Police and firefighters join lawmakers in Grand Rapids rally against repealing binding arbitration

[Dollface]

Source: The Grand Rapids Press

GRAND RAPIDS — More than 300 police officers, firefighters and other union supporters rallied on Calder Plaza Saturday to let lawmakers know how much they oppose a bill to end binding arbitration to resolve disputes between their unions and municipalities. State Reps. Roy Schmidt and Brandon Dillon, both Grand Rapids Democrats, organized the event that also drew members from the Michigan Education Association and Grand Rapids Employees Independent Union...

The rally was called to show support for the 1969 Public Act 312 which mandates binding arbitration. The bill introduced by Joe Haveman, R-Holland would repeal that bill.

“People need to understand that this will not just impact police and firefighters but potentially negatively impact public safety in our communities,” Dillon said...

Grand Rapids Police Officer Association President Greg Hillary said that, before binding arbitration, a union only had work stoppage as an option to resolve disputes.

On Wednesday, police and fighters plan to march to the capitol in Lansing. That is when the first committee hearings are scheduled for the legislation.


Read more: http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2011/02/democratic_lawmakers_hold_rall.html

---

From the comments

Public Act 312 has nothing to do with money. It is simple fairness. Police and Fire are not allowed to strike by law. PA 312 allows binding arbitration. That means a neutral party weighs both sides of the argument and makes a decision. Most of the time negotiations don't get that far. When they do get that far the municipalities actually win about 70 percent of the time.

What happens if there is no PA 312 is the municipality has a take it or leave it approach. A prime example is what is happening now, and this is with PA 312 in affect. The GRPD's contract expired on 7/1/2010. They are supposedly in negotiations with the city. I say supposedly because the cities version of negotiation is this is what we're going to give you, actually it's this is what we are going to take from you, if you don't like it tough. In over the past ten years not one contract has been settled at the end of the contract, they always go months or years late. The contract that expired on 7/1/2010 did go to binding arbitration and the city got just about everything they wanted. When the contract was finally arbitrated there was only one year left on the contract. The union wanted to just extend it so they wouldn't have to go back into negotiations so soon, but the city would not do it. You see, even them winning 90 percent of what they wanted in negotiations is still not good enough. Not once has the city ever said the police and fire, "You know, you guys are doing a good job. How about we just extend this contract three years." They always want to cut something. Even when the unions took zero percent raises they still were not happy, they are never happy.

...PA 312 ... was put in place because cities and counties were not negotiating at all. PA 312 forced them to negotiate. If it is repealed it will be back to the same thing.

[nadinbrzezinski]

1. And IT SPREADS

we are getting a flu AACHOOOO! a blue flue, I smell one coming to Michigan too.

[AllyCat]

2. GOOOOO MICHIGAN! You can do it! We Wisconsinites are with you in spiriet

but can't come to your aid because we are fighting our own little thing here.

[MichiganVote]

3. K&R

[Citizen Worker]

4. I'm a member of SEIU and when I proposed negotiating binding arbitration language the Union rep

didn't have a clue what I was talking about. Later this same rep would say, "well, binding arbitration isn't necessarily a good thing," but the rep couldn't give one example of binding arbitration working against Labor. The only reason I raised the issue is the bargaining habits of the employer were and are delay, delay, delay until Labor caves in.

[BlueCollar]

5. If they repeal binding arbitration

I assume they'll propose to eliminate the associated no-strike clause as well?

:sarcasm: