This landed in The Enterprise in-box today:
The Farmington Hills Firefighters Association is pleased to announce our endorsement of Vicki Barnett for State Representative.
Given the aging population within Michigan, increasing number of emergencies fire departments and law enforcement agencies are responding to, recent emphasis on emergency preparedness, and current economic conditions, achieving the delicate balance between providing first-rate emergency services and operating with fiscal responsibility represents a continual challenge to those who govern at the local and state levels.
During Vicki Barnett’s 12 years on the Farmington Hills City Council, including four years as Mayor, she was instrumental in the initial passage and subsequent renewal of the Public Safety Millage that built Fire Station 5, hired additional firefighter / paramedics and police officers, and upgraded emergency equipment. She was also an early advocate for the highly successful Advanced Life Support program that recently celebrated its 10th anniversary and has worked tirelessly with federal, state and local officials to improve radio communication between Oakland County fire departments and law enforcement agencies.
As a past President of the Michigan Municipal League and someone who has held numerous leadership positions within organizations such as the National League of Cities and Southeast Michigan Council of Governments, Vicki Barnett has firmly established herself as a proven leader capable of working in a bipartisan manner, building consensus and seeing projects through to completion. Her steadfast commitment to local governments maintaining authority over local issues and frequent testimony before the State Legislature have benefited many communities throughout the region and this was further demonstrated in 2007 when Crain’s Detroit Business named her one of Metro Detroit’s most influential women.
Such experience and professional qualities, combined with the expertise she possesses as a financial advisor and the emphasis she has always placed on issues such as crime prevention, creating good paying jobs, encouraging entrepreneurship, strengthening our schools, ensuring affordable health care and improving the overall quality of life for families, all contribute to her being the candidate we feel would best serve our community in Lansing.
As always, we’re thankful for the trust you place in us and encourage you to join our firefighter / paramedics in supporting Vicki Barnett on November 4th.
James M. Etzin
Farmington Hills Firefighters Association
My significant other and I have been making fun of the campaign signs we see like: Firefighters for Obama or Veterans for McCain. As if firefighters or veterans are a homogenous group of individuals suffering from group-think. Perhaps more accurate signs would say “I’m a firefighter for Obama” or “I’m a veteran for McCain”, but then why should I care about your profession or affiliation in regards to who you believe should be president? I guess it warns me which special interest groups expect to benefit.
Enough commenting. I have a question. When the Farmington Hills Firefighters Association endorses Vicki Barnett, do they take a vote of their members or is it the executive committee that makes the decision?
Gee! Mr. Sutton, it might be embarrassing to get the right answer on your question. The unions like to supply(recommend) to the COMMON workers the proper choice for them to spend away their vote.
This is because the COMMON worker is not intelligent enough or thoughtfull enough (as is the executive committee) to make these important decisions for the country. It is unfortunate that the COMMON workers dues goes to this type of folly without which they have no voice. Kind of an intergroup fascism.
Well, rather than speculate, I’ll ask.
Based on the letter to the editor in today’s Observer, it would appear that not all members of FHFA support Barnett.
Also, another letter attacks Welday for negative campaigning because he points out Barnett received the endorsement from the Socialist Party of Michigan. Is that really negative campaigning to point out something like that?
It took some courage for those two members to speak out. I wish more people would do that, instead of just grumbling about the decisions with which they do not agree or being afraid of the consequences they imagine. Not enough people speak out – although I think as a society, we’re getting better about it.
As for negative campaigning… Welday has yet to run an ad or appear at an event without making the majority of his discussion about his opponent. He used the words “my opponent” even in the few minutes SWOCC Studios provided every candidate. I’ve watched those pieces every election for at least the past six years, I’ve never seen a candidate do that. He’s spending hundreds of campaign dollars on an out-of-state company whose sole purpose is apparently to point out that Vicki is endorsed by a Socialist organization. He spent I’m sure almost $1,000 on a full-page Observer ad in today’s paper to point out the differences between himself and Vicki, and included this endorsements (along with the :::gasp::: Michigan Gay Pride PAC). If he doesn’t think the endorsement is a problem, why is he going to such lengths to point it out?
Candidates have to make a distinction between themselves and their opponents. But when your campaign message is “vote for me, because she’s responsible for your misery” or “just look at who’s supporting her”, that’s negative campaigning.
I’ve heard Welday’s ideas for change: move to a part-time legislature, enact Granholm’s prison reforms, cut state employee pay, do an audit. What I haven’t heard is how he plans to work across the aisle with other legislators, after he’s spent his entire campaign blaming Democrats for all of Michigan’s problems.
Once again Mr. Sutton, you have brought about some good observations. It is sad that members of a union have to individually speak out because the executive committee is the offical voice of the worker. The union does not have to support anyone, but, this is Michigan(what is left of it) and the worker dues are taken and as Obama would say, the wealth is spread to the poor politicians campaign.
Mr. Welday exposing the Socialist parties endorsement and coming out party is legitimate. I failed to see that on any of Ms. Barnett’s literature as part of her endorsements Why?.
As for Mr. Weldays ideas of a part-time legislature, prison reform(even the Govs) and pay cuts, sounds like some cost cutting ideas. Now, whether he spent $1,000 dollars on the newpaper ad, well, rather than speculate, we should wait and find out from his campaign report.
Mr. Welday hasn’t included all of his endorsements, either. I haven’t seen any mention of his nod from the National Rifle Association, for instance.
He does still include on his Web site an endorsement from a woman who has said repeatedly that she never intended to endorse him and has, with her husband, contributed money to the Barnett campaign. And the Vagnozzi campaign before her. And the Farmington Democratic Club, for pete’s sake.
It’s a shame when an individual’s endorsement isn’t properly represented, isn’t it?
A few quick points on this topic. Welday vigorously sought the endorsement of many of the same labor organizations as Barnett. Both he and Vicki interviewed with the Farmington Police Officers Association, the Farmington Hills Fire Fighters Association and the Farmington/Michigan Education Association, among others. It was only after Paul did not receive their endorsements that they suddenly became “special interest” bogeymen to him.
Vicki has a long history of public safety and homeland security service that has benefited our “first responders” (and the community at large) in many ways over the years. For example, she is a recognized expert in interoperable radio communications to ensure that different jurisdictions can speak to each other in a major emergency; she has continued to fight (without pay) to ensure that the FCC reserves a portion of the radio spectrum for police, fire and other emergency personnel; and she currently serves on a Department of Homeland Security national committee that addresses these kinds of issues.
As far as the general comments about unions, readers should know that no worker in Michigan who is in a bargaining unit represented by a union is compelled to pay union dues for anything but the costs of representing members and nonmembers in collective bargaining, grievance arbitration and similar activities. No worker can be required to contribute to a union’s political activities, for example, and unions are required to inform workers of these rights. In fact, in the public sector in Michigan, no employee can be forced to join a union as a condition of employment.
Unions are incredibly democratic institutions. Their officers must stand for election at least every three years and the Department of Labor strictly enforces rules to ensure fair campaigns. Every penny a union spends must be publicly reported to its members and the public, and there are strict rules against accepting gifts from employers, vendors and anyone else. Corporate democracy is a farce in comparison to the accountability if union officers to their members.
I suppose I should add that without unions, we would not have social security, minimum wage and overtime laws, pension protection laws and very probably our civil rights laws. Heck, we wouldn’t have a middle class as we know it, or at least as we used to know it before the weakening of American unions over the last 30 years or so….
Joni,
Did you ever find out more information in regards to Steve’s thoughts.
In regards to Mark S. comment. Did I read that right? People can not forced to join a union in MI? I have some friends that would like a copy of that MI law. I can think of a few that have to pay to a union and would like to save the dues.
I e-mailed and offered a chance to respond to the question about how their decision was made – haven’t heard anything.
Here’s a link to an article from the Mackinac Center for Public Policy that explains that you can work in a bargaining unit represented by a union and not be a member of the union:
http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=8293
I don’t think there’d be much of a cost savings, though – employees still have to pay their share of the bargaining costs…
Hilary, the statement I made referred to the PUBLIC sector in Michigan. The same is true regarding the Mackinac Center link. But in the private sector, federal law permits a union and management to voluntarily agree to a no-free-riders provision in their collective bargaining agreement, if state law permits this (which Michigan and all Great Lakes states do).
If your friends are in the public sector, if they leave their union, they will still have to pay for the cost of collective bargaining, grievance/arbitration handling and other union representational activities. These expenses are typically 90-100% of a union’s expenses, so your friends would save very little, if anything. Further, they would lose any right to vote on approving or rejecting a collective bargaining agreement, to vote in elections of union officers or to have any voice or vote in the running of the union, since these are all democratic rights of membership.
Bob and Joni,
Thanks for the info.