Approved by Board of Directors, April 25, 2012

The Michigan Chamber of Commerce is strongly opposed to the ballot proposal which seeks to amend the Michigan Constitution to create a new right to collective bargaining; retroactively repeal dozens of cost-saving reform laws; and prohibit lawmakers from passing right-to-work legislation.

Background

On February 28, 2012, a ballot question committee was filed with the Secretary of State entitled “Protect our Jobs”. The initiative petition would enshrine collective bargaining rights into Article I, Section 28 and Article XI, Section 5 of the Michigan Constitution. This divisive union attack on government efficiency and fiscal responsibility would permanently establish the right of all public and private employees to collectively bargain and impair the enactment and enforcement of new and existing state labor and employment laws contrary to the proposal, including right-to-work legislation.

The 432-word constitutional amendment would effectively shield unionized workers from the numerous reform measures Governor Rick Snyder and the Legislature adopted this legislative session - or may consider in the future. Although proponents of the constitutional amendment have refused to enumerate what current or future laws the amendment would affect, it is clear the language would significantly hamstring, if not nullify, legislative efforts to improve government efficiency and control spending at the state and local level.

A legal analysis of the constitutional amendment by Bodman, PLC and others suggests that, although it would not automatically abrogate existing state labor or employment laws, it would operate to diminish the enforceability of such laws which conflict with collective bargaining right and encourage future challenges to laws that do so. Recent and pending laws and reform proposals that could be pre-empted by the constitutional amendment include: future right-to-work legislation; efforts to repeal the prevailing wage law; limitations on public employer spending on health insurance costs (MCL 15.561-15.569); pension reforms that moved state employees from defined benefit to defined contribution pension plans (MCL 38.1-38.69); emergency manager powers (MCL 141.1501-141.1531); the prohibition of payroll deductions for union dues for public school employees (MCL 423.210); local government consolidations relating to collective bargaining (MCL 423.215); changes to the Teacher Tenure Act (MCL 38.71-38.191); and laws prohibiting the unionization of graduate student research assistants (MCL 423.210).

Groups supporting the constitutional amendment include: We Are The People - Michigan, Teamsters, the Michigan branch of the American Federation of Teachers, Michigan AFL-CIO, Michigan UAW, National Education Association, Michigan Education Association, Progress Michigan, Michigan Democratic Party, Michigan Nurses Association, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), Michigan State Utility Workers Council, What About the Children?, Lecturers' Employee Organization and others. This coalition shares two common goals: First, stifle efforts to improve Michigan’s economic status through enactment of meaningful legislative reforms and, second, increase voter turn-out among traditionally liberal factions of the electorate.

To successfully place the question on the ballot in November, proponents will need to gather signatures equaling 10 percent of the total vote cast for governor in the 2010 election, or 322,609 signatures. The signatures need to be turned in by Monday, July 9, 2012 in order to qualify the proposal for the November 6, 2102 statewide ballot. The State Board of Canvassers will have until September 7, 2012 to certify sufficiency of the signatures submitted, 60 days before the general election. Teamster President James Hoffa touted the constitutional amendment petition in a column of the international union’s website, saying: "They'll sign because they've seen CEOs arbitrarily move plants to Mexico or China when their workers don't have the protection of a union contract. They'll sign because they know workers who don't belong to a union have absolutely no say when the CEO slashes wages or benefits. And they'll sign because CEOs can unilaterally fire non-union American workers just to make the quarterly earnings statement look better."

We fully expect proponents of this proposal, mainly in-state and national labor unions, to spend millions to see this question certified for the ballot and approved by the voters. However, we will not have a clear financial report of contributions and expenditures until 35 days after the qualification or non-qualification of the proposal by the State Board of Canvassers, most likely in late September or early October.

We are currently exploring the legal sufficiency of the proposal. A legal analysis by Dykema Gossett PLLC, suggests the proposed amendment may be faulty because it attempts to repeal all existing laws in conflict with the rights provided in the proposal in a blanket fashion via constitutional amendment, an argument could be made that such action should have been made through the referendum and initiative process to ensure that the public is better informed of the full effect of the proposal.

If this proposed Board policy is adopted, the Michigan Chamber will, in tandem with a legal challenge, work with others in the business community to vigorously oppose this constitutional amendment. An aggressive campaign to defeat this ballot proposal would include activities such as: an early voter information campaign, public opinion surveys and focus groups, opposition research, coalition building and paid media. Placing a competing or alternative proposal on the ballot is not recommended because it could cost millions of dollars to put another amendment on the ballot and defend that proposal, drawing financial resources away from this ballot question and other key races.

The Michigan Chamber of Commerce opposes the proposed amendment to the state Constitution to allow state employees to collectively bargain and have binding arbitration when the union and the state cannot agree on a contract.

Background

This proposed amendment to the Michigan Constitution of 1963 has been submitted by initiative petition for placement on the November 5, 2002 statewide general election ballot. Currently of state employees, only the Michigan State Police Troopers have express collective bargaining rights in the Constitution. The State Civil Service Commission was given the authority to oversee and regulate state employment in the 1963 Constitution. The Commission, not the Constitution, grants state employees the authority to join a union and bargain with the state. A coalition of public employee unions (Service Employees International, AFSME, State Troopers and the UAW) has filed petitions to place this proposal on the ballot.

The unions' claim this proposal is in response to the actions of the Civil Service Commission during the Engler Administration which amended agreements previously negotiated but the state personnel director and the state employee's unions. Unions claim that provisions in contracts agreed to by the state for outsourcing of jobs were stripped out of negotiated and agreed upon contracts by the Commission.

The office of State Employer counters that the state constitution requires the Civil Service Commission to make sure that contracts follow Commission rules for negotiations. There have been certain instances where the Commission has modified contract language to be consistent with commission rules regarding prohibited subjects such as sub-contracting, classification and retirement.

Police and firefighters currently have had binding arbitration under state law. Detroit Mayor Coleman Young, who was the sponsor of that legislation as State Senator, regretted his sponsorship when the cost of arbitration to the City of Detroit nearly bankrupt the city while he was mayor.

The Michigan Chamber of Commerce opposes, in concept, mandating that offenders charged with or convicted of illegal drug possession have a state constitutional right to treatment including a wide range of substance abuse treatments at taxpayers expense. The Michigan Chamber of Commerce opposes the proposed state constitutional amendment of 2002 on drug sentencing practices.

Background

On September 6, 2000 the Board of Directors approved a policy statement opposing the legalization of marijuana, largely in response to a threatened initiative petition effort to put such a proposal on the Michigan general election ballot that year. Now the same group of individuals has been successful in getting the above-described constitutional amendment on the November 2002 ballot. This is part of a national agenda by three out-of-state billionaires opposed to using jail as a sanction for drug offenders.

The establishment of a state constitutional right to treatment includes a range of substance abuse treatments, including inpatient and outpatient therapy, narcotic replacement therapy, and “additional related rehabilitation programs such as literacy training, vocational training, mental health services and family counseling.” The jail and prison lockout in favor of mandatory treatment is estimated to cost Michigan Taxpayers $20 million annually.

It also requires that to receive a 20-year mandatory sentence for drug trafficking, the state must prove that the drug trafficker earned a net profit of at least $500,000 and that the drug trafficker is a leader, organizer or manager of five people.