QUESTION of the Day): Gov. Gretchen Whitmer has ordered that contractors on state projects must pay union rates (higher than they would be otherwise) for state construction projects, in a move that would override part of the Republican-controlled Legislature’s 2018 repeal of Michigan’s “prevailing wage” law. Whitmer said: “By reinstating prevailing wage, we are ensuring that working people get treated with dignity and respect, which starts with a fair wage.” Does she truly have the power to do this? To anybody who has followed this issue over the last half-century — and that doesn’t include anybody in journalism writing about it today — this is a big deal, not just on a policy basis (after all, taxpayers are paying for “prevailing” wages) but because of the clash between the executive and legislative branches of state government. Whitmer has “pushed the envelope” again in asserting executive authority to do what she wants to when the Legislature does not agree with her. This is like former President Barack Obama freeing the “Dreamers” by executive order when he couldn’t get Congress (controlled by Democrats) to implement immigration reform. Problem is, what Obama and Whitmer did is not statutory law, and it can be easily rescinded (as Obama’s order was by Donald Trump) when another chief executive with different ideas assumes office. Predictably, legislative Republicans were outraged by Whitmer’s action, and so were non-union building contractors who launched the successful petition drive that resulted in the repeal of the state’s longtime prevailing wage statute, enacted by Democrats “back in the day” when they (gasp!) had control of the state Senate and House of Representatives. So, how significant is what Whitmer did? Does it really matter? If so, to whom? And why hasn’t the Michigan media done a better job of putting the issue in historical context and explaining it to the citizenry?
The Management & Budget Act gives MDMB and the State Administrative Board wide discretion in the awarding of contracts that are “in the best interest of the state.” It’s difficult to find a Republican on the Whitmer-dominated State Administrative Board.
The question at this point is: what PERCENTAGE, roughly, of all the work that was covered under the old, invalidated prevailing wage law has now been put “back in play” (reinstituted) by Whitmer’s action? 10% ? 30%? More?
And when non-union contractors challenge Whitmer’s action in court, which they have promised to do, are they likely to get Whitmer’s executive directive invalidated? Probably not. It’s doubtful the state Supreme Court (now controlled by pro-Whitmer Democrats) has four votes to invalidate the discretion given in the Management & Budget Act in the awarding of state contracts. It’s hard to estimate what percentage of prevailing wage is “back in play” with the Governor’s executive directive and subsequent action in the near future by the State Administrative Board and DMB. Some cynics posit that repeal done by statutory initiative during the Gov. Rick Snyder Administration was somewhat cosmetic. It gave non-union contractors a public policy win that their membership had sought for many decades, but did any union contractors go out of business? Today’s news media — obsessed with the “Who’s up? Who’s down? Who’s winning? Who’s losing? aspect of the ongoing polarized political wars — have focused only on their belief that Whitmer’s decree was done mainly to shore up union enthusiasm for the Governor’s re-election campaign, given her opposition to the construction of Line 5 in the Straits of Mackinac, an issue on which she differs sharply with organized labor.
But, of course, today’s journalists have little knowledge of Michigan political history, and seemingly no curiosity about it. As a result, the Michigan electorate increasingly finds itself asking: Just what life experience have these journalists really had? Yes, they may have been good students at some fairly good schools, but have they served in the military, owned a business, made command decisions, met a payroll, or produced anything of value other than the assembly of words? No. Yet their readers are supposed to respect them and their opinions. Whose footsteps into battle, political or economic, have they followed?
If you act like you own the place, people will think that you do.
But is this a new phenomenon, Bill? The lack of historical context in reporting anywhere today. I wonder if things will get any better with the slow demise of print media outlets.
Another point. I propose a rule for all reporting of news, as opposed to the op-Ed persons. No news article can have more than 1 adjective and one adverb per. It is brought on by having to sift through the sand slide of those “parts of speech” which both juice up interest in a story and destroy objectivity.
Well said.
Part of the problem is that our George Romney inspired Constitution of 1963 was, and is, a strong governor constitution as we have seen Govs. Engler, Snyder and Whitmer using executive actions to enhance executive power. And you are right. The State Supreme Court as currently constituted will not rein in a Governor Whitmer as readily as they would rein in a Gov. Schuette.
But an even bigger part of the problem is that the media bosses really don’t care. Newspapers are shells of their former selves and they don’t expend the capital (hiring enough staff) to cover it. When there is not enough of you to do all you need to do, you cut corners as we see happening now. Reporting is as you described it. Noting who is winning, losing, up or down is just a whole lot easier. This is why political reporting spends way too much time on polls that increasingly less accurate (the MOEs seem to be getting larger each year).
TV stations are in a stronger position, but they only cover state government when there is a problem or crisis. If it bleeds it leads, and many of the reporters look at their time in a local TV market as just passing through until they get a better paying gig or get purged in budget move from the stations. As an example, it is easy to pick on crappy roads, bridges, dams and the like, but it takes lots of time – including TV air time – to explain why they are in such disrepair. That would take lots of time, talking, use of charts and sound like a civics lesson from high school. And it would force uncomfortable discussions on tax rates, types of taxes and how that money is divvied up and spent.
Another excellent example is No-Fault “reform” (hint, I think changing our no-fault was a mistake). A great hue and cry over its cost rose up prior to No-Fault “reform”, but little discussion on what would be lost except for complaints from the late Brooks Patterson and the occasional story about an accident victim who did not get stuck in a nursing home. Little discussion that is until the rehab places that treated the injured started closing. We seem to be shocked that extensive rehabilitation is expensive. Now there are a few stories about this as TV has discovered these accident victims were really people and not just a statistic. Better and more in-depth coverage PRIOR to reform may have led to a more informed decision by the legislature and governor. It seems that people have forgotten that Dan Gilbert wanted to fund a petition drive to change No-Fault and the fear in Lansing that they could not write the rules led both the legislature and governor to give us what we now have.
But I have gone off a bit of a tangent here. What the prevailing wage issue should result in is the media actually devoting time and resources to the issue. What is the prevailing wage? (Hint, I support the prevailing wage, and as much as it pains me to say this, Snyder was right on preserving it). What are the long-term and short-term costs and benefits? Does eliminating it hurt recruitment for skilled tradesman? Does it benefit or hurt the state? Does it hurt or benefits workers? Does it eviscerate corporate profits or just trim them a bit? How partisan is the state Supreme Court? Are the politicians (including the Justices) just shills for their respective interests on this issue? What is the ultimate limit (if any) on executive authority? What can the legislature actually do in a strong governor constitution? And ultimately, is this the government we want?
In short, this is an opportunity with an election year coming up for the media and educate and inform the electorate on just exactly who and what our politicians are instead of providing click bait. I want to see the former but fear I will get stuck with the latter.
Well said to you also. Current “main stream media” is a shell of its former self. The internet has splintered the sources of information so that few outlets have the resources to do an effective job of investigating in depth and then informing the public. Newspapers and television discovered that their best method of acquiring readers/viewership with limited resources is to be minimalist in their approach to information. And when people move away from MSM, they tend to go from the frying pan into the fire, and find a source that tells them what they want to hear and appeals to a sense of outrage even if the “facts” are manufactured..Of course, when you have been around as long as Bill has and had first hand access to the handling of public issues, few reporters would have the background to keep up in Bill’s perspective even in the best of media times…
Excellent analysis! Thank-you!