PENSION & OPEB REFORM BILLS INTRODUCED
Via: Kenneth E. Grabowski, Legislative Director
Senate Bills 686-701 were introduced today and we expect the same bills to be introduced in the house later today. You can read the senate bills here. Additionally, we have linked each proposed bill at the bottom of this post.
We are continuing to engage and work on this issue. Let me be clear, there is NO CURRENT AGREEMENT on this proposal. While we are carefully reviewing the legislation, we have not taking any formal position and are in regular communication with legislative leaders about protecting our core principles.
Please continue to contact your state representative and state senator and ask them to support our core principles:
- Maintaining our ability to collectively bargain
- Protecting the benefits that have been promised
You can find the contact information for your State Representative Here and your State Senator Here
Be sure to follow POAM on Facebook, Twitter for updates.
24 responses to “Urgent Update: PENSION & OPEB REFORM BILLS INTRODUCED”
Posted by Kevin Rizzo
My question is for POAM:
Is this union still going to endorse Republicans — as has been the past practice?
I don’t understand why just because a few POAM lawyers are devoted Republicans, the entire union has to follow, and endorse criminals like Snyder. (Yes, you endorsed Snyder!)
Posted on December 6, 2017 at 12:47 PM
Posted by Melissa
Is it true that you guys contacted Tom Leonard to help work with you guys on this bill??? Is it true he contacted Snyder and worked hard and says he will continue to work with our Unions to get this worked out???
Posted on December 4, 2017 at 7:02 PM
Posted by Terrence Rooney
What happens to the retirees who also retired from the military? They are eligible for TRICARE. Would this also be considered an another employer provided healthcare, therefore eliminating the municipalities obligation to continue to provide health insurance?
What about all of the switches on “shall” to “must” Previously the use of the word”shall” meant there was no question about it-you had to comply, period! Will “must” have the same weight?
The ability of these commissions to avoid open meetings is also very telling!
Posted on December 4, 2017 at 10:19 AM
Posted by Craig Bell
I assume POAM will be jumping over the Governor’s desk when this passes. After all, it is up to him to sign it into law. We all know most of our elected officials are a bunch of liars but how can the Governor accept the task force recommendations and then turn around a year later and sign this into law. I think it would go a long way for the republican party (my former party) to veto this nightmare legislation.
Posted on December 2, 2017 at 10:23 PM
Posted by Michael Takala
I have been with the Inkster Police department for going on 21 completed years. Between 11/20/2011 & June 30th 2012 we went from around 74 sworn and civilian employees down to 19 at some point including the Chief. Its been bad enough with the level of stress we have been under but I have undoubtedly taken years off my life just working my tail off to raise my FAC. In my nearly 21 years I have broken an ankle, torn an ACL, have damaged discs in my back, scar tissue between my shoulder blades, was in a hell of a car accident in 2011, shot in the foot, ankle & shin and stabbed in the head with an ice pick (those are only the major ones). I do not have enough left in me to go on and get another pension and its sad at the end of the game they wanna change the rules for not only people like me but the people that have come and gone before me. I am done with the republican party in this state, shame on all of you that support any of these measures.
Posted on December 2, 2017 at 2:56 AM
Posted by Mark Zacks
Sure gut the retiree health care, and make it even more difficult to hire and maintain quality Officers. I am so confused. Does the State not see that many City’s are run differently. Do they not understand that some of us are not even eligible for Social Security due to self funded pension plans.
Even more ironic once again a carve out for State Employees. Go figure.
Posted on December 1, 2017 at 7:40 PM
Posted by Bryan Gee
Could the poam please provide a summary of the proposed bills for its membership ?
Posted on December 1, 2017 at 6:58 PM
Posted by POAM
Our summary is that we cannot support them. In all seriousness, we have attached all 16 of them for you guys. We know that it’s a lot of reading, the but overall idea is that the bills go against the Task Force recommendations.
Posted on December 1, 2017 at 9:58 PM
Posted by William Duncan
Don’t forget Harry, Snyder is the S.O.B. that taxed our retirement check. He’s in it up to his eyeballs. Just my opinion. Haven’t offered this opinion before.
Posted on December 1, 2017 at 5:15 PM
Posted by David Smith
The news was reporting that legislators were close to an agreement with union representatives that would preserve OPEM benefits of public safety employees…… what happened?
Posted on December 1, 2017 at 2:30 PM
Posted by POAM
Politics.
Posted on December 1, 2017 at 9:59 PM
Posted by Tim Pennington
We were promised compensation in the form of pensions and health care for delivery of our services. We provided the services and now they want to take our compensation. The politicians are the ones who created all of these problems. The politicians were elected by all of the citizens not just Police Officers and Fire Fighters. This problem should fall on all of the citizens of the state not just us. Funny every time money is needed it falls solely on our backs in the form of a tax. Has anyone reminded these elected officials that most of us are not going to collect social security and our pensions are all we have. Lastly if the cities are doing badly that means the state must be also. Are these elected state officials going to include themselves in these pension reforms then?
Posted on December 1, 2017 at 1:45 PM
Posted by Ann Pridemore
These few elected representatives are trying to hide the most damaging bill, effecting retiree healthcare, in a flurry of bills, many of which change minimal wording on existing law. Their theory? You don’t see one snowflake in a storm. Why don’t they expend their efforts on eliminating GPO and WEP at a national level, instead of creating an undue hardship on a majority of police/fire retirees making a minimal retirement, and who will now be forced to pay more out of pocket for healthcare? Because it’s easier to target the vulnerable. Thank you, POAM, for standing on top of this.
Posted on December 1, 2017 at 9:59 AM
Posted by Paula Smith
This Governor is liar and should be in jail over the flint water issue. Sadly, POAM supported and him in the election.
Posted on December 1, 2017 at 8:12 AM
Posted by POAM
Thanks for your comment, Paula.
Posted on December 1, 2017 at 10:01 PM
Posted by Fred
Any chance we could get a condensed version of these in layman’s terms.? I am trying to understand how bad they are trying to screw is
Posted on December 1, 2017 at 2:26 AM
Posted by POAM
Our major summary is that we cannot support them. In all seriousness, we have attached all 16 of them for you guys. We know that it’s a lot of reading, the but overall idea is that the bills go against the Task Force recommendations and we are against them.
Posted on December 1, 2017 at 10:02 PM
Posted by Glenn Stewart
I love how our republican legislators are claiming these bills are meant to protect retiree pensions and health benefits. What a snow job. They aren’t looking out for us, all they care about is appeasing the money machine who backs their political careers. I bet we all know who that money machine is?
Historically, most public safety unions have backed the republican party as they used to be our “Friends.” Over the last few years, they certainly haven’t shown it! If these bills are passed, I will no longer support the Republican party, and I hope others would consider this too.
Lastly, be safe all my brothers and sister and watch out for one another, because nobody else will!
Posted on December 1, 2017 at 1:52 AM
Posted by Jake VanWormer
Can anybody tell us in plain English what all this really means?? I have a hunch it means us retirees are about to get screwed. I know it will vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but we’ve planned the rest of our lives based on these earned benefits and now they’re trying to change the rules in the middle of the game???
Posted on November 30, 2017 at 11:22 PM
Posted by Dale Hill ( retired from The City of Burton P.D.)
It wasnt enough, that for nearly 23 years I had to worry every day about getting my butt blown off, or getting killed while at a crash scene, or catching some deadly disease…..nope….I played by all the rules…bought my time to get my pension and benefits
then thought I was all set…..now I have to worry about some…meat head…..pencil pushing politician …to take away what I literally bled for….These ..creeps should be forced to ride along with a Police Officer for a few weeks…then see if they still want to screw us!
Posted on November 30, 2017 at 10:33 PM
Posted by Duane Ratliff
After reading these bills, in 686, on page 7 section 4 (1), that paragraph is intentionally ambiguous. It appears the State is attempting to erase the previous contracts that cities have been honoring as it pertains to current retiree healthcare? This is a direct contradiction that the various Reps. ie. Albert & Lower have stated in a televised interview yesterday. I’m not to naïve to believe politicians would say something that was not factual, but do they realize the title of the bill is
Sec. 1. This act shall be known and may be cited as the
“protecting local government retirement and benefits act”?
they are not protecting current or future retirees! But they would like the public to believe they are preserving benefits!
Posted on November 30, 2017 at 9:44 PM
Posted by Harry Valentine
One bill wasn’t enough. Funny the Governor knew nothing, the Republicans knew nothing. Then all at once 16 Bills to gut our earned benefit.
Posted on November 30, 2017 at 9:38 PM
Posted by Michael Milka
I attended the rally yesterday and have contacted my district representatives. If possible can you please clarify your position. Are we still pushing for the task force recommendations to be adhered to ? In the posting it states the POAM has not taken a formal position on the just released legislation.
Posted on November 30, 2017 at 8:55 PM
Posted by POAM
Yes, we are still pushing for the Task Force Recommendations to be adhered to. As the proposed bills read right now, we do not support them as they go against our once agreed-upon recommendations.
Posted on December 1, 2017 at 10:03 PM