A proposal that would grant state employees the power to collectively bargain for better benefits has drawn attention from both major parties.
Republicans and Democrats have pitted themselves against each other, debating what impact the proposal could have on the state. GOP officials say the proposal would cost the state more money in an already tight budget year, while Democrats say it’s necessary to ensure the state has the best service available.
Proposal 3, one of four statewide proposals, will appear on the Nov. 5 ballot. The proposal also gives state employees the right to binding arbitration.
“If Proposal 3 passes Michigan’s looking at an increase in the cost of government, which I think is a danger given the tight budget times we’re in,” said Jason Brewer, Michigan Republican Party spokesman.
Kelly Chesney, spokeswoman for the state budget office, said the proposal could cost Michigan between $250 million and $500 million because employees would be able to go after better benefits. The proposal might allow employees to strike: “It opens the window on striking. That could mean that services could come to a standstill,” she said.
“The most important point to make is that state employees are very well compensated and have a very generous benefits package. They have health coverage that is valued at around $9,000 when many individuals across the state are struggling to maintain health-care coverage.”
The state is in a crunch because it already permits public-safety personnel to bargain collectively, and it gives assistance to low-income families, Chesney said. About 55,000 employees would be affected by the proposal.
But Barbara Reeves, president of MSU’s Clerical-Technical Union, said good working conditions lead to more output that increases the state’s efficiency.
“Everybody wants the best employees and the best work done, but nobody seems to want to pay the money for it,” she said.
Although Reeves’ union, which represents 1,900 campus workers, wouldn’t be affected by the proposal, unions around the state are supporting the proposal and the state shouldn’t be able to restrict bargaining, she said.
State employees should have the right to bargain collectively just like employees in the public sector, said Mark Brewer, the state Democratic Party chairman, who isn’t related to Jason Brewer.
“I can’t imagine why we don’t have this in a state where a lot of people are union members, and they understand that people have a right to bargain collectively,” he said, adding that the Democratic Party is supporting the proposal.
Some analysts say the proposal wouldn’t lead to strikes, and that’s not the issue. They think people should look at how much the proposal would cost the state.
“The way they’ve got it worded, it would probably avoid strikes,” said Bill Ballenger, editor and publisher of Inside Michigan Politics. “So if that’s an argument the Republicans are making, I think they’re wrong.
“Basically the state is going to be stuck with paying more. The employees get all the benefits.”
