Comments on: Special report: EFM law

By: Herb Helzer

Herb Helzer — Mon, 11 Apr 2011 16:21:15 +0000

Ms. Dimas mentions in passing that Democratic legislators tried and failed to pass an amendment to cap EM pay at the same level as the Governor. What she didn’t mention were a couple of OTHER common-sense Democratic amendments, also not given serious consideration by Republicans hell-bent on achieving this Mackinac Center wet dream.

The new Czars are NOT required to hold public hearings. They DON’T have to inform voters in the communities/districts they take over what they are doing or who they’re meeting with. And a Czar appointed over a school district does NOT have to have ANY experience in education.

And then there are the loopholes allowing persons with obvious conflicts of interest to serve as EMs, the bare-minimum experience required for Czar-wannabes, and the absolute lack of accountability to anyone except the Governor (OK, the Legislature can Impeach an EM, just like they can other public officials…but that’s a high bar).

By: Matt Howell

Matt Howell — Thu, 07 Apr 2011 16:54:19 +0000

The fundamental difference between private employer unions and public employee unions is that in the private case, you have the workers against the owner(s) whose (supposedly) only interest is in maximizing profits at the expense of the employees. In the public sector you have no profits to maximize and your boss is … the voters. This is a fundamental difference and is why even Democratic icons like FDR were opposed to government employee unionization. And true to form we now have public employee unions and their contributions welded to the Democratic party and the insidious situation of unions negotiating essentially with themselves. Given our (MI’s) level of pubic employee unionization as well as degree of Michigan Democratic party dominance over the last 40 years, to no big surprise Michigan has the amongst the very highest compensation levels for public employees in the nation. (Citizens Research Council 12/07).

By: Mark Higbee

Mark Higbee — Thu, 07 Apr 2011 15:16:26 +0000

My understanding is that when the auto companies were in deep crisis, their workers’ unions agreed to concessions, to reopening their contracts. They were, thus, new agreements between labor and employers.

In contrast, the new law for emergency fiscal managers gives those managers the unilateral power to “modify” existing contract agreements. Thus, no agreement would be reached — terms of employment would be imposed, by a manager appointed by the governor. It would, therefore, upend collective bargaining, which rests upon the two sides reaching an agreement.

A fair reading of the situation is that the motive behind the new law is less containing municipal costs than it is breaking the back of public employee unions.

By: Craig Oldham

Craig Oldham — Thu, 07 Apr 2011 13:28:42 +0000

Does anyone that reads this brief find it surprising Schuette won’t answer a fellow prosecutor with a simple opinion! Mr. Schuette is in bed with the rest of the “middle class” wrecking crew! How can this law be constitutional? I’m hoping Rep. Meadows continues his pressure to get an answer!