Michigan voters say no to union proposals

An interesting test for Illinois came in Michigan, where labor unions were largely defeated in a state that saw Democrats do well. Michigan voters rejected two union-backed ballot proposals that were intended to undo a string of labor-law reforms and cost-saving measures. The results confirm that the public in the upper Midwest is ready to rethink...

An interesting test for Illinois came in Michigan, where labor unions were largely defeated in a state that saw Democrats do well. Michigan voters rejected two union-backed ballot proposals that were intended to undo a string of labor-law reforms and cost-saving measures. The results confirm that the public in the upper Midwest is ready to rethink labor law and place limits on union power.

The biggest prize was Proposal 2, which would have made collective bargaining a right under the state’s Constitution, and prohibited the state Legislature from placing any limits on the scope of future union contracts. The proposal would have nullified state laws that require government employees to make contributions to the cost of their health-care benefits, or allow for school districts to consider teacher performance in making layoff decisions. The healthy 58-42 defeat of Proposal 2 also leaves open the door for the eventual passage of a right-to-work law in Michigan, under which workers could not be forced to financially support a union.

The unions also lost Proposal 4, which would have made the unionization of home-based caregivers permanent. The home health care unionization was extremely controversial because most of the people involved were not legitimate state employees; more often they were relatives of disabled people who received state assistance allowing them to provide aid. The union had been under heavy public scrutiny, and will likely be removed by the governor or Legislature. Proposal 4 failed 57-43.

The unions did succeed, albeit narrowly, on a referendum to revoke the state’s emergency managerlaw. The law allowed for the appointment of an emergency financial manager, who would take over government in counties, municipalities and school districts that were in severe financial distress. Government unions in particular objected to the law because of recent amendments that allowed for an emergency manager to set aside union contracts. The state of the law is open to litigation, but the most likely result is that emergency managers will need to continue to negotiate with government employee unions as they endeavor to straighten out local finances. With employee costs often making up most of the cost of government, their task will be more difficult.  The emergency manager law itself was problematic, however, because it effectively suspended democracy at the local level. The law was repealed by a relatively narrow 52-48 margin.

Taken together with the eventual results of the Wisconsin labor reforms (Gov. Scott Walker survived a union-backed recall after overhauling the state’s labor laws) and the passage of a right-to-work law in Indiana, the results from Michigan show that voters in the Great Lakes region are ready for labor law reforms. While Michigan has not been as bold as Wisconsin, it did make a concerted effort to rein in unaffordable union contracts, and that effort has by and large been a success. Michigan’s determination to protect taxpayers from outrageous union demands should set an example for the kind of labor reform Illinois needs