For as long as I can remember, organized labor has been a powerful – perhaps THE most powerful – influence in Michigan politics, most of all within the Democratic Party.
Especially in the southeast part of our state, nothing of political consequence happened for decades without the major unions signing off on it, or at the bare minimum, offering grudging acceptance.
Yet now, with Michigan still firmly in the grip of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, people appear increasingly disconnected from the usual political process and from their traditional designated leaders. Significantly, this includes union members and their families as well.
Three recent events offer considerable evidence of this.
First, Lt. Gov. John Cherry’s decision last week to withdraw from the race for governor. A skilled, experienced, able politician, Cherry was widely regarded as a near-cinch to win the Democratic nomination for governor, in large part because of his long and close association with organized labor.
In explaining his unexpected decision, Cherry discussed his inability to raise enough money to mount a serious campaign. There’s no doubt that money was a problem. Yet why did Cherry, the acknowledged front runner, have such trouble raising money? Sure, in economic times like these, there’s not a lot of extra cash floating around. And his long association with the unpopular Granholm administration didn’t help.
Most importantly, early polling showed Cherry running way behind most Republican candidates, in large part because many Democrats – including union members – were uncomfortable in supporting him. Even more felt he couldn’t win.
So you have organized labor’s designated favorite candidate essentially repudiated long before the election. In past years, this would have been unthinkable.
Second, Dave Bing was elected to a full four-year term as Mayor of Detroit, winning 58 percent of the vote in November despite being fiercely opposed by local public sector unions.
During his campaign, Bing made it clear the city simply could no longer afford to maintain its expensive contracts with the various municipal unions that have for years dominated Detroit politics. To Bing’s credit, he made his position absolutely clear.
The unions made their position equally firm in opposing him.
And they lost, big time.
I have not seen any detailed breakdown of the Detroit vote, but it seems clear that a fair number of the votes for Bing came from union families, despite what the union leadership had to say.
Third, the state legislature adopted sweeping school reforms last month designed to qualify Michigan for up to $400 million in federal “Race To The Top” education money. However, that act was in defiance of the wishes of Lansing’s politically powerful teachers union, the Michigan Education Association.
Indeed, when Governor Jennifer Granholm and State Superintendent Mike Flanagan announced a wide-ranging effort to reform Michigan schools, most insiders sniggered. But as time went on, public dissatisfaction with slow-motion school reform and drastic cuts in school funding mounted. Soon, it became clear that the MEA was in for a fight. And once the reform package was passed and signed by the Governor, Flanagan announced that local school boards and superintendents didn’t have to get local union presidents to sign on to Memoranda of Understanding. The MEA was “shocked and extremely dismayed,” said MEA President Iris Salter.
None of these three events would have been imaginable in years past. Together, they suggest the long, firm grip of organized labor on public policy and party politics in Michigan may be loosening.
Union bashers may be crowing. But that’s a short-sighted attitude. Organized labor and the vast number of working people in Michigan who are union members deserve now, more than ever, a seat at the table where far-sighted people are trying to figuring out how to reform and transform our troubled state.
One key statewide labor leader told me late last fall that, “organized labor is beginning to realize we can’t control everything. We’re starting to reach out – to the business community, to the Republicans – because we recognize that we cannot be isolated as the process of reform and restructuring goes on.”
He’s wise. I only hope he’s right — and that the business community and the GOP reach out to labor constituencies as well.
***
Editor’s Note: Former newspaper publisher and University of Michigan Regent Phil Power is a longtime observer of Michigan politics and economics and a former chairman of the Michigan chapter of the Nature Conservancy. He is also the founder and president of The Center for Michigan, a bipartisan centrist think-and-do tank which is sponsoring Michigan’s Defining Moment, a public engagement outreach campaign for citizens. The opinions expressed here are Power’s own and do not represent the official views of The Center. He welcomes your comments at ppower@thecenterformichigan.net.
2 Comments
Phil,
Your article is a sign of encouraging possible change to the incredible power unions have had in this state for over 50 years. Much like business that “negotiated” away too much salary, paid benefits, and ability to discharge non or poor performers, these companies eventually went bankrupt, disappeared, or where forced to lay off large numbers of employees and reduce pensions and health care benefits. This will eventually be the story of both the teachers union and the state/local government unions. The history is there in clear results, Auto companies (the former big 3)and there key suppliers, airlines, steel companies, large retail chains, etc (they are all gone or greatly downsized). The professional hockey league nearly went bankrupt a few years ago. Yes company mangement often played a role in the demise but unions eliminate any flexibility. Everthing must be “negotiated”. How does 80-85% of the rest of US businesses survive and prosper without unions?
I grew up in Detroit and graduated from a public school in 1960. The school system back in the 50′s in Detroit was one of the best in the country. It all went down hill in the 60′s and 70′s and never recovered and a major part of the reason must be laid at the foot of the MEA. They will deny it and blame everyone but themselves. I spent my career in a large corporation and lived in other places in the US and travel extensively aroud the world. I returned to Michigan in the 90′s and was aghast that it politics and relationships with unions was like that of Easten Europe during the cold war.
Organized labor needs to determine what their real mission shoud be and what are the real needs of their continuly declining membership. Perhaps they can no longer offer values of job security and benefits. Maybe what their real core competency is in training and apprentiseships. I really hope they take the time to rethink this or the leadership should resign.
Ron Modreski – Michigan Citizen
Phil
What is your reaction to the final rejection from the MEA to trying to meet the “Race to the Top” provisions? Particularly since this” Race to the Top” was put to gather by a very sympathetic administration. Further I question if you really think that the MEA will ever make any effort at constructive participation in any real educational reforms. And by real educational reforms, I don’t mean raising the drop out age to 18 – this is nothing but a union farce of reform! Given the importance of real educational reform to any turn-around for this state, the citizens of Michigan have to have a PATCO moment and start giving the MEA a take it or leave it offers. There are plenty of young people looking for teaching positions in this state without the union’s agenda.