News - Saturday, December 12, 2009 6:45 - 0 Comments
Legislation wants arbitrators to consider whether cities can really afford to give raises approved in labor disputes
Just this month, city of Ann Arbor officials were told at a City Council retreat they face an $8 million deficit for the rest of this fiscal year and the next.
To make matters worse, the city was ordered by an arbitrator in February to give a series of retroactive raises – one as high as 3 percent – to one of its largest police unions going back to 2006. That will cost the city an additional $1.5 million, according to Ann Arbor Chief Financial Officer Tom Crawford.
Ann Arbor’s financial hard times highlights what many believe are a problem with Public Act 312. That act makes arbitration mandatory for labor disputes in municipal police and fire departments when negotiations fail.
State Representative Joe Haveman, R-Holland, introduced House Bill 5325 that would give arbitrators more criteria when making a decision. It would ask arbitrators to consider the financial impact five years from the date of the award as well as take into consideration the climate of the state and whether the municipality can cover the costs and still keep a balanced budget.
In Ann Arbor’s case, the arbitrator pointed to a $10 million plus general fund reserve as evidence the city could afford the retro-active raises.
Ed Jacques, director of member services, Police Officers Association of Michigan, called the reform of PA 312 “unnecessary.”
“The arbitrators know what ‘ability to pay’ is,” Jacques said. “It’s too much. The process works very well. I think it is the great equalizer.
Jacques said a trend is emerging where employers are taking unions to arbitration.
“They want more back and they know they are not going to negotiate a substantial health care cut,” he said. “You are not going to negotiate a 0-percent raise for three years. No one will take that back for ratification.”
But Crawford said that when an arbitrator looks at a city’s savings and says it should be used for retroactive raises, that imposes the arbitrator’s will over that of the community. Crawford said taxpayers may want that surplus money spent on projects other than police and fire salaries.
Haveman said the arbitrators make decisions that elected officials are voted into office to make.
“It puts decision making in the hand of somebody who can make a decision and leave town and not have to live with the consequences,” Haveman said.
Other Recent Articles
- Legislation wants arbitrators to consider whether cities can really afford to give raises approved in labor disputes
- GOP Senator Mike Nofs says you can call him a “RINO”, but he will vote reflective of his district which he says is mostly Democrats
- State Representative Rick Jones said it is time to get rid of the First Gentleman’s paid staff
- E-MAIL TO THE EDITOR: Abolish the EPA and save on the carbon dioxide
- EPA’s ruling that carbon dioxide is harmful to the environment could also hurt Michigan businesses, some experts fear
News - Dec 12, 2009 6:45
Legislation wants arbitrators to consider whether cities can really afford to give raises approved in labor disputes
Just this month, city of Ann Arbor officials were told at a City Council retreat they face an $8 million deficit for the rest of this fiscal year and the next.
To make matters worse, the city was ordered by an arbitrator in February to give a series of retroactive raises – one as high as 3 percent – to one of its largest police unions going back to 2006. That will cost the city an additional $1.5 million, according to Ann Arbor Chief Financial Officer Tom Crawford.
Ann Arbor’s financial hard times highlights what many believe are a problem with Public Act 312. That act makes arbitration mandatory for labor disputes in municipal police and fire departments when negotiations fail.
State Representative Joe Haveman, R-Holland, introduced House Bill 5325 that would give arbitrators more criteria when making a decision. It would ask arbitrators to consider the financial impact five years from the date of the award as well as take into consideration the climate of the state and whether the municipality can cover the costs and still keep a balanced budget.
In Ann Arbor’s case, the arbitrator pointed to a $10 million plus general fund reserve as evidence the city could afford the retro-active raises.
Ed Jacques, director of member services, Police Officers Association of Michigan, called the reform of PA 312 “unnecessary.”
“The arbitrators know what ‘ability to pay’ is,” Jacques said. “It’s too much. The process works very well. I think it is the great equalizer.
Jacques said a trend is emerging where employers are taking unions to arbitration.
“They want more back and they know they are not going to negotiate a substantial health care cut,” he said. “You are not going to negotiate a 0-percent raise for three years. No one will take that back for ratification.”
But Crawford said that when an arbitrator looks at a city’s savings and says it should be used for retroactive raises, that imposes the arbitrator’s will over that of the community. Crawford said taxpayers may want that surplus money spent on projects other than police and fire salaries.
Haveman said the arbitrators make decisions that elected officials are voted into office to make.
“It puts decision making in the hand of somebody who can make a decision and leave town and not have to live with the consequences,” Haveman said.
More In News
- GOP Senator Mike Nofs says you can call him a “RINO”, but he will vote reflective of his district which he says is mostly Democrats
- State Representative Rick Jones said it is time to get rid of the First Gentleman’s paid staff
- EPA’s ruling that carbon dioxide is harmful to the environment could also hurt Michigan businesses, some experts fear
- Senior economist says that the state will see unemployment rate jump to 17 to 20 percent within six months
- State Representative Dave Agema says precious jobs in Michigan can’t go to illegal aliens
Opinion - Dec 8, 2009 10:15
E-MAIL TO THE EDITOR: Abolish the EPA and save on the carbon dioxide
I have an idea of what should be done with the EPA ruling on carbon dioxide. We should all call for the abolishment of the EPA, thus putting all those who work for this corporate government agency out of work. With all those people in the EPA no longer having a job to drive to they would no longer have to worry about the CO2 emissions that used to be generated from their vehicles.
Plus, we would have one less government agency micro-managing our lives, destroying jobs and the economy. We would also capture back more of our liberties and freedom of choice that was bestowed on us by our founders in a limited republic.
Mary MacMaster
inform4@juno.com
More In Opinion
- E-MAIL TO THE EDITOR: Female entrepreneurs will lead the new economy
- E-MAIL TO THE EDITOR: Nofs and Griffin are both “business as usual” and that is no longer good enough
- E-MAIL TO THE EDITOR: Rush Limbaugh wouldn’t be as controversial an owner as rapper Jay Z already is in the NBA
- EMAIL TO THE EDITOR: Obama’s failure to land the Olympics show his aura doesn’t count for much on the world stage
- EMAIL TO THE EDITOR: Professor’s arguments on tea party protesters are “ignorant” and “laughable”