MichCapCon.com editor’s note: Below is the March 3, 2010, floor speech of state Sen. Michael "Mickey" Switalski, D-Roseville, urging the Senate to reject a 3 percent pay hike for Michigan’s unionized state employees. The Michigan Civil Service Commission has negotiated the pay hike and the state constitution requires a 2/3 "super-majority" in both chambers of the Legislature to undo the offer.

Switalski was the lone Democrat to vote against the pay hike. Senate Majority Leader Mike Bishop, R-Rochester, urged the entire chamber to reject the raise. Bishop's statement is here. 

All of the GOP caucus voted to reject the pay hike except for Sen. Bruce Patterson, R-Canton, who was present but did not vote. The measure was defeated when it fell short of the 2/3 majority: Needing 26 of 38 votes to reject the pay hike, it received 22. The text of the measure is available here.

Senator Switalski's statement is as follows:

I appreciate the remarks of my colleagues, especially Senators Prusi and Whitmer. I thought they had a lot of truth in what they said. This is a very difficult vote. The state has negotiated a contract with the employees, and under normal circumstances, we should honor that contract. But these are not normal times.

Article 11, Section 5 of the State Constitution specifically allows the state to modify a pay increase for employees by a two-thirds vote. This is an important limit on the immutability of our contract, and the supermajority required to rescind the increase purposely sets the bar high.

The framers of the Constitution did not want demagogues to try to make themselves look good by beating up on state employees. That is why the framers specifically denied the Legislature the ability to cut pay in this same article. But they recognized that in rare cases, the state may need to reduce or reject a pay increase.

The Governor has already used her power to rescind the 3 percent increase scheduled for the nonexclusively represented employees (NEREs). Basic fairness suggests that we treat both the NEREs and unionized employees the same. Represented status should not confer a special benefit nor carry a penalty. To treat the groups the same requires elimination of the 3 percent increase.

I have spoken to the NEREs, and for the most part, they prefer both they and the union get the 3 percent increase. But that is not the option before us today. The NEREs have already lost the 3 percent. Equal treatment would require union employees to have their increase cancelled also.

Cancelling the increase would mean the state would fail to live up to the provisions of the contract we bargained with the employees in good faith. Many employees see that as deeply unfair, and it will cost us in terms of lost trust.

The Legislature must choose between bad options. We can cheapen our word, or spend money we don't have.

At one end of the spectrum, my Republican friends proposed several weeks ago that all public employees take an across-the-board 5 percent pay cut. I do not support that proposal. Besides violating the Constitution, which says the Legislature cannot cut pay, I believe the proposed pay cut would be impossible to administer fairly.

At the other end of the spectrum, we have the negotiated 3 percent increase. In these times, with the state $1.6 billion deficit, it is hard to justify giving anyone an increase especially when wages are falling for so many of our constituents who pay the bills.

Most importantly, the $50 million spent to increase wages would amplify our deficit and require additional reductions in the ranks of state employees. If I am given a choice between freezing pay and avoiding layoffs, or granting increases to some while laying off others, I choose to freeze pay and avoid layoffs. Solidarity means looking out for each other, and the last thing we need in Michigan is more unemployed workers.

I believe freezing the pay at current levels, not giving an increase, but not taking a cut, steers a middle course between the extremes and is the best of some admittedly bad options. It is a vote I cast with regret but one I cannot avoid.

Excerpts from Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 35, which would have rejected a 3 percent pay hike for unionized state government employees for the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1, 2010:

Whereas, The additional cost of these state employee contractual increases to the fiscal year 2010-2011 budget is estimated to be $77.3 million; and

Whereas, Michigan's hardworking families and private sector employees have faced layoffs, pay cuts, loss of benefits, and other employment concessions. According to government statistics, the average annual salary of a Michigan classified state employee in 2009 was $54,246, while the average annual salary for the state's private sector employees was $43,831, a difference of 23 percent. Michigan's state classified employee base salary ranked sixth-highest in the nation; and

Whereas, As of November 2009, Michigan has lost 831,500 wage and salary jobs since 2000, a decline of 17.7 percent. The Senate Fiscal Agency forecasts continued job losses for 2010 and 2011. In December 2009, our unemployment rate continued to be the highest in the nation at 14.6 percent. Michigan's unemployment rate has been the highest in the nation for the last four years. Since December 2008, the state's jobless rate is up 4.4 percent from 10.2 percent. Michigan's per capita personal income is expected to decline by 2.7 percent in 2009. This decline in personal income in 2009 will be the first decline since 1958 and the worst drop since 1945; and

Whereas, Based on the January Consensus Revenue Estimate, Michigan faces a potential budget deficit of $1.6 billion . . .; now therefore be it

Resolved, that the legislature hereby rejects the 3 percent civil service compensation increases.

Democrats voting no:
Clarke, Prusi, Anderson, Barcia, Basham, Scott, Brater, Gleason, Olshove, Thomas, Hunter, Cherry, Jacobs, Whitmer, Clark-Coleman

Democrats voting yes:
Switalski

Republicans voting yes:
Allen, Cropsey, Jansen, Patterson, Garcia, Kahn, George, Kuipers, Richardville, Gilbert, McManus, Sanborn, Bishop, Nofs, Stamas, Hardiman, Van Woerkom, Cassis, Pappageorge, Birkholz

Republicans present but not voting:
Patterson

Republicans Voting no:
none

Roll Call Vote Details from MichiganVotes.org