Live chat on Proposal 2 "Protect our Jobs" ballot measure
Friday October 19, 2012
11:51
Dave Murray: 
Hello! Thank you for joining us today in the live chat about Proposal 2
Friday October 19, 2012 11:51 Dave Murray
11:51
Jen Eyer | MLive.com: 
Hi everyone. We'll get started here in just a few minutes.
Friday October 19, 2012 11:51 Jen Eyer | MLive.com
11:58
Jen Eyer | MLive.com: 
And we're getting started with our live chat on Proposal 2. I'll be moderating this chat, which means I'll be pacing the questions as we go.
Friday October 19, 2012 11:58 Jen Eyer | MLive.com
11:59
Jen Eyer | MLive.com: 
I will post comments, as long as they are civil, as they come in.
Friday October 19, 2012 11:59 Jen Eyer | MLive.com
11:59
[Comment From jamesjames: ] 
hello
Friday October 19, 2012 11:59 james
11:59
[Comment From GuestGuest: ] 
Can we call in?
Friday October 19, 2012 11:59 Guest
11:59
Jen Eyer | MLive.com: 
There is no call-in function to this chat. It is text only.
Friday October 19, 2012 11:59 Jen Eyer | MLive.com
11:59
Dave Murray: 
Hello James, and welcome.
Friday October 19, 2012 11:59 Dave Murray
12:00
Jen Eyer | MLive.com: 
Though I will say that our participants, John Armelagos on behalf of the Protect Our Jobs coalition and Jared Rodriguez of Protecting Michigan Taxpayers, are on a private conference call with myself and Dave Murray right now.
Friday October 19, 2012 12:00 Jen Eyer | MLive.com
12:00
Jen Eyer | MLive.com: 
And they are being quite civil to each other. :) Bodes well for a productive chat.
Friday October 19, 2012 12:00 Jen Eyer | MLive.com
12:00
[Comment From LorrieLorrie: ] 
hi
Friday October 19, 2012 12:00 Lorrie
12:00
[Comment From BevBev: ] 
good afternoon
Friday October 19, 2012 12:00 Bev
12:00
Dave Murray: 
Hello Lorrie and Bev. Welcome.
Friday October 19, 2012 12:00 Dave Murray
12:02
[Comment From GuestGuest: ] 
Explain how Right to work would benefit the business? Right to work is essentially to benefit the business at a disadvantage to the workers, it essentially allows workers to not pay union dues, but still receive the benefits. There is no such law or unions contract that states one must join a union, however paying dues is because they must still be represented for disciplinary purposes and will still receive the same benefits at Union workers whom pay dues. This is nothing more than a Union busting tactic as it is proven that in Right to work states, Unionism is near non existent. This is not the workers right to work, but the business right to control the workers.
Friday October 19, 2012 12:02 Guest
12:02
[Comment From ChuckChuck: ] 
Hello everyone!
Friday October 19, 2012 12:02 Chuck
12:02
[Comment From BevBev: ] 
Hello all
Friday October 19, 2012 12:02 Bev
12:02
[Comment From JohnnyJohnny: ] 
Hello
Friday October 19, 2012 12:02 Johnny
12:03
[Comment From RichRich: ] 
Hi all.
Friday October 19, 2012 12:03 Rich
12:03
[Comment From guestguest: ] 
its a good thing we wasted 3 minutes on hellos, can we get to the questions now?
Friday October 19, 2012 12:03 guest
12:03
Jen Eyer | MLive.com: 
Yes, guest. Our panelists are answering the first question now.
Friday October 19, 2012 12:03 Jen Eyer | MLive.com
12:03
John Armelagos: 
On behalf of Protect Working Families-thanks for joining us. Want to make sure everyone is clear. Prop 2 is about collective bargaining and collective bargaining only.
Friday October 19, 2012 12:03 John Armelagos
12:03
Jared Rodriguez: 
Hi guest. Proposal 2 is not about Right to Work. Proposal 2 is a proposed constitutional amendment that would overturn over 170 laws that are currently on the books that taxpayers and parents count on.
Friday October 19, 2012 12:03 Jared Rodriguez
12:03
[Comment From TravisTravis: ] 
Hi
Friday October 19, 2012 12:03 Travis
12:03
[Comment From ChuckChuck: ] 
Hello
Friday October 19, 2012 12:03 Chuck
12:04
[Comment From Bear ClawBear Claw: ] 
The supporters of Proposal 2 originally claimed they are pushing the amendment because it would override hundreds of laws passed by the legislature (MEA memo, quotes in news). Now they say they are pushing it to protect collective bargaining. Which is true? Both?
Friday October 19, 2012 12:04 Bear Claw
12:04
[Comment From ChuckChuck: ] 
are you going to transcribe their comments?
Friday October 19, 2012 12:04 Chuck
12:04
Jen Eyer | MLive.com: 
Chuck, the chat will be archived right on this page.
Friday October 19, 2012 12:04 Jen Eyer | MLive.com
12:05
Dave Murray: 
I'm also planning a story that will include some of the highlights of our discussion today.
Friday October 19, 2012 12:05 Dave Murray
12:05
John Armelagos: 
Not one court has agreed with the false argument that this would impact 170 laws. It is politically motivated speculation that has no basis in fact. Courts are a higher authority than the Ag's "opinion". Again, prop 2 is about collective bargaining rights.
Friday October 19, 2012 12:05 John Armelagos
12:05
[Comment From Ann ButlerAnn Butler: ] 
I recommend everyone lookat the new study from The Economic Policy Institute to see what erosion of collective bargaining has done to Michigan's economy:
Friday October 19, 2012 12:05 Ann Butler
12:05
[Comment From Ann ButlerAnn Butler: ] 
http://www.epi.org/publication/bp347-collective-bargaining/
Friday October 19, 2012 12:05 Ann Butler
12:05
Jared Rodriguez: 
Good question, Bear Claw. The Attorney General, the Detroit News, Detroit Free Press, the Michigan Truth Squad here on MLive and the Citizens Research Council have all said Proposal 2 would eliminate critical reforms that Michigan parents count on to keep their kids safe at school.

Even the Michigan Education Association, one of the largest financial backers of Proposal 2, published a memo from their legal department bragging that Prop 2 would overturn dozens of education laws, including the law that prevents union contracts from protecting teachers caught under the influence of drugs and alcohol at school and the law that imposes financial penalties on teachers who strike illegally.

Its important that voters understand the truth about the dangers behind Proposal 2 and that it is loaded with unintended consequences.

Friday October 19, 2012 12:05 Jared Rodriguez
12:06
John Armelagos: 
Jared-that's not true. Not a word of it. Stories that quote from the false ads being run aren't facts.
Friday October 19, 2012 12:06 John Armelagos
12:07
[Comment From ChadChad: ] 
If I vote "no" on proposal 2 will workers still have collective bargaining rights?
Friday October 19, 2012 12:07 Chad
12:07
Jared Rodriguez: 
A clarification on your point, John...

“Proposal 2’s ballot language says it will “invalidate existing or future state or local laws” and “override state laws.” The legal department for one of Prop 2’s biggest bankrollers, the MEA, even issued a legal memo bragging about the way it would invalidate dozens of common sense education laws that keep our kids safe at school.

As the media has consistently reported, the Supreme Court was asked whether or not Proposal 2 was eligible to appear on the ballot, not what effect it would have on common sense laws and reforms that keep our kids safe at school. At no point has the court ever discussed the impact Proposal 2 would have on protections for kids.
Friday October 19, 2012 12:07 Jared Rodriguez
12:07
John Armelagos: 
The false ads run by corporate special interests have been called lies by everyone from law enforcement professionals, a former Supreme Court justice, two former attorney generals and the former Governor. Prop 2 is about collective bargaining. The false ads and scare tactics need to stop. Federal law and criminal statutes have nothing to do with collective bargaining.
Friday October 19, 2012 12:07 John Armelagos
12:08
Dave Murray: 
John, can you give us an example of a claim made by opponents that you believe to be false?
Friday October 19, 2012 12:08 Dave Murray
12:08
[Comment From nancynancy: ] 
I call it the "right to be fired" for any reason
Friday October 19, 2012 12:08 nancy
12:08
Jared Rodriguez: 
Chad- absolutely. This is the largest piece of misinformation that is out there today. Collective bargaining is protected by state and federal law. It won't go away no matter what happens with Prop 2.

The simple truth is that a "NO" vote on Prop 2 changes nothing in Michigan.
Friday October 19, 2012 12:08 Jared Rodriguez
12:08
[Comment From JeanineJeanine: ] 
John, I know you are a nurse, thank you for all you do, and thanks to all the nurses, teachers, police and firefighters and other public servants. Jared, as a parent and taxpayer I count on all of them and I want them to have a voice in their work.
Friday October 19, 2012 12:08 Jeanine
12:09
John Armelagos: 
For instance: licensing requirements for bus drivers are set by federal law. It is absolutely false to assert that Prop 2 would impact this at all. The question we should be asking is "who funds these attacks?"
Friday October 19, 2012 12:09 John Armelagos
12:09
Jared Rodriguez: 
So do we, Jeanine. I'm a parent and a taxpayer, too. And thank from me, too, John! I'll just reiterate, collective bargaining is already protected by state and federal law.
Friday October 19, 2012 12:09 Jared Rodriguez
12:10
[Comment From ChuckChuck: ] 
What I would like to know, is who is funding "Protect Michigan Taxpayers?" They are spending MILLIONS on ads attacking Prop 2, I don't think its fair that we do not know who is funding these ads.
Friday October 19, 2012 12:10 Chuck
12:10
John Armelagos: 
Thanks Jeanine. All of us deserve a voice on the job
Friday October 19, 2012 12:10 John Armelagos
12:10
[Comment From MaryMary: ] 
Hi. I'm disgusted by the ads with all the lies and I hope you will be asking Jared why his organization does not denounce those, or pull them if it is funding them.
Friday October 19, 2012 12:10 Mary
12:10
[Comment From TravisTravis: ] 
According to the Federal bureau of labor, Right to Work states earn on average $5300.00 less, have a higher poverty level of 12.5% compared to 10.5%, an higher infant mortality rate of 16 % higher and work place deaths are 51% higher , as workers cannot speak on safety issues.
Friday October 19, 2012 12:10 Travis
12:11
Jared Rodriguez: 
Hi Chuck. There is a broad coalition opposed to Proposal 2 including the Michigan Association of School Boards, Michigan Sheriffs Association, Michigan Farm Bureau, Michigan Chamber, Small Business Association and over a dozen more.
Friday October 19, 2012 12:11 Jared Rodriguez
12:11
[Comment From BevBev: ] 
the ads say they are paid for by Citizens to protect the Constitution.
Friday October 19, 2012 12:11 Bev
12:12
[Comment From Ann ButlerAnn Butler: ] 
Collective bargaining can (and has been) eroded by Lansing politicians if it is not protected in the constitution.
Friday October 19, 2012 12:12 Ann Butler
12:12
Jared Rodriguez: 
We also know, according to the most recent campaign finance reports, Proposal 2 is being funded primarily by government employee unions.
Friday October 19, 2012 12:12 Jared Rodriguez
12:12
[Comment From DanDan: ] 
For John Armelagos: The Protect Working Families’ website has a number of business who support Prop 2. Could you tell us a little about them?
Friday October 19, 2012 12:12 Dan
12:12
John Armelagos: 
Prop 2 filed its campaign finance report in June. Organizations that represent millions of working families support this campaign. Nearly 1000 small businesses have endorsed Prop 2, the NAACP, the Sierra Club and countless faith leaders. Jared-that doesn't answer Chuck's question. Where does the $ come from?
Friday October 19, 2012 12:12 John Armelagos
12:13
[Comment From GuestGuest: ] 
My first question is to Mr. Rodriguez - the strongest and most heavily played commercial against Prop 2 states that school districts will be prohibited from firing teachers who are drunk on the job, giving them 5 warnings. What is the basis for this statement and do you believe it to be misleading?
Friday October 19, 2012 12:13 Guest
12:14
Jen Eyer | MLive.com: 
I'm going to push through a few questions/comments on the issue of teachers being under the influence on the job.
Friday October 19, 2012 12:14 Jen Eyer | MLive.com
12:14
[Comment From BennyBenny: ] 
Mlive reported that Bay City union and board reached an agreement allowing teachers to be drunk 5 times on the job before being fired. Prop 2 says: "No existing or future law of the state or its political subdivisions shall abridge, impair or limit" unions' ability to "negotiate in good faith regarding wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment. … "
Friday October 19, 2012 12:14 Benny
12:14
John Armelagos: 
Thanks Dan-We are supported by a diverse array of businesses in industries across the state.You can find a full list on the website, which is growing every day. www.protectworkingfamilies.com
Friday October 19, 2012 12:14 John Armelagos
12:14
Jared Rodriguez: 
Great question, Guest.

A contract collectively bargained in January by the teachers union in Bay City would, shockingly, require a teacher to be caught drunk five times or under the influence of drugs three times before being fired.
Friday October 19, 2012 12:14 Jared Rodriguez
12:14
[Comment From BrandonBrandon: ] 
Mr. Armelagos, the Free Press and DetNews have called Prop 2 overly broad and vague, what is your response? Are our students really going to be taught by drunk teachers?
Friday October 19, 2012 12:14 Brandon
12:14
Dave Murray: 
http://www.mlive.com/education/index.ssf/2012/09/opponents_union-backed_protect.html

Here is our story about the issue regarding the Bay City contract.
Friday October 19, 2012 12:14 Dave Murray
12:15
Jared Rodriguez: 
The same contract required a teacher be caught selling drugs on school property not just once, but twice before the teacher could be terminated. (Check out contract pages 92-93.)
Friday October 19, 2012 12:15 Jared Rodriguez
12:15
Jen Eyer | MLive.com: 
Jared: How many districts have language like that in their contracts?
Friday October 19, 2012 12:15 Jen Eyer | MLive.com
12:15
Jared Rodriguez: 
Lawmakers and the governor teamed in 2011 to enact Public Act 103, which legally overturned the kind of shocking contract provisions found in the Bay City teachers contract but the contract itself explicitly states (contract page 87) that should Public Act 103 be struck down, the protections for teachers who abuse drugs and alcohol on school property would go back into effect.

According to a leaked internal memo from the Michigan Education Association’s (MEA) Legal Department (see attachment), passage of Proposal 2 would “immediately” overturn Public Act 103. The MEA is one of Proposal 2’s most prominent backers.
Friday October 19, 2012 12:15 Jared Rodriguez
12:15
Jared Rodriguez: 
We don't know Jen, but the fact of the matter is even that one is one too many.
Friday October 19, 2012 12:15 Jared Rodriguez
12:16
Jared Rodriguez: 
(That memo is attached to the link Dave just passed through.)
Friday October 19, 2012 12:16 Jared Rodriguez
12:16
John Armelagos: 
Let's be clear-criminal statutes are not impacted by collective bargaining. Citing expired contracts, misleading language, and distorting the issue. Not what we need in this debate
Friday October 19, 2012 12:16 John Armelagos
12:16
[Comment From BrandonBrandon: ] 
Mr. Rodriguez, wasn't that Bay City contract collectively bargained for and agreed to by the administration? Can we not look to the administration and ask them why they would agree to such a term in the contract?
Friday October 19, 2012 12:16 Brandon
12:16
[Comment From CandaceCandace: ] 
@JR - if that is the contract that was ratified in Bay City, shouldn't that be the focus, rather than making it seem like all teachers have a contract like that? I know where I teach, I would be fired for that kind of behavior.
Friday October 19, 2012 12:16 Candace
12:17
John Armelagos: 
Criminal background checks are run by the MSP and FBI. Prop 2 doesn't change that. Be honest.
Friday October 19, 2012 12:17 John Armelagos
12:17
Jared Rodriguez: 
That's a great idea, Brandon. We're just glad that PA 103 is there to protect kids in Bay City.
Friday October 19, 2012 12:17 Jared Rodriguez
12:18
Jared Rodriguez: 
This is just one example of the many unintended consequences of Proposal 2.
Friday October 19, 2012 12:18 Jared Rodriguez
12:18
[Comment From BevBev: ] 
that is correct John, the State mandates that, not the unions.
Friday October 19, 2012 12:18 Bev
12:18
John Armelagos: 
The truth is, the agenda of corporate special interests has been tried on education. It resulted in over a billion in cuts, larger class sizes and nothing that benefits kids. Collective bargaining is our only way to rectify that. Teachers need a voice too.
Friday October 19, 2012 12:18 John Armelagos
12:18
[Comment From CharlesCharles: ] 
Our state and country today spends more money on education than at any other time in history. This propsoal will drive costs to tax payers even higher with no improvements in education. If money was the solution, people would not complain today.........
Friday October 19, 2012 12:18 Charles
12:18
[Comment From nancynancy: ] 
My son is a Sheriff and he will be voting in favor of Prop 2. Sixteen hour days are not safe for anyone. The same can be said for nurses and too many patients to service or an over crowded classroom with Special Needs Students and Non-English speaking students. Who suffers?
Friday October 19, 2012 12:18 nancy
12:18
Dave Murray: 
John and Jared -- Some of the topics taken off the table are tied to teacher evaluations and tenure. Why should those topics be negotiated locally instead of having statewide standards?
Friday October 19, 2012 12:18 Dave Murray
12:18
[Comment From larrylarry: ] 
This ballot issue is not about individual contracts. it is about preventing the extremists in Lansing from eliminating unions in this state.
Friday October 19, 2012 12:18 larry
12:19
[Comment From Jamie BuchananJamie Buchanan: ] 
I would rather have decisions made at the local level rather than by Lansing politicians. I'm voting yes on 2.
Friday October 19, 2012 12:19 Jamie Buchanan
12:19
Jared Rodriguez: 
Lets be honest about cuts to education, John. Educators say that Proposal 2 would overturn one recent law that saves our local districts $400 million a year. If proposal 2 is approved, that's money that will come out of the classroom.
Friday October 19, 2012 12:19 Jared Rodriguez
12:19
John Armelagos: 
Larry and Jamie have it right.
Friday October 19, 2012 12:19 John Armelagos
12:20
John Armelagos: 
That number you cite has been called "speculative" by the Free Press. Contracts should be negotiated, not arbitrarily mandated by the state, wh
Friday October 19, 2012 12:20 John Armelagos
12:20
[Comment From CTCT: ] 
So if proposal 2 gets passed, teachers won't be evaluated anymore?
Friday October 19, 2012 12:20 CT
12:21
Jared Rodriguez: 
Even if that number is wrong by half, John, that's still $200 million in lost savings. That's enough money to hire 5,000 new teachers.
Friday October 19, 2012 12:21 Jared Rodriguez
12:21
John Armelagos: 
Teachers will absolutely be evaluated when Prop 2 passes. The difference is that they will have a voice in what those evaluations measure.
Friday October 19, 2012 12:21 John Armelagos
12:22
Jared Rodriguez: 
CT- According to the MEA, if Proposal 2 passes, teachers will be evaluated based on tenure and length of service instead of performance. That takes the power away from parents.
Friday October 19, 2012 12:22 Jared Rodriguez
12:22
[Comment From LorrieLorrie: ] 
What financial impact will this cost taxpayers of the state if this proposal is accepted in November? And, will this tax be primarily attached to personal income taxes, property taxes or (fill in the blank)
Friday October 19, 2012 12:22 Lorrie
12:22
[Comment From JohnnyJohnny: ] 
I don’t understand how the opposition can claim Proposal 2 passing will result in higher taxes and give exorbitant dollar amounts when any future changes involving money are not known and would have to be NEGOTIATED?
Friday October 19, 2012 12:22 Johnny
12:22
John Armelagos: 
Lansing politicians who have never set foot in a classroom, run in a burning building or cared for a sick patient should not get to decide the working conditions for these workers.
Friday October 19, 2012 12:22 John Armelagos
12:23
Jared Rodriguez: 
Good question, Lorrie. The Detroit News reported that Proposal 2 would eliminate at least $1.6 billion in taxpayer savings.
Friday October 19, 2012 12:23 Jared Rodriguez
12:23
[Comment From MariMari: ] 
Proposal 2 would give back local control. Individual districts would then be able to discuss issues rather than the state dictating what can and cannot be bargained. Evaluation process and procedure WAS a part of every contract and still is most cases! The legislators over reached and didn't not know what they were doing when they passes the crazy laws these past 20 months
Friday October 19, 2012 12:23 Mari
12:23
Dave Murray: 
John, are the politicians setting the conditions, or are they allowing the districts, for example, to set the conditions?
Friday October 19, 2012 12:23 Dave Murray
12:24
[Comment From SteveSteve: ] 
I don't know if Prop 2 is the best thing out there but I am concerned about a legislature that seems determined to do everything it can to reduce the rights of teachers and erode public education. By the way, the ridiculous ads talking about teachers showing up drunk 5 times is a slap in the face to hard-working teachers everywhere. The ads are shameful and deliberately misleading.
Friday October 19, 2012 12:24 Steve
12:24
John Armelagos: 
Prop 2 will not raise taxes. It is about collective bargaining. Glad to see so many readers have seen these false ads and want to tell the truth about these myths. In fact, corporate special interests got a billion dollar tax cut, paid for by working people, cutting k-12 funding and taxing previously negotiated pension rates.
Friday October 19, 2012 12:24 John Armelagos
12:24
[Comment From Ann ButlerAnn Butler: ] 
The Lansing politicians took over a billion dollars from education last year--and you are arguing about $200k?
Friday October 19, 2012 12:24 Ann Butler
12:24
Jared Rodriguez: 
Proposal 2 would eliminate $400 MILLION, Ann. Right out of the classroom.
Friday October 19, 2012 12:24 Jared Rodriguez
12:24
Jared Rodriguez: 
I think that's the wrong thing for Michigan's kids.
Friday October 19, 2012 12:24 Jared Rodriguez
12:25
[Comment From DanDan: ] 
We say money out of or into the classroom. If you want to help teachers to perform better, help with their training. You can't just decrease their benefits and their pay and increase the requirments on them and say that is good for education. That is why contracts should be bargained.
Friday October 19, 2012 12:25 Dan
12:25
John Armelagos: 
Jared-seriously? That is the point of negotiations. These numbers are pulled out of thin air.
Friday October 19, 2012 12:25 John Armelagos
12:25
[Comment From PetePete: ] 
Isn't 1.6 million the amount the Governor and Legislature took from the School Aide Fund two years ago?
Friday October 19, 2012 12:25 Pete
12:25
Jared Rodriguez: 
John, the MEA's legal department said these savings would go away.
Friday October 19, 2012 12:25 Jared Rodriguez
12:26
John Armelagos: 
Peter-1.8 billion actually-but you are right on point.
Friday October 19, 2012 12:26 John Armelagos
12:26
Dave Murray: 
Jared -- You have been accused of accepting funding from "shadowy" corporate interests. Will your group file the required campaign finance reports next week? Can you tell us how much money is coming from out of state?
Friday October 19, 2012 12:26 Dave Murray
12:27
[Comment From SteveSteve: ] 
Way to play the "kid" card. Ads about how we'll have to pray for our kids' safety once they go to school are deplorable. If the goal of the GOP is to drive good teachers out of education by cutting pay, benefits and respect, they are doing great job. Mark my words - the GOP is moving toward privatizing education and using YOUR public tax dollars to do it. And, privatizing doesn't necessarily mean better education.
Friday October 19, 2012 12:27 Steve
12:28
Jared Rodriguez: 
Dave, there is a broad and growing coalition opposed to Proposal 2, including the Michigan School Boards, Principals and other education groups, the Michigan Sheriffs Association, the Michigan Farm Bureua, Michigan Small Business Association and over a dozen more.
Friday October 19, 2012 12:28 Jared Rodriguez
12:28
[Comment From SteveSteve: ] 
Stringent tenure rules allowed teachers to assault students without being fired - they were removed, but had to be bought out: http://www.michigancapitolconfidential.com/15682 - Prop 2 overrides tenure reform. That is bad.
Friday October 19, 2012 12:28 Steve
12:28
Jared Rodriguez: 
These are groups and organizations that have been on the ground here in Michigan for decades (and longer)
Friday October 19, 2012 12:28 Jared Rodriguez
12:28
John Armelagos: 
Dave, please tell me you have a follow up for Jared. That doesn't sound like a cent of disclosure.
Friday October 19, 2012 12:28 John Armelagos
12:29
[Comment From Patrick WrightPatrick Wright: ] 
Steve - tax payer dollars for private education is prohibited by the Michigan Constitution, Article 8 section 2.
Friday October 19, 2012 12:29 Patrick Wright
12:29
Dave Murray: 
Jared, I understand about the in-state groups, will there be out-of-state contributions as well? Will you be filing campaign finance reports?
Friday October 19, 2012 12:29 Dave Murray
12:29
Jared Rodriguez: 
Next week there is another campaign finance report and we will file our report, as I'm sure Proposal 2's supporters will as well. We already know, though, from their last report that most of their funding has come from government employee unions, including millions from out of state.
Friday October 19, 2012 12:29 Jared Rodriguez
12:29
Jared Rodriguez: 
John, will you file your report? Where are Prop 2's campaign funds coming from?
Friday October 19, 2012 12:29 Jared Rodriguez
12:30
Dave Murray: 
John, same question for you. Can you tell us home much money is coming from outside Michigan?
Friday October 19, 2012 12:30 Dave Murray
12:30
John Armelagos: 
Of course the campaign to protect collective bargaining will file its report. We've already filed one.
Friday October 19, 2012 12:30 John Armelagos
12:30
[Comment From MarcyMarcy: ] 
As a teacher, I have seen many children who return to the public schools from charter schools and are a year or so behind. Then the public school is blamed for having a class with a low average score on some state test.
Friday October 19, 2012 12:30 Marcy
12:32
Jared Rodriguez: 
Thanks for posting those, Dave.
Friday October 19, 2012 12:32 Jared Rodriguez
12:32
[Comment From DanDan: ] 
Money has been taken out of education this year. Until we stop looking at education as an expense we can't make significant changes. It is an investment.
Friday October 19, 2012 12:32 Dan
12:33
[Comment From curveball 46curveball 46: ] 
This is currently in our Michigan Constitution and I believe has been since '78? What wrong with others wanting the same? Art. XI, §5 CONSTITUTION OF MICHIGAN OF 1963 54 "State Police Troopers and Sergeants shall, through their elected representative designated by 50% of such troopers and sergeants, have the right to bargain collectively with their employer concerning conditions of their employment, compensation, hours, working conditions, retirement, pensions, and other aspects of employment except promotions which will be determined by competitive examination and performance on the basis of merit, efficiency and fitness; and they shall have the right 30 days after commencement of such bargaining to submit any unresolved disputes to binding arbitration for the resolution thereof the same as now provided by law for Public Police and Fire Departments."
Friday October 19, 2012 12:33 curveball 46
12:33
[Comment From JoelJoel: ] 
Sheriffs are not "law enforcement" - they are elected politicians who DO NOT EVEN NEED TO BE POLICE OFFICERS. Check the facts - the law enforcement professionals DOING THE JOB are PRO PROPOSAL 2 - they are the ones who are credible.
Friday October 19, 2012 12:33 Joel
12:33
[Comment From Jessica FowlerJessica Fowler: ] 
As a wife, daughter-in-law, and grand daughter of union members, I can comment on where Proposal 2's campaign funds are coming from. Yes, there may be money from out-of-state, but those contributions, in state and out, are made by hard working Americans who have consented to having their union dues used for campaigns such as this. The money is coming from the families this proposal would protect.
Friday October 19, 2012 12:33 Jessica Fowler
12:33
Dave Murray: 
The $400 million was cited by the MASB and MASA, taking the total spent in healthcare in districts and taking out 20 percent -- the mandated contribution. Unions have said the figure is too high, since it is unlikely that they would be able to negotiate away all contributions to insurance premiums.
Friday October 19, 2012 12:33 Dave Murray
12:33
John Armelagos: 
Good point cb 46. Why shouldn't law enforcement have a say in staffing and equipment
Friday October 19, 2012 12:33 John Armelagos
12:33
[Comment From JohnJohn: ] 
The proposal is meant to slow down the Super Majority assault on all public employees and their benefits and working conditions. This is all about money and nothing else. Business leaders and our current legislators could care less about anything but power, control and making money off the backs of public employees. You cut a billion from education, what more do you need to balance a budget?
Friday October 19, 2012 12:33 John
12:34
Jared Rodriguez: 
Hi curveball. Thanks for the question. Like the Detroit News said, Proposal 2 has "almost nothing to do with collective bargaining." This is not an argument over whether collective bargaining is good or bad. It is already protected by state and federal law.

Unfortunately, Proposal 2 was so poorly written that it has many serious unintended consequences.
Friday October 19, 2012 12:34 Jared Rodriguez
12:34
John Armelagos: 
Jared-would you want a nurse with 15 patients caring for you in an emergency because they don't have the right to collectively bargain?
Friday October 19, 2012 12:34 John Armelagos
12:35
[Comment From BrandonBrandon: ] 
Dave, can you post a link with the full text of Prop 2?
Friday October 19, 2012 12:35 Brandon
12:35
Jared Rodriguez: 
Hi John. Collective bargaining is already protected under state and federal law.
Friday October 19, 2012 12:35 Jared Rodriguez
12:35
[Comment From JohnnyJohnny: ] 
@ Dave, thank you. The number is way too high. No teachers would support forcing their school districts to give them more money than they ahve the ability to pay
Friday October 19, 2012 12:35 Johnny
12:35
John Armelagos: 
Or a firefighter without the best protective gear running in a building to save you in a fire?
Friday October 19, 2012 12:35 John Armelagos
12:36
[Comment From Patrick WrightPatrick Wright: ] 
Curveball46, the troopers are a small portion of public employees and they are less likely to be able to elect who they "negotiate" with - the Legislature.
Friday October 19, 2012 12:36 Patrick Wright
12:36
Jared Rodriguez: 
Collective bargaining is not going anywhere. It exists now and it will exist after the election however it turns out.
Friday October 19, 2012 12:36 Jared Rodriguez
12:36
[Comment From MichelleMichelle: ] 
Does a yes on proposal 2 mean that workers can unionize in any private sector small business - and that everyone has to pay union dues?
Friday October 19, 2012 12:36 Michelle
12:36
John Armelagos: 
For those who want to read the actual amendment text. Here it is...
http://protectworkingfamilies.com/about-text-of-prop-2/
Friday October 19, 2012 12:36 John Armelagos
12:37
Dave Murray: 
Here is the actual ballot language:

PROPOSAL 12-2


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 bargaining
agreements, 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

NO __
Friday October 19, 2012 12:37 Dave Murray
12:37
Jared Rodriguez: 
Thanks for sharing that, Dave.
Friday October 19, 2012 12:37 Jared Rodriguez
12:37
[Comment From nancynancy: ] 
I had to buy my son, his bullet proof vest when he became a Sheriff because of all of the cuts
Friday October 19, 2012 12:37 nancy
12:37
Jared Rodriguez: 
It is important for voters to know exactly what they are being asked to vote on when they go to the polls on Election day.
Friday October 19, 2012 12:37 Jared Rodriguez
12:37
[Comment From TravisTravis: ] 
Union dues are used to negotiate for EVERYONE
Friday October 19, 2012 12:37 Travis
12:37
John Armelagos: 
Clarification Dave-that is not the amendment text. This is what the amendment actually says.
http://protectworkingfamilies.com/about-text-of-prop-2/
Friday October 19, 2012 12:37 John Armelagos
12:39
[Comment From ChuckChuck: ] 
John, if Prop 2 was only about collective bargaining, why not stop the language after the first section? It goes on to "invalidate" and "override" laws.
Friday October 19, 2012 12:39 Chuck
12:39
[Comment From MarcyMarcy: ] 
Workers should be able to unionize wherever they work. Private or public. If the workers themselves vote for a union, they should be able to have it and use the union to negotiate fair wages and benefits.
Friday October 19, 2012 12:39 Marcy
12:40
[Comment From RogerRoger: ] 
Jared has a lot of nerve parroting that talking point of "collective bargaining is already protected under state and federal law" to a nurse. I work at UMHS like John does - we're public sector employees. Politicians took whole topics off the table for bargaining for teachers and they'll do it for us next. There's no law that requires hospitals to provide safe staffing for your nurses! We negotiate that, and it's always the FIRST topic of negotiation because that's what we care about. We are your advocate in the hospital, and if Proposal 2 doesn't protect us, we will lose our voice in protecting you.
Friday October 19, 2012 12:40 Roger
12:40
John Armelagos: 
Chuck-please read the actual amendment text at the link above. It does not say that. At all. Why take a bureaucrat's summary when you can get the words right from the amendment?
Friday October 19, 2012 12:40 John Armelagos
12:40
[Comment From JoelJoel: ] 
Where is my comment about Wisconsin - proof that collective bargaining is NOT protected!
Friday October 19, 2012 12:40 Joel
12:40
Jared Rodriguez: 
Good question, Chuck. John, you're not being completely honest with everyone here.

The actual ballot language voters will see at the polls says:

• Invalidate existing or future state or local laws... and...

• Override state laws...
Friday October 19, 2012 12:40 Jared Rodriguez
12:41
John Armelagos: 
And certainly we shouldn't take anyone who is airing those false ads word for it...
Friday October 19, 2012 12:41 John Armelagos
12:41
Jared Rodriguez: 
I'm not entirely sure why supporters of Proposal 2 want to hide what the ballot itself says.
Friday October 19, 2012 12:41 Jared Rodriguez
12:41
[Comment From CurtisCurtis: ] 
Worse Case Scenerio time: John - if this doesn't pass, whats the worse case scenerio? Jared - if this passes, whats' the worse case scenerio?
Friday October 19, 2012 12:41 Curtis
12:41
[Comment From Jessica FowlerJessica Fowler: ] 
How is John not being completely honest? He posted the amendment text. That seems to be more full disclosure than anything you have said or posted in opposition of the proposal.
Friday October 19, 2012 12:41 Jessica Fowler
12:42
[Comment From The original ChuckThe original Chuck: ] 
Other Chuck- there have been hundreds of laws passed in the past two years that have limited and threatened collective bargaining. We need to overturn those laws, and let labor and management make their own decisions without corporate backed Lansing politicians interfere with that process
Friday October 19, 2012 12:42 The original Chuck
12:42
[Comment From TravisTravis: ] 
NO ONE has to join a Union, but only to pay the Union dues. These are intended to provide the necessary monies to negotiate, "the contract" which both parties have to agree to, such as working conditions, hours, pay, health benefits, sick leave, family leave, vacation, disciplinary rules, uniforms (if required) etc. I do not have to join my union it is not required, however I still pay dues and they still have to represent me because I am still paying dues. Don't let this anti prop 2 propaganda deceive you.
Friday October 19, 2012 12:42 Travis
12:42
Jared Rodriguez: 
Good question, Curtis. According the Attorney General, the MEA, the Citizens Research Council, the Michigan Truth Squad and many others, Proposal 2 is so poorly worded it could invalidate and override over 170 state laws that parents and taxpayers count on.
Friday October 19, 2012 12:42 Jared Rodriguez
12:43
Jared Rodriguez: 
Also...
Friday October 19, 2012 12:43 Jared Rodriguez
12:43
John Armelagos: 
When Prop 2 passes, the amendment language becomes law. As to the worst case scenario-if Prop 2 is not passed-the public will see more harmful cuts, workers will continue losing their voice in the workplace and the average worker across this state will continue seeing their wages decline
Friday October 19, 2012 12:43 John Armelagos
12:43
[Comment From BrandonBrandon: ] 
This appears to still allow the State to prohibit teachers from striking, am I wrong?
Friday October 19, 2012 12:43 Brandon
12:44
John Armelagos: 
The 170 claim has been rejected by courts across the state.
Friday October 19, 2012 12:44 John Armelagos
12:44
Jared Rodriguez: 
The lawyer who drafted the proposal said we can not know the full impact of Prop 2 until it passes and that voters have to "guess" how many laws it will overturn. That creates a tremendous amount of uncertainty for job makers and people out of state looking to invest here in Michigan. It would drive down Michigan's bond rating as well.
Friday October 19, 2012 12:44 Jared Rodriguez
12:44
[Comment From LukeLuke: ] 
Your correct Marcy, people should be able to unionize, but not FORCED to, they should have a choice.
Friday October 19, 2012 12:44 Luke
12:44
John Armelagos: 
Brandon-you got it! Prop 2 prevents strikes. Also a mistruth found in ads run by the opposition
Friday October 19, 2012 12:44 John Armelagos
12:44
Jared Rodriguez: 
That's not true, John. The courts were never asked what effect Prop 2 would have on the laws that keep our kids safe. They were asked to decide whether or not it was eligible to appear on the ballot.
Friday October 19, 2012 12:44 Jared Rodriguez
12:44
Dave Murray: 
John, the Protect Our Jobs folks once put the figure at about 80 laws. If 170 is incorrect, can you tell us how many you believe will be impacted?
Friday October 19, 2012 12:44 Dave Murray
12:45
John Armelagos: 
Respectfully Jared, this isn't about lawyers...it's about hard working people like me that deserve a voice at my job
Friday October 19, 2012 12:45 John Armelagos
12:45
[Comment From Jessica FowlerJessica Fowler: ] 
Jared, can you please give an example of a law that the amendment WILL invalidate and how that result will be detrimental to our state? Thank you.
Friday October 19, 2012 12:45 Jessica Fowler
12:45
[Comment From larrylarry: ] 
Curtis, if this does not pass worse case scenerio. the extremists in Lansing chip away at unions until they cease to exist creating a state with living standards etc. like Mississippi
Friday October 19, 2012 12:45 larry
12:45
[Comment From L.W. PittilmenL.W. Pittilmen: ] 
What are some of the laws that prop 2 would invalidate, and how would it do it? I want facts before I vote, not hearsay and talking points
Friday October 19, 2012 12:45 L.W. Pittilmen
12:46
Jared Rodriguez: 
Hi Brandon. According to a legal memo from the MEA, one of Prop 2's biggest backers, Prop 2 will overturn the law that establish financial penalties for teachers who participate in illegal strikes.

Think about it this way... under Prop 2 striking would be like getting pulled over for speeding and being told by the police officer that the ticket was $0 because while it was illegal, there was no penalty.
Friday October 19, 2012 12:46 Jared Rodriguez
12:46
John Armelagos: 
Dave, this campaign has never cited one law that would be overturned. Numerous organizations have pointed out the legislation that has attacked working families. And that number sadly continues to grow...
Friday October 19, 2012 12:46 John Armelagos
12:47
John Armelagos: 
Once again, if you read the amendment text...it specifically states that strikes would be illegal.
Friday October 19, 2012 12:47 John Armelagos
12:47
Dave Murray: 
Jared, is the Bay City contract an odd exception? Did you find similar provisions in other districts? If not, why is a law needed?
Friday October 19, 2012 12:47 Dave Murray
12:47
Jared Rodriguez: 
L.W. Pittman, one law is PA 103, which is the law stopping those outrageous protections from going into effect for teachers in Bay City caught under the influence of drugs or alcohol in the classroom.
Friday October 19, 2012 12:47 Jared Rodriguez
12:48
John Armelagos: 
No court has agreed that Prop 2's passage would have such a broad affect.
Friday October 19, 2012 12:48 John Armelagos
12:48
Jared Rodriguez: 
Good question Dave- we aren't sure how many districts have dangerous provisions like those. But even one is too many. As a dad I'm grateful for PA 103.
Friday October 19, 2012 12:48 Jared Rodriguez
12:49
Dave Murray: 
Jared, but does that mean the Legislature should pass a law for any imaginable circumstance?
Friday October 19, 2012 12:49 Dave Murray
12:49
Jared Rodriguez: 
We know Bay City's contract does include those dangerous provisions.
Friday October 19, 2012 12:49 Jared Rodriguez
12:49
[Comment From JohnnyJohnny: ] 
@ Jared, a $0 striking fee would have to be something BARGAINED
Friday October 19, 2012 12:49 Johnny
12:50
John Armelagos: 
Important to note that the whole point of collective bargaining is that two sides have to agree on a contract.
Friday October 19, 2012 12:50 John Armelagos
12:50
Jared Rodriguez: 
Dave, I'm glad their is a law that prevents contracts for our teachers from including language protecting those caught under the influence of drugs and alcohol at school or caught selling drugs at school.

Absolutely!
Friday October 19, 2012 12:50 Jared Rodriguez
12:50
[Comment From larrylarry: ] 
Dave, exactly and the main reason we need to pass prop 2
Friday October 19, 2012 12:50 larry
12:51
Jared Rodriguez: 
preventing them from being in the classroom, that is.
Friday October 19, 2012 12:51 Jared Rodriguez
12:51
John Armelagos: 
The Pupil Protection laws passed in 2005 specifically outline criminal offenses that result in the loss of a teaching license. Also, not a subject of bargaining. We need to truth squad this chat
Friday October 19, 2012 12:51 John Armelagos
12:51
[Comment From Ann ButlerAnn Butler: ] 
And what teacher is going to ask her union to bargain to put sexual predators in the classroom?
Friday October 19, 2012 12:51 Ann Butler
12:51
[Comment From VinnieVinnie: ] 
Jessica and L.W. here are some: Teacher tenure reform, Last in first out reforms, the 80/20 law, FOIA, binding arbitration, paycheck protection, and many more. More info is available here: http://www.mackinac.org/archives/2012/s2012-08proposal2.pdf
Friday October 19, 2012 12:51 Vinnie
12:51
Jared Rodriguez: 
You can't argue with the contract language, John. Its right there in black and white.
Friday October 19, 2012 12:51 Jared Rodriguez
12:52
[Comment From MarcyMarcy: ] 
Collective bargaining gives the average worker who has no power to negotiate, the power of all his co workers to negotiate with him. If people think that they will just be blessed with good wages, working conditions and benefits by just working very hard, they are very wrong.
Friday October 19, 2012 12:52 Marcy
12:52
John Armelagos: 
Vinnie, the Mackinac Center isn't exactly an unbiased source of information.
Friday October 19, 2012 12:52 John Armelagos
12:52
[Comment From RyanRyan: ] 
I am a UAW rep and the husband of a RN in Oakwood health systems. She is NON UNION and every attempt at organizing has been shot down. I see EVERYDAY how important Collective Bargaining is. My wife rarely gets a lunch, and almost always is forced to take on too many patients at 1 time. I,m not saying that if this passed she would be able to unionize but, without it she may never have the chance. I can only hope that if I ever have a long stay in the hospital, I am not 1 of 8 patients that my nurse has to watch. EVERYONE should have the right to collectively bargain for these practices to cease!
Friday October 19, 2012 12:52 Ryan
12:52
Jared Rodriguez: 
John, the MEA also singled out many of those same laws, claiming they would be overturned by Prop 2. MEA is one of Prop 2's biggest financial backers.
Friday October 19, 2012 12:52 Jared Rodriguez
12:52
[Comment From The original ChuckThe original Chuck: ] 
Jared- Contracts CANNOT overpower state laws. Its ABSURD to imply otherwise! Please stop misleading voters!
Friday October 19, 2012 12:52 The original Chuck
12:52
John Armelagos: 
Facts are facts. In the last 21 years..the average worker is making 6000 less than they were in 1989. Why? Because the number of people covered by collective bargaining decreased by 10% over the same time period
Friday October 19, 2012 12:52 John Armelagos
12:53
[Comment From vinnievinnie: ] 
you realize that those tenure laws were put in there so that schools couldn't just let a high paying teacher go, regardless of how good or bad they are.
Friday October 19, 2012 12:53 vinnie
12:53
[Comment From Patrick WrightPatrick Wright: ] 
Wrong Chuck - here is the language "(3) No existing or future law of the State or its political subdivisions shall abridge, impair or limit the foregoing rights; provided that the State may prohibit or restrict strikes by employees of the State and its political subdivisions. The legislature’s exercise of its power to enact laws relative to the hours and conditions of employment shall not abridge, impair or limit the right to collectively bargain for wages, hours and other terms and conditions of employment that exceed minimum levels established by the legislature."
Friday October 19, 2012 12:53 Patrick Wright
12:53
John Armelagos: 
The original Chuck is right.
Friday October 19, 2012 12:53 John Armelagos
12:53
[Comment From JohnnyJohnny: ] 
@ John, well said, and meanwhile, corporate profits are at an all time high
Friday October 19, 2012 12:53 Johnny
12:54
Jared Rodriguez: 
Hi Chuck- the Bay City contract states on page 87 that it cannot overrule PA 103 of 2011. You're absolutely right. The contract also states that if PA 103 is ever overturned then those dangerous provisions will immediately go back into effect.

The dangerous thing is that according to the MEA, Proposal 2 would "immediately" overturn PA 103.
Friday October 19, 2012 12:54 Jared Rodriguez
12:54
Dave Murray: 
John, in your work experience, can you tell us about something that you sought in bargaining that was denied by a state law?
Friday October 19, 2012 12:54 Dave Murray
12:55
John Armelagos: 
Jared, let's not cloud the issue here. Collective bargaining is about teachers being able to negotiate for the tools, training and class sizes to improve education. Nurses negotiate to keep patients safe. First responders for the right gear and staffing. It benefits all of us.
Friday October 19, 2012 12:55 John Armelagos
12:55
[Comment From JeanineJeanine: ] 
Jared's comments represent the kind of disdain for teachers that Lansing politicians infuse their legislation with. It is sad. Why do we hate the people we trust our kids with all day? It's the administrators who are responsible for using the discipline process that already exists to get rid of bad teachers. Too many administrators are not doing their jobs to weed out the few bad apples. The majority of teachers are good, hard-working professionals.
Friday October 19, 2012 12:55 Jeanine
12:55
[Comment From SteveSteve: ] 
I guess I really don't understand why anyone has an issue with Prop 2 passing. I'm guessing that many people don't have clue how a contract works. Last I knew, when a local education association sits down at the table with the superintendent, the two sides discuss and bargain for various topics. THEN it has to be ratified by the Board of Education, AKA elected community members AKA taxpaying citizens.
Friday October 19, 2012 12:55 Steve
12:56
[Comment From WilliamWilliam: ] 
Even if something crazy is put into a contract, aren't both sides at fault. What school district would agree to that kind of discipline scale? I don't know if I can believe the anti prop 2 group. I'm not union, nor from a union family, but I had union teachers. They did a fine job, and none of them showed up drunk or anything. It just seems like the anti prop 2 group is trying to tear down working folks. Teachers do tough work, and I don't think they need to be constantly thrown under the bus.
Friday October 19, 2012 12:56 William
12:56
[Comment From larrylarry: ] 
Dave, I cannot think of anything that was denied by a state law. YET !
Friday October 19, 2012 12:56 larry
12:56
[Comment From JoelJoel: ] 
Dave, the issue here isn't something denied by state law, its PROTECTING COLLECTIVE BARGAINING, the PROCESS itself.
Friday October 19, 2012 12:56 Joel
12:56
John Armelagos: 
Thanks Dave-patient safety is what we bargain about every day. Without collective bargaining, we have no voice to advocate for care. It provides us an organized voice.
Friday October 19, 2012 12:56 John Armelagos
12:56
Jared Rodriguez: 
Hi William. I don't understand how those provisions made their way into the contract either. They are horrible. But there they are. Dave posted the link... take a look for yourself.
Friday October 19, 2012 12:56 Jared Rodriguez
12:56
[Comment From Rick MeethRick Meeth: ] 
Opponents of Prop 2 should be concerned that 170 laws have been passed restricting collective bargainng
Friday October 19, 2012 12:56 Rick Meeth
12:57
[Comment From Jessica FowlerJessica Fowler: ] 
Exactly, Steve. If dangerous provisions are being included in a contract as a result of collective bargaining, it is done so with the blessing of the NON UNION negotiators involved, such as superintendents.
Friday October 19, 2012 12:57 Jessica Fowler
12:57
[Comment From JohnnyJohnny: ] 
I can...... health insurance co-pay percentages, evaluation language MY school district finds valuable, layoff and recall procedures
Friday October 19, 2012 12:57 Johnny
12:57
Dave Murray: 
But, John, is the assumption that your employer doesn't care about patient safety?
Friday October 19, 2012 12:57 Dave Murray
12:58
John Armelagos: 
Nurses know best how to provide care to patients. That decision doesn't belong in the hands of a non-clinician bean counter
Friday October 19, 2012 12:58 John Armelagos
12:59
Jen Eyer | MLive.com: 
OK, folks. We're about to wrap up here. A final word from each panelist...
Friday October 19, 2012 12:59 Jen Eyer | MLive.com
12:59
[Comment From RyanRyan: ] 
All hospitals care about quality of care..... It is just second to profibility. Quality of care should be top priority
Friday October 19, 2012 12:59 Ryan
12:59
[Comment From nancynancy: ] 
It all comes down to profit and everything run as a business with the mindset of increasing that profit over everything else. The rich get richer and the middle class goes away.
Friday October 19, 2012 12:59 nancy
12:59
Jared Rodriguez: 
Thanks everyone for the great chat. Again, we believe Proposal 2 is dangerous and goes too far, threatening over 170 laws that taxpayers and parents count on to keep their kids safe at school. It will also cost taxpayers $1.6 billion a year.

Please vote NO on Proposal 2.
Friday October 19, 2012 12:59 Jared Rodriguez
1:00
Jared Rodriguez: 
And John, thank you for the work you do at the hospital.
Friday October 19, 2012 1:00 Jared Rodriguez
1:00
John Armelagos: 
Appreciate MLIVE putting this together and all the good questions out there from participants. Voting Yes on 2 will protect collective bargaining. Voting no on 2 will eliminate it. Nurses, firefighters, police officers are able to keep people safe because of cb. We need to protect it. Vote Yes!
Friday October 19, 2012 1:00 John Armelagos
1:00
Dave Murray: 
Thank you to John and Jared for taking time to field questions today. It's not easy keeping up with the volume of questions. Their time is appreciated!
Friday October 19, 2012 1:00 Dave Murray
1:00
Jared Rodriguez: 
Remember folks, collective bargaining is already protected under state and federal law. Lets keep Michigan moving forward and not roll back these important laws for our kids. NO on 2!
Friday October 19, 2012 1:00 Jared Rodriguez
1:01
Jen Eyer | MLive.com: 
Thanks to you both. We're closing the chat now, but please feel free to continue the conversation in the comments section below!
Friday October 19, 2012 1:01 Jen Eyer | MLive.com
1:01
 

 
 
Powered by google translate
English  English
简体中文  简体中文
Dansk  Dansk
Deutsch  Deutsch
Español  Español
Français  Français
Italiano  Italiano
日本語  日本語
日本語  한국어
Nederlands  Nederlands
Norsk  Norsk
Português  Português
Русский  Русский
Svenska  Svenska
Close