This message arrived by e-mail for President Garrett, and is typical of several he has received on the same subject.

Thank you for sharing your concerns with us. 

We fully understand the discomfort you feel at the idea of a Union dues increase.  You are not alone in your sense that this is not a good time for an increase.  In fact, we have requested that International President Gerald W. McEntee consider some measure of relief for Michigan members and Local Unions that have not received pay increases. 

As you know, the new dues structure was adopted by the AFSCME International Convention, by vote of the delegates.  It is therefore beyond the scope of our offices as Council 25 President and Secretary-Treasurer to rescind or postpone the dues increase.  Since the new structure as adopted by the delegates does not contain a specific provision for “hardship” exceptions, we are relatively certain that President McEntee will not be able to arrange anything of the sort for Michigan.

At the next Council 25 Constitutional Convention in October 2009, we will report on the progress of the Michigan Dues Study Committee, which is developing a progressive dues system that will include consideration of each member's ability to pay.  I hope to present language at a subsequent Convention which will comply with the International Constitution and provide relief for Michigan members at the same time.  However, this proposal will be subject to adoption or rejection by the delegates, and it will be crucial to have your support at that convention.

Let’s consider the other side of the coin.  Our nation is in the midst of a serious recession.  Michigan is the hardest-hit state, and might be said to be in a depression, if the economists were willing to use the word.  The news has been replete with the woes of the auto industry.  Here in Michigan, we know the economy rises and falls with the auto industry.  Should one or more automakers go bankrupt, or should all three exact significant concessions from their workers, this will have a dramatic impact on the state economy.  Fewer jobs, fewer working families paying taxes, more demand for services (unemployment, Medicaid, etc.) all add up to fewer tax dollars to support public services at all levels.  The only question is how soon the “ripple effect” will hit the funding for any given public employer.

Some of us remember very clearly when the workers at Chrysler made concessions back around 1980: public employers almost immediately began seeking concessions from us as well - even when their budgets were sound!  We can anticipate pressure for concessions, threats of layoffs (or actual layoffs), and increasing pressure to privatize services.  The conservative pundits and the Mackinac Center will be howling for our jobs!

Times like this are when we need our Union most.  We depend on our Union as our united voice, to fight back against privatization, to protect our jobs, our incomes, and our families.  Our Union is like health insurance for our job, and dues are the premiums that buy the insurance.  We all know health insurance is not cheap, but we all know we need it, and that’s no joke.  We also know the cost of health insurance can be lowered by reducing benefits and increasing copays and out of pocket expenses.  “Catastrophic” coverage only is cheaper than comprehensive coverage, but when the comprehensive coverage isn’t there, a cold can turn into pneumonia, untreated high blood pressure can lead to a stroke, untreated diabetes can lead to blindness and other complications . . . we all know about these health threats.

The same dynamic applies to our Union: If we underfund our Union in order to keep dues down, services suffer.  Legal and arbitration services are a big chunk of the Council 25 budget.  We could save that money if we didn’t provide legal and arbitration services, but we don’t want that, and neither do you.  That’s the cold that could quickly turn into pneumonia!  If we cut back field staff and field services, we could also save money - but you could find yourself without the resources and expertise of your staff representative when you need him/her. 

Is it better to make the small sacrifice of paying a dues increase to maintain Union services, or to accomplish that small savings by slashing Union services?  How long would it be “safe” to be without health care during an epidemic?

We feel the pain of your plight and concern.  We are doing what we can to seek a solution, now and in the future, and we need your continued support.

Albert Garrett                          Lawrence A. Roehrig