When Michigan voters head to the polls on Tuesday, there will be a lot more at stake than just the identity of our next President.
Six proposals are set to appear on the Michigan ballot, five of which would establish new amendments to our statewide constitution. Topics include an emergency manager law, collective bargaining, renewable energy, home healthcare, enacting taxes, and international bridges.
College students are typically new or inexperienced voters. Many will be casting their ballots for the first time. Meanwhile, the media has been flooded with misleading political ads that make voting on the proposals even more confusing.
Still, it’s important that students are informed about the proposals before they enter the voting booth. Luckily, the Board of State Canvassers released the official language of the ballot proposals back in September.
Here are the proposals, with the exact language that will appear on the ballot:
Proposal 1: A REFERENDUM ON PUBLIC ACT 4 OF 2011 – THE EMERGENCY MANAGER LAW
Public Act 4 of 2011 would:
• Establish criteria to assess the financial condition of local government units, including school districts.
• Authorize Governor to appoint an emergency manager (EM) upon state finding of a financial emergency, and allow the EM to act in place of local government officials.
• Require EM to develop financial and operating plans, which may include modification or termination of contracts, reorganization of government, and determination of expenditures, services, and use of assets until the emergency is resolved.
• Alternatively, authorize state-appointed review team to enter into a local government approved consent decree. Should this law be approved? (Yes or No)
Proposal 2: A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE STATE CONSTITUTION REGARDING COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
This proposal would:
• Grant public and private employees the constitutional right to organize and bargain collectively through labor unions.
• Invalidate existing or future state or local laws that limit the ability to join unions and bargain collectively, and to negotiate and enforce collective bargainingagreements, including employees’ financial support of their labor unions. Laws may be enacted to prohibit public employees from striking.
• Override state laws that regulate hours and conditions of employment to the extent that those laws conflict with collective bargaining agreements.
• Define “employer” as a person or entity employing one or more employees.
Should this proposal be approved? (Yes or No)
Proposal 3: A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE STATE CONSTITUTION TO ESTABLISH A STANDARD FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY
This proposal would:
• Require electric utilities to provide at least 25% of their annual retail sales of electricity from renewable energy sources, which are wind, solar, biomass, and hydropower, by 2025.
• Limit to not more than 1% per year electric utility rate increases charged to consumers only to achieve compliance with the renewable energy standard. • Allow annual extensions of the deadline to meet the 25% standard in order to prevent rate increases over the 1% limit.
• Require the legislature to enact additional laws to encourage the use of Michigan made equipment and employment of Michigan residents. Should this proposal
be approved? (Yes or No)
Proposal 4: A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE STATE CONSTITUTION TO ESTABLISH THE MICHIGAN QUALITY HOME CARE COUNCIL AND PROVIDE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING FOR IN-HOME CARE WORKERS
This proposal would:
• Allow in-home care workers to bargain collectively with the Michigan Quality Home Care Council (MQHCC). Continue the current exclusive representative of in-home care workers until modified in accordance with labor laws.
• Require MQHCC to provide training for in-home care workers, create a registry of workers who pass background checks, and provide financial services to patients to manage the cost of in-home care.
• Preserve patients’ rights to hire in-home care workers who are not referred from the MQHCC registry who are bargaining unit members.
• Authorize the MQHCC to set minimum compensation standards and terms and conditions of employment.
Should this proposal be approved? (Yes or No)
Proposal 5: A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE STATE CONSTITUTION TO LIMIT THE ENACTMENT OF NEW TAXES BY STATE GOVERNMENT
This proposal would:
Require a 2/3 majority vote of the State House and the State Senate, or a statewide vote
of the people at a November election, in order for the State of Michigan to impose new or
additional taxes on taxpayers or expand the base of taxation or increasing the rate of
taxation.
This section shall in no way be construed to limit or modify tax limitations otherwise
created in this Constitution.
Should this proposal be approved? (Yes or No)
Proposal 6: A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE STATE CONSTITUTION REGARDING CONSTRUCTION OF INTERNATIONAL BRIDGES AND TUNNELS
This proposal would:
• Require the approval of a majority of voters at a statewide election and in each municipality where “new international bridges or tunnels for motor vehicles” are to be located before the State of Michigan may expend state funds or resources for acquiring land, designing, soliciting bids for, constructing, financing, or promoting new international bridges or tunnels.
• Create a definition of “new international bridges or tunnels for motor vehicles” that means, “any bridge or tunnel which is not open to the public and serving traffic as of January 1, 2012.”
Should this proposal be approved? (Yes or No)
Photo Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons
I don’t understand proposal 6 Create a definition of new international bridges or tunnels for motor vehicles that means any bridge or tunnel which is not open to the public and serving traffic. My question is what traffic is it serving if it is not open to the public?
On Proposal 4 —
The wording on this proposal is deceptive. The MQCCC already existed for five years, (before being defunded by the state legislature) and spent over $1M a year and during that time to accomplish next to nothing. Only a few dozen home care workers went through background checks and “trainings” promised in this proposal, those trainings were very limited in their content and offered only sporadically, and very very few patients ever used the registry.
Why? Because the vast majority of home care givers and recipients covered by this proposal (those receiving Medicaid funding for home care) are family members caring for their loved ones. They do not want or need a registry. The average Home Help provider works as a home care giver for a year or less caring for a dying loved one — or have cared for their disabled child for decades and hardly need certification from the state to continue to do so.
As a result the State of Michigan threw away over $5 million on an unnecessary state office that at best helped a couple dozen home care workers, if that. So why the fight to bring back the MQCCC? Because without a state agency to bargain with the home care workers “union” cannot continue to collect dues.
Not sure where Nancy gets her facts. It sounds like a 30 second add from an opposing interest group. This hardly touches upon the issue this proposal is trying to resolve. Putting aside the inaccuracies/incomplete info in the MQC3 and unions, your view on Home Healthcare and it’s relationship to this bill is off.
You view appears surprising limited on how elderly are treated in our system. I’m sure if you take a moment and think, it’s simply. Your grandparent gets old, becomes mentally and/or physically weak, and is now dependent on other to maintain some sort of quality life. How do we give him a quality life? The family can care for their grandparent personally, homecare worker can be hired to come in to care for grandparent in their home or family’s home, or grandparent can live in some sort of nursing home.
The most common option family chooses is the nursing home. It’s the easiest option for families with busy lives, and that is the case with most families. This bill wants to change that and make homecare a more desirable option. Why? Because nursing homes are 10 times more expensive, less individual care, and grandparent would rather live in their homes. Why don’t we have more home healthcare? Because not many people feel comfortable living their loved one with a stranger.
There have been far too many cases in which homecare workers abuse the person they are looking after. They do not know how to provide care correctly or take advantage of an old, sick person. After all, homecare workers don’t exactly make a lot of money, and grandparents do keep expensive things in their home.
By requiring training and a registry for these workers, it makes home healthcare a much more viable option. Right now, you have to go on a website like Craig’s list to find a caregiver. You really don’t know who you getting. But with this registry, families can find someone they know that has some level of training and he/she would have a background check done. Plus, it holds them accountable. If they goof up, they won’t be on this registry anymore, and they won’t get anymore caregiver jobs.
To imply that these care workers are only needed for less than a year before the death of a grandparent is hardly accurate and besides the point. The elderly are often not able to take care of themselves for years. The elderly need to be taken care of and this bill wants to fix much of the problems with our current home healthcare system. If you had any long term experience with a nursing home, you would know why this proposal is a step in the right direction.
I apologize for any errors in my writing. I spent too much time writing this out and have law work to be done. Just know I’ve petitioned for 5/6 of these bills, so I have some creditability. I am happy to share my experiences.
tl;dr Nancy statements about MQC3 are inaccurate overall. Proposal want more quality homecare, less nursing home healthcare. This will allow our grandparents safer and happier lifestyle with less the cost.