Print

Yes

7 (38.9%)

No

11 (61.1%)

Total Members Voted: 18

Voting closed: November 02, 2012, 03:32:15 AM

[lilly]

A proposal to amend the state constitution regarding collective bargaining

This proposal would:

- Grant public and private employees the constitutional right to organize and bargain collectively through labor unions.

- Invalidate existing or future state of local laws that limit the ability to join unions and bargain collectively, and to negotiate and enforce collective bargaining agreements, including employees' financial support of their labor unions. Laws may be enacted to prohibit public employees from striking.

- Override state laws that regulate hours and conditions of employment to the extent that those laws conflict with collective bargaining agreements

- Define "employer" as a person or entity employing one or more employees.


People voting "Yes" say:

- All workers need the right to organize to form, join or assist unions, and to bargain and negotiate in order to receive a fair contract and a living wage, to be guaranteed by the constitution. Elected officials should not be able to interfere with that right.

- Workers deserve an opportunity to fairly negotiate with their employer

- Collective bargaining protects workers from devastating cuts to their wages, benefits, and working conditions. Michigan's citizens need protections in this uncertain economy.


People voting "No" say:

- This amendment will repeal an unknown number of existing laws, including those that detail the hiring, firing, and discipline processes for police, fire fighters, and teachers. No one knows how those critical services will be affected

- This amendment would significantly limit the state government's ability to negotiate state workers and the labor activities of private employees.

- It would be unwise to lock this proposal in the Constitution as it would hinder lawmakers from adapting to changing conditions.

[lilly]

I have the information for the other 4 and will try and post them later on.

[marilyn.monroe]

I think private employees and government employees are two different things and this proposal does not take that into account. The school bus commercials are just frightening, but that it was they are meant to do. I don't know how I will vote on proposal 2.

thanks for posting lilly.

[Monroe Native]

No!

I don't see where this remotely belongs in a State Constitution.

[jbs49238]

I will vote "NO".

Workers already have the right to collectively bargain.  Voting yes will only ensure that future employees are stripped of their right to choose not to collectively bargain.

I am a union member in the public sector.  I would never dream of opting out of my union, but it is morally wrong that I am FORCED to be in it.

There is not a chance in the world that I would be able to negotiate a better contract for myself, but I am a member of a very responsible and reasonable union, not all union members are as lucky.

[Professor H]

I don't like the wording and don't think it is necessary in the Constitution.

I can see it re-appearing if the legislature ever votes to become a right to work state.

[The Fuzz]

I'm still riding the fence on this one and want to study it more and hear other opinions before I decide.

Not sure this should be a constitutional issue, and looks to me to be a later decision if this state wants to decide if it will be a right to work state or not.

[Professor H]

I'm still riding the fence on this one and want to study it more and hear other opinions before I decide.

Not sure this should be a constitutional issue, and looks to me to be a later decision if this state wants to decide if it will be a right to work state or not.

I think that was the intent - the make the Legislature stop and think before they tried to change the bargaining rights here in the state.
It would pass in a hurry if they did, but since they didn't I'm thinking it will not pass.

[jbs49238]

I know of at least two Dems running for State Rep that have pretty much all their eggs in this basket.  As this proposal goes, so will their campaigns.

The MEA is heavy behind this proposal, and very heavy behind those candidates as well.  Both face Republican incumbants.

[ell]

I'm still riding the fence on this one and want to study it more and hear other opinions before I decide.

Not sure this should be a constitutional issue, and looks to me to be a later decision if this state wants to decide if it will be a right to work state or not.

I think that's what's driving this, Fuzz.  That, and what has happened in Wisconsin and attempted in Ohio.  I do think it's a right that needs to be protected for public sector workers.

I will vote "NO".

Workers already have the right to collectively bargain.  Voting yes will only ensure that future employees are stripped of their right to choose not to collectively bargain.

I am a union member in the public sector.  I would never dream of opting out of my union, but it is morally wrong that I am FORCED to be in it.

There is not a chance in the world that I would be able to negotiate a better contract for myself, but I am a member of a very responsible and reasonable union, not all union members are as lucky.

Wouldn't this proposal strip many, if not all, public sector workers the right to organize.  I haven't thoroughly read the proposal, but that was my first take.

On your second point, that's what most right to work laws do is allow people to work under be pay and benefits bargained for by the union, yet they do not have to join in order to enjoy these benefits and in many cases, the protections of the contract.

Your last point is spot on.  No company or municipality is going to bargain individually with each one of its employees.  And the second part of that statement is key.  You have what you consider a responsible and reasonable union.  Good for you.  I think most unions try to do the best they can for  their membership.  But just like everything else in this life, sometimes you encounter those who have a different agenda.  I think for the most part my union is a lot like yours, although some decisions cause me to stop and ponder.  And the beauty is, they are elected and can be replaced.

[jbs49238]

ell,

This is my third go around with being a union employee without having an opportunity to opt out.  This is the only of the three I would ever think of voluntarily joining.

I do not agree with the premise that those who would choose to be non-union should get the same package as the union workers.  If you are going to say no to the union, then you should have to bargain and abide by whatever you and the employer establish.  I think if this were the case employers would welcome the unions more readily as they would keep them from having to do more negotiating, but it would still keep the unions honest and competetive.

True "right to work" legislation should stop at choice, not continue on and dictate policy.  Legislation that dictates specifics after the choice has been made is equally as sinister as the closed shop... IMHO.

[lilly]

Workers currently have the right to collectively bargain.

There are other states where this right has been taken away, this amendment is to protect that right.

I think that's what's driving this, Fuzz.  That, and what has happened in Wisconsin and attempted in Ohio.  I do think it's a right that needs to be protected for public sector workers.

Precisely.

Wouldn't this proposal strip many, if not all, public sector workers the right to organize.  I haven't thoroughly read the proposal, but that was my first take.

The proposal as posted is what was approved by the State Board of Canvassers, according to the flyer I received in the mail from a Republican candidate.

So obviously you can put me down for a "Yes".

[lilly]

thanks for posting lilly.

You're welcome.

These aren't copy and paste, and having to retype these is no joke. It's been a while since I have had to do this type of work, and the type set is small and difficult to read, but I think it's important that both sides be presented and I believe that these fairly represent both sides.

[ducksoup]

Really this is all about the "right to work" legislation's states are pushing.  The obvious goal is to eliminate the choice of having unions.  I am guessing it is meant to prevent "right to work"

[Frenchfry]

I'm voting yes

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Michigan_%22Protect_Our_Jobs%22_Amendment,_Proposal_2_%282012%29