elimination of binding arbitration, but this is the next best thing. It is foolish to award decisions when the community is unable or unwilling to support the financial demands of the arbitrator on behalf of the unions.

2011 House Bill 4522 (Require public safety arbitrators consider fiscal interests)

Votes Admin — Mon, 01 Jan 2001 05:00:00 GMT

Introduced in the House on March 28, 2011

Click here to view bill details.