Michigan voters will decide the fate of two initiatives in the November 6 election that can change the climate toward collective bargaining and union organization in the state.
One initiative–Proposal 2, dubbed the “Protect our Jobs” proposal–is a union-backed measure asking voters to pass a constitutional amendment guaranteeing workers the right to bargain collectively. If approved, the greatest significance would be to bar any attempt to enact right-to-work legislation. Typically, right-to-work laws prohibit employers from deducting union dues from employee paychecks.
It took a trip to the Michigan Supreme Court just to get the measure on the ballot, but on September 5, the state high court approved putting it before the voters.
Another initiative proposes to amend the state constitution to create a registry of homecare workers and authorize them to unionize and collectively bargain with the Michigan Quality Community Care Council. The proposal appears to be targeted at proposed legislation that would clarify that homecare workers aren’t employees of the Michigan Quality Community Care Council. A law saying they aren’t employees of the council could be used to argue that collective bargaining isn’t available to them.
Both proposals, particularly Proposal 2, are being closely watched and have sparked criticism from employers.
“The fact that these proposals are on the ballot illustrates the concern that the unions have over the threat of a right-to-work law,” says Robert M. Vercruysse of the Vercruysse Murray & Calzone law firm in Bingham Farms, Michigan. “Clearly the experience in Wisconsin, Indiana, and the changes that public employee unions experienced in Michigan mobilized the union forces to try to pass a constitutional prohibition against future legislative change.”
If voted in, both of the proposals would negate existing legislation, including legislation that prohibits public employees from striking, according to William E. Altman, a shareholder at Vercruysse Murray & Calzone.
“Whether you are for or against organized labor, the ideas supported by these proposals can be and have been addressed by legislation,” Altman says. “Legislators can be voted out of office every couple of years. The state constitution is not so easily changed and should not be used to manage the day-to-day functioning of government employment relationships.”
Excerpted from Michigan Employment Law Letter and written by an attorney at the law firm of Vercruysse Murray & Calzone, P.C. This article is an excerpt from MICHIGAN EMPLOYMENT LAW LETTER. MICHIGAN EMPLOYMENT LAW LETTER is intended to provide information but not provide legal advice regarding any particular situation. The information in this article is to make you aware of the implications of several contemporary problems. This article is not intended to be, and should not be regarded as, a legal opinion or legal advice. It is simply not possible or prudent to offer legal advice or a legal opinion without a prior thorough investigation and analysis of the facts attendant to any specific situation. Contact the attorneys at Vercruysse Murray & Calzone, P.C.