House Bill 4059 (HB 4059) is a controversial bill that, if passed, will limit how much union business can be conducted while workers are on the clock. Below is Calhoun County Deputy Sheriff’s Association President Jonathan Pignataro’s letter to Michigan State Senators and Representatives. He writes about his general concerns regarding how the passage of HB 4059 would hurt law enforcement agencies across the state and gives specific examples as to why it should not be passed. Please take the time to read his letter and let us know what you think in the comment section at the bottom of the page.
To All Michigan Senators and Representatives:
As the President of the Calhoun County Deputy Sheriff’s Association, I am sending you this correspondence to convey our oppositions to House Bill 4059. I respectfully request that you consider amending this legislation to exclude Section 10(f), which would not allow union members, even if mutually agreed upon with the employer, to conduct union business while on duty.
I would presume that all would agree that public safety is vitally important to the health, future, security, and overall appeal to the great State of Michigan. In order for our State to continue offering a safe refuge to our citizens, visitors, tourists, and businesses it is imperative that our public safety forces operate in efficient and effective manners.
According to a Legislative Analysis completed in March 2011, there is no definitive declaration in this analysis which would identify any significant cost savings from House Bill 4059. The issue of Union release time is a localized issue and clearly varies from locale to locale. A few questions come to mind.
I query why the State must be involved in the bargaining process at the localized level? Issues from one locale may be non-issues to other locales. Issues such as union release time should be left up to those individuals whom are directly affected (the local administration and local bargaining unit).
How is this bill expected to save the State money? Based upon the Fiscal Agency’s own legislative analysis there clearly is no mention of how this bill monetarily benefits law enforcement administrations, the State of Michigan, or any other governmental entity.
I would like to point out that school districts and their employees in particular have challenging and unique operations to effectively and efficiently provide their services to our State’s developing youth. They are tasked with a tremendous responsibility. I would further purport that our State’s law enforcement agencies also have unique operations of their own. They too are tasked with tremendous responsibilities. Similar to School Districts, each law enforcement agency operates in a manner that may or may not be congruent with how another agency operates. Some things that work at one place may not work at another. To unilaterally dictate how the hundreds of governmental entities in this state operate with their local labor units is unrealistic.
Police Officers routinely face a myriad of critical incidents, on the spot decisions, and a tremendous amount of civil and criminal liability. For these reasons amongst others it is imperative that these officers be afforded an ample opportunity to consult with their local union leaders while still providing their very important services to the public. To implement legislation that prohibits officers (especially officers involved in critical incidents) from seeking immediate guidance, support, assistance, and/or representation from their local union leaders is frankly offensive to the entire profession.
Officers are required and expected to be available in emergency situations. When labor issues arise at 7 p.m. on a Wednesday, 3 a.m. on a Sunday, or even 5 p.m. on a Friday they currently can be handled immediately between employees and management without delay. This potentially could save an unprecedented amount of time and money in costly arbitrations.
I can speak first hand that when handling labor issues a rapport and dialogue must often be established with the management side. To require union officials and managements to conduct business other than “on the spot” or on duty would only disintegrate and hinder any such dialogue or rapport many groups may have with their management. It is in management’s favor to have union officials available 24 hours a day 7 days a week to readily address, discuss, and resolve labor issues.
Speaking from a localized level, our labor contract has specific language mutually agreed upon between management and labor specifying that our labor unit’s “Chief Steward be assigned to the first shift”. This is beneficial as this individual is not only able to provide the public service required of him/her but also this individual is readily available as the Chief Steward to resolve, discuss, or otherwise handle any pending disputes. I believe this language to be beneficial to both sides and the exclusion of it would have and an adverse effect on any pre-established dialogue between our management and labor unit.
Furthermore, officers who are involved in unfortunate critical incidents such as shootings, assaults upon an officer, car accidents or high stress/psychologically intensive situations need to be afforded immediate representation from their union leaders. The very important fact that is often overlooked is that the union representative often times plays a dual role while attending to these incidents. The union representative while on duty is still able to afford officers union representation while simultaneously being available to quickly switch his/her role back to a “police officer” if needed. These types of incidents are unique to law enforcement and must be appreciated. House Bill 4059 would have a significant and detrimental effect upon our officer’s psyche if it were known that they could not be afforded these vital services immediately.
I am respectfully requesting that you implement an exemption to House Bill 4059 for the use of negotiated release time for union officials in any law enforcement agency that is a 24-hour operation. Please recognize and appreciate the uniqueness of our profession and do not hesitate to consult with police administrators and/or local union leaders in your jurisdictions. I urge you to support your local police officers, chiefs, deputies, and sheriffs by allowing management and labor to continue to negotiate their own contracts in their locales. These are the individuals who will be able to attest firsthand how best to operate.
Respectfully,
Jonathan Pignataro President Calhoun County Deputy Sheriff’s Association 161 E. Michigan Avenue Battle Creek, MI 49014
