Get Involved
Right Arrow
Stay informed of new research published and other Citizens Research Council news.


By submitting this form, you are consenting to receive marketing emails from: . You can revoke your consent to receive emails at any time by using the SafeUnsubscribe® link, found at the bottom of every email. Emails are serviced by Constant Contact
October 1, 2012

Proposal 2 Question

Question: Explain to me how opponents of Proposal 2 determine that the proposal will make buses unsafe and schools unable to fire felons as claimed in recent ads.
Answer:
Proposal 2 says that “No existing or future law of the State or its political subdivisions shall abridge, impair or limit the foregoing rights to organize together to form, join or assist labor organizations, and to bargain collectively with a public or private employer through an exclusive representative of the employees’ choosing].”  “No existing or future law of the State or its political subdivisions shall impair, restrict or limit the negotiation and enforcement of any collectively bargained agreement with a public or private employer respecting financial support by employees of their collective bargaining representative according to the terms of that agreement.”  In light of actions in Michigan and other states that are either adverse to the process of collective bargaining or limit the subjects of collective bargaining, it is expected that this proposal would remove any limitations and ensure that no actions are taken that are adverse to collective bargaining in Michigan.
Based on these provisions, opponents of Proposal 2 have been examining the laws to identify provisions that would/could be nullified with adoption of this proposed constitutional amendment.  For the sake of their political spots, they have taken some of the extreme possibilities to make their point.
Laws were enacted setting higher standards for school bus drivers or limiting the ability of convicted felons to be employed in public schools.  Prior to their enactment, school districts had the discretion to take actions relative to those subjects.  By default they could be collectively bargained in contract negotiations during this time.  Once laws were enacted on these subjects, they were no longer issues that could be raised in contract negotiations through collective bargaining.
If Proposal 2 is adopted, there will need to be a method for identifying laws that fall under those provisions.  I think it is unlikely that laws (or sections of laws) would be nullified wholesale.  It is more likely that laws (or sections of laws) will be nullified only when it is broached as a subject of collective bargaining, one party objects, and the issue is taken to court where a judge says that the constitutional amendment created by Proposal 2 of 2012 prevails and the laws are nullified.
Those subjects could then be the subject of collective bargaining.  Would a school district agree to including these provisions in a collectively bargained agreement?
The claims of the opponents are probably a stretch, but they seemed to have served the purpose of getting your attention.
President

About The Author

Eric Lupher

President

Eric has been President of the Citizens Research Council since September of 2014. He has been with the Citizens Research Council since 1987, the first two years as a Lent Upson-Loren Miller Fellow, and since then as a Research Associate and, later, as Director of Local Affairs. Eric has researched such issues as state taxes, state revenue sharing, highway funding, unemployment insurance, economic development incentives, and stadium funding. His recent work focused on local government matters, including intergovernmental cooperation, governance issues, and municipal finance. Eric is a past president of the Governmental Research Association and also served as vice-chairman of the Governmental Accounting Standards Advisory Council (GASAC), an advisory body for the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB), representing the user community on behalf of the Governmental Research Association.

Proposal 2 Question

Question: Explain to me how opponents of Proposal 2 determine that the proposal will make buses unsafe and schools unable to fire felons as claimed in recent ads.
Answer:
Proposal 2 says that “No existing or future law of the State or its political subdivisions shall abridge, impair or limit the foregoing rights to organize together to form, join or assist labor organizations, and to bargain collectively with a public or private employer through an exclusive representative of the employees’ choosing].”  “No existing or future law of the State or its political subdivisions shall impair, restrict or limit the negotiation and enforcement of any collectively bargained agreement with a public or private employer respecting financial support by employees of their collective bargaining representative according to the terms of that agreement.”  In light of actions in Michigan and other states that are either adverse to the process of collective bargaining or limit the subjects of collective bargaining, it is expected that this proposal would remove any limitations and ensure that no actions are taken that are adverse to collective bargaining in Michigan.
Based on these provisions, opponents of Proposal 2 have been examining the laws to identify provisions that would/could be nullified with adoption of this proposed constitutional amendment.  For the sake of their political spots, they have taken some of the extreme possibilities to make their point.
Laws were enacted setting higher standards for school bus drivers or limiting the ability of convicted felons to be employed in public schools.  Prior to their enactment, school districts had the discretion to take actions relative to those subjects.  By default they could be collectively bargained in contract negotiations during this time.  Once laws were enacted on these subjects, they were no longer issues that could be raised in contract negotiations through collective bargaining.
If Proposal 2 is adopted, there will need to be a method for identifying laws that fall under those provisions.  I think it is unlikely that laws (or sections of laws) would be nullified wholesale.  It is more likely that laws (or sections of laws) will be nullified only when it is broached as a subject of collective bargaining, one party objects, and the issue is taken to court where a judge says that the constitutional amendment created by Proposal 2 of 2012 prevails and the laws are nullified.
Those subjects could then be the subject of collective bargaining.  Would a school district agree to including these provisions in a collectively bargained agreement?
The claims of the opponents are probably a stretch, but they seemed to have served the purpose of getting your attention.
President

About The Author

Eric Lupher

President

Eric has been President of the Citizens Research Council since September of 2014. He has been with the Citizens Research Council since 1987, the first two years as a Lent Upson-Loren Miller Fellow, and since then as a Research Associate and, later, as Director of Local Affairs. Eric has researched such issues as state taxes, state revenue sharing, highway funding, unemployment insurance, economic development incentives, and stadium funding. His recent work focused on local government matters, including intergovernmental cooperation, governance issues, and municipal finance. Eric is a past president of the Governmental Research Association and also served as vice-chairman of the Governmental Accounting Standards Advisory Council (GASAC), an advisory body for the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB), representing the user community on behalf of the Governmental Research Association.

Latest Research Posts

Back To Top