Making Michigan Right-to-Work:
Implementation Problems in Public Schools

This paper examines how public school districts responded to Michigan's 2012 “right-to-work” law. It describes the key findings from reviews of more than 500 teacher collective bargaining agreements. It also raises several questions about the legality of some union contracts with regard to this new law.

Approximately 75 percent of districts with contracts subject to the right-to-work law removed language that would require employees to financially support a union as a condition of employment. Both legal and policy questions are raised by the remaining 25 percent of districts, which kept mandatory dues language in one way or another, despite having a contract that took effect or was modified after the law's effective date.

The study describes five issues with these contracts. Twenty-three contracts made no apparent changes and kept mandatory dues language. Eight districts created a separate agreement to require mandatory dues payment. Fifteen contracts were ratified before they would be subject to the right-to-work law, but then didn’t take effect until much later. Five contracts made only the mandatory dues language immediately effective, while delaying the rest of the contract. Finally, at least six districts have modified parts of their contract without making the rest of it compliant with the right-to-work law.

Executive Summary

Introduction

On Dec. 11, 2012, Gov. Rick Snyder signed Public Act 349, which significantly changed public sector collective bargaining in Michigan. This law protected public employees, such as public school teachers, from being forced to financially support a union as a condition of their employment.[1]

The law did not take effect until March 28, 2013, however, which meant that public employers, such as school districts, and public sector unions could ratify new collective bargaining agreements that could still require public employees to financially support a union as a condition of employment for several years to come.[2]

Steven Cook, the president of Michigan’s largest public sector employee union, the Michigan Education Association, characterized the law as “Freedom to Freeload,” and stated in a letter to union members:

[O]ur goal is to settle, extend or modify contracts with school districts…So long as agreements are in place [before the law goes into effect] that include [mandatory financial support of the union], they are legal and remain in effect for the length of the agreement.[3]

Within the first year of the passage of Public Act 349, 234 Michigan school districts agreed to new collective bargaining agreements. Of those, 76 were signed between Dec. 11, 2012, and March 28, 2013. This deluge represents almost one-third of all contracts signed during the 12-month period after PA 349 was signed.

Graphic 1 shows the number of contracts signed each month during this 12-month period. In March of 2013, 58 contracts were signed, 35 percent more than were signed in any other month that year. These figures suggest that the large volume of contracts signed in early 2013 was a direct response to Public Act 349.

Graphic 1: Number of Teachers Union Contracts Signed Between Dec. 2012 and Nov. 2013

This report is part of a continued effort by the Mackinac Center to investigate how school districts and their local unions chose to implement Michigan’s recent school reforms. Previously published work suggests that school district compliance with state collective bargaining reforms is varied, at best. In some cases, state law appears to be ignored entirely.

In March 2014, a study titled “Roadblocks to Reform?: A Review of Union Contracts in Michigan Schools,” found that more than 17 percent of the surveyed districts appeared to be disregarding 2011 laws that modified some of the state’s collective bargaining statutes. Altogether, about 60 percent of districts kept language in their union contracts that the 2011 laws appear to have prohibited.[4] Similarly, a 2012 review of 104 union contracts found that 81 districts — more than three-quarters of those surveyed — appeared to be disregarding a 2010 law requiring districts to use a performance-based pay system for teachers.[5]

For this survey of compliance with Public Act 349, the Mackinac Center reviewed all available district collective bargaining agreements that impact teachers in public school districts.[*] Under state law, districts are required to post their current collective bargaining agreements online, and this was the primary source of information in this report.[6] A total of 509 contracts were reviewed.

This report summarizes how school districts chose to comply with the law and identifies legal and policy issues raised by some of their contracts. These issues were found in 57 teacher contracts, or nearly 25 percent of the number of the contracts signed or modified within the first year after Public Act 349 was signed into law.[†]

This research demonstrates how districts and their unions chose to respond to Public Act 349, and should interest policymakers concerned about the implementation of Michigan’s relatively new “right-to-work” law. The final section of this paper discusses policy options for legislators to improve the execution of this law among Michigan school districts.

Summary of Public Act 349 and Typical Responses

Michigan’s right-to-work law states that any individual employed by a “public employer” cannot be required to pay “any dues, fees, assessments, or other charges or expenses of any kind or amount.” Further, public sector employees cannot be required to contribute to a charity or other party “in lieu” of paying dues or fees.[7]

Under Public Act 349, public employees now have the option of opting out of their union altogether, for any reason. The law applies to any “agreement, contract, understanding, or practice” that took effect after March 28, 2013, or was “extended or renewed” after that date.[8]

In light of this law, most districts have completely removed any language pertaining to mandatory dues, “agency fees” or “service fees.” Forest Hills, a district just outside of Grand Rapids that employs about 670 teachers, previously required that all teachers “as a condition of employment,” pay union “dues or a service fee.”[9] In its new contract that took effect July 1, 2013, the Forest Hills district no longer includes any language that could be interpreted to require teachers to financially support a union as a condition of employment.[10]

The Tecumseh school district, a small school district in southeast Michigan, responded similarly. Prior to 2013, the district’s contract stated that union dues or agency fees would be automatically deducted from a teacher’s paycheck and remitted to the union if teachers did not make these payments themselves.[11] In Tecumseh’s new collective bargaining agreement, which took effect on Sept. 23, 2013, dues and agency fees are no longer mentioned.[12]

This survey found that more than 75 percent of Michigan school districts with contracts that took effect after March 28, 2013, removed mandatory dues language, similar to Forest Hills and Tecumseh.

Five Issues With Public Act 349 Implementation

Though most districts adhered closely to the requirements of Public Act 349, the sections that follow indicate how varied the interpretation of the law was by the districts that did not plainly stick to the language of the law. Described below are five different issues identified in this survey of teachers union contracts with regard to the implementation of Public Act 349:

• Illegal Language: Twenty-three districts ratified their collective bargaining agreements for teachers after March 28, 2013, but left the language Public Act 349 forbids unchanged.


• Separate Agency Fee Agreement: Eight districts approved a separate “agency fee agreement” before the March 28, 2013, deadline, with expiration or effective dates incongruent with the main collective bargaining agreement.


• Delayed Effective Dates: Fifteen contracts were ratified by districts and unions prior to March 28, 2013, but the effective date of the contract does not occur until months later.


• Split Effective Dates: Five districts approved contracts where the provision concerning mandatory union dues and fees took immediate effect (prior to March 28, 2013), but the other provisions of the contract took effect months later.


• Modified Contracts: At least six districts agreed to contracts prior to March 28, 2013, that kept mandatory union dues and fees, but have since that date added a “letter of understanding” or modified the terms of the contract in some other way without removing the language forcing teachers to financially support a union as a condition of employment.

These five issues impact a quarter of Michigan districts that ratified or modified their teacher contracts after Public Act 349 went into effect. Addressing these issues is important not only for the more than 10,000 full-time public school teachers employed by the districts with these contracts, but also because over the next two years, 120 additional school districts will need to comply with Public Act 349 for the first time, impacting nearly 25,000 teachers.[*]

Illegal Language

Of the 509 districts surveyed, 23 kept mandatory dues language in collective bargaining agreements ratified after Public Act 349 took effect (see Graphic 2). These districts represent almost 10 percent of Michigan school districts that approved teacher contracts after March 28, 2013.[*] These contracts do not provide a rationale for preserving this language prohibited by state law.

The Monroe school district is one of these 23 districts and employs about 350 teachers.[13] Monroe’s teacher contract states that employees will be fired if they do not financially support the Monroe City Education Association, stating: “[T]he services of such teacher shall be discontinued as of the end of the current school year.”[14]

Monroe’s collective bargaining agreement was approved by its board of education on March 4, 2014, nearly a year after Public Act 349 took effect. According to the minutes of the meeting, the district’s six school board members who were present at the meeting approved the contract unanimously.[15]

Monroe Assistant Superintendent Ryan McLeod acknowledged that the language in Monroe’s collective bargaining agreement was illegal. McLeod told Michigan Capitol Confidential (a news service published by the Mackinac Center) that “[t]his [language] absolutely should be taken out.”[16] It is unclear how the district plans to remove the language, and the contract does not expire until Aug. 15, 2016.[17]

The Vicksburg school district, just south of Portage, also appears to force teachers to pay union dues or agency fees. The district’s contract was extended on Sept. 4, 2013, five months after Public Act 349 took effect. It requires employees “permanently employed” to either “become and maintain their membership in the [union],” “pay a representation fee ... to the [union],” or “pay sums equal to such dues” to a nonprofit charity “in lieu of periodic dues uniformly required of [union] members.”[18]

The district believes that it may continue forcing teachers to financially support the Vicksburg Education Association, because the district’s previous contract would not have expired until 2015. The district plans to continue to enforce this provision until the original agreement expires after the 2014-2015 school year.[19]

Graphic 2 lists the 23 districts with collective bargaining contracts that contain mandatory dues language. The “Date of Ratification” column indicates the date a district’s school board approved the collective bargaining agreement. This information comes from public school board meeting minutes (often posted online), and through Freedom of Information Act requests.

These districts are primarily small districts, with each employing an average of fewer than 100 teachers, but altogether, they employ about 2,100 teachers and enroll close to 35,000 students.[20]

The Monroe district was identified previously by the Center for the district’s inclusion of other prohibited language in a teachers union contract.[21] Algonac, Farwell and Reese were previously identified for failing to offer performance-based compensation for teachers.[22]

Graphic 2: Agreements Containing Illegal Language
per Public Act 349

District	Date of Ratification	Language
Algonac	6/24/2013	“Bargaining unit members not joining the Association shall pay a service fee to the Association ... If a bargaining unit member does not pay ... the Employer shall deduct that amount from the bargaining unit member’s wages.”[23]
Bloomingdale	6/24/2013	“Any teacher who is not a member of the Association ... shall, as a condition of employment, pay a representation fee to the Association.”[24]
Buckley	9/17/2013	“Each bargaining unit member shall, as a condition of employment ... join the Association or pay a Service Fee to the Association.”[25]
Chassell Township	10/21/2013	“[A]ny teacher who is not a member of the Association ... shall, as a condition of employment, pay a service fee to the Association.”[26]
Colon	11/11/2013	“Any teacher who is not a member of the Association ... shall as a condition of employment, pay a service fee to the Association.”[27]
Dansville	6/17/2013	“Any teacher [not paying dues] ... must render to the Association either the equivalent fees or the reduced Agency Fee.”[28]
Farwell	8/19/2013	“All teachers ... shall as a condition of employment ... join the Association, or pay a service fee to the Association.”[29]
Forest	7/8/2013	“Each bargaining unit member may ... join the Association and pay membership dues or pay a service fee to the Association.”[30]
Frankfort-Elberta	8/12/2013	“Each bargaining unit member shall, as a condition of employment ... join the Association or pay a service fee to the Association.”[31]
Gladwin	7/29/2013	“All bargaining unit members ... shall ... join the [union], or pay a Service Fee to the [union].”[32]
Kalkaska[†]	9/9/2013	“Each bargaining unit member shall, as a condition of employment…join the Association, or pay a service fee to the union.” (Emphasis in original)[33]
Lawrence[‡]	6/24/2013	“[I]t shall be a condition of employment that all teachers ...” [34]
Leslie	9/25/2013[§]	“Bargaining unit members shall, as a condition of employment, pay either dues or a Service Fee.”[35]
Ludington	8/26/2013	“As a condition of employment, teachers shall ... pay either membership dues or a representation service fee to the Association.”[36]
Mattawan	6/10/2013	“Each bargaining unit member shall, as a condition of employment ... join the Association or pay a service fee to the Association.”[37]
Monroe	3/4/2014	“[If a teacher does not pay dues or fees to the union], the services of such teacher shall be discontinued as of the end of the current school year.”[38]
Mt. Pleasant	7/8/2013	“If a bargaining unit member does not pay [dues or fees] ... the employer shall deduct that amount from the bargaining unit member’s wages and remit same to the Association.”[39]
Munising	7/26/2013	“If the teacher fails to [pay dues or fees], the Association may file charges in writing with the Board and shall request termination of the teacher’s employment.”[40]
Northport	6/24/2013	“Each bargaining unit member shall, as a condition of employment … join the Association, or pay a service fee to the Association.”[41]
Parchment	7/1/2013[¶]	“Any teacher who is not a member of the Association ... shall as a condition of employment, pay a service fee to the Association.”[42]
Reese	7/11/2013	“Each bargaining unit member shall ... join the Association, or pay a Service Fee.”[43]
Superior Central	8/19/2013	“Any teacher who is not a member of the Association ... shall pay a service fee.”[44]
Vicksburg	9/4/2013	“Employees permanently employed ... must either ... become and maintain their membership in the Association, pay a representation fee ... or pay sums equal to such dues to a [charity.]”[45]

Separate Agency Fee Agreements

Eight districts approved separate “agency fee agreements” with their unions in an attempt to continue to require teachers to pay union dues or fees as a condition of employment. These districts enroll about 27,000 students and employ more than 1,800 teachers.[46]

These agency fee agreements are separate from the district’s main collective bargaining agreements, and are focused on forcing teachers to financially support a union. Every separate agency agreement identified has a different duration than the district’s standard union contract. 

Graphic 3 lists these districts. The column labeled “Ratification Date” indicates the date a school district ratified its main collective bargaining agreement.

Graphic 3: Separate Agency Fee Agreements

District	Date of Ratification	Language
Armada	3/19/2013	“Each bargaining unit member shall, as a condition of employment ... join the Association, or pay a Service Fee to the Association.”[47]
Clarkston	3/25/2013	“[F]ailure to pay the service fee will result in employment termination.”[48]
Haslett	3/25/2013	“Each Association bargaining unit member shall, as a condition of employment ... remit membership dues or pay a service fee to the Association.”[49]
New Haven[*]	3/21/2013	“All teachers ... as a condition of continued employment shall ... [b]ecome members of the Association, or [p]ay a service fee.”[50]
Romulus	3/18/2013	“Any employee ... shall, as a condition of employment, pay as a representation fee to the Union an amount to be determined by the Union.”[51]
Rudyard	2/11/2013	“Any [bargaining unit members who are not paying dues] ... shall immediately execute an authorization permitting the deduction of an annual service fee.”[52]
South Lake	3/21/2013	“Each bargaining unit member shall, as a condition of employment ... join the Association or pay a service fee to the Association.”[53]
Taylor	1/24/2013	“[E]ach person employed in the bargaining unit shall either become a member of the [union] and pay dues ... or agree to pay a service fee.”[54]

Taylor is being sued by the Mackinac Center Legal Foundation.[55] Mackinac Center attorneys argue that the “union security agreement” approved by the Taylor school district was designed to require teachers to pay union dues and fees for as long as possible, and that a school district and union cannot have two simultaneous collective bargaining agreements in place with different expiration dates. The Taylor union security agreement expires on July 1, 2023, while the district’s main collective bargaining agreement expires on Oct. 1, 2017.[56]

Graphic 4 shows the details of the agency fee agreement and main contracts approved by the eight identified school districts. The effective and expiration dates of each district’s main contract are compared to the effective and expiration dates of the district’s agency fee agreement.

Graphic 4: Separate Agency Fee Agreement Dates

District	Main contract effective date	Agency fee effective date	Main contract expiration date	Agency fee expiration date
Armada[57]	9/1/2013	3/19/2013	8/31/2016	8/23/2023
Clarkston[58]	9/1/2013	3/25/2013	8/31/2014	6/30/2016
Haslett[59]	8/16/2013	3/22/2013	6/30/2016	6/30/2016
New Haven[60]	3/21/2013	3/21/2013	8/31/2017	8/31/2023
Romulus[61]	8/16/2013	3/18/2013	8/15/2016	8/15/2016
Rudyard[62]	7/1/2013	2/11/2013	6/30/2014	6/30/2015
South Lake[63]	3/21/2013	3/21/2013	8/31/2016	8/31/2018
Taylor[64]	1/24/2013	1/24/2013	10/1/2017	7/1/2023

Armada, for example, approved a main collective bargaining agreement that took effect on Sept. 1, 2013, while its agency fee agreement took immediate effect on March 19, 2013. Armada’s main collective bargaining agreement will expire on Aug. 31, 2016, while the district’s agency fee agreement will continue for another seven years.

Similarly, Clarkston, Haslett and Romulus have agency fee agreements in place that took immediate effect, while their main contracts took effect after the Public Act 349 deadline. This arrangement allowed these districts to lock in immediate mandatory financial union support, while delaying the implementation of the other terms of the regular contract.

South Lake followed the pattern of Taylor: The district’s main collective bargaining agreement and agency fee agreement both took effect immediately, but the expiration dates differ. South Lake’s agency fee agreement is set to expire in 2018, two years after the district’s main contract will have expired.[65]

Delayed Effective Dates

Some districts ratified agreements prior to March 28, 2013, but set those agreements to take effect months later. This survey identified 15 districts with delayed effective dates, employing more than 2,700 teachers and enrolling about 46,000 students.[66] Since the law states that Public Act 349 applies to agreements that “tak[e] effect” after March 28, 2013, these contracts raise questions concerning their legality.[67]

In May 2014, Michigan Capitol Confidential reported that Wyoming Public Schools had agreed to a collective bargaining agreement prior to March 28, 2013, but that the agreement did not take effect until Aug. 15, 2013.[68] The contract states, “Any unit employee who is [not paying union dues] ... shall pay as a fee to the Association an amount determined by the Association.”[69] Wyoming Director of Finance and Human Resources Matt Lewis said that the language is “valid but innocuous. ... [W]e are a closed shop, but the district cannot threaten termination of an employee who refuses to pay union dues.”[70]

Wyoming teachers paid dearly for this unenforceable language. During contract negotiations, the Wyoming district proposed removing that language.[71] However, the Kent County Education Association responded to the district’s proposal by requesting that the illegal language be retained.[72] The district allowed the language to remain, in order to “completely alter” the district’s salary schedule (which cost some teachers $12,700 in salary annually), reduce paid leave days and add days to the school calendar.[73]

“We achieved all of this because we gave [the union] three years of potentially unenforceable union security language,” Lewis told Michigan Capitol Confidential.[74]

The largest district identified in this category is Chippewa Valley, which employs more than 900 teachers and enrolls about 16,500 students. According to Chippewa Valley’s contract, extended by the board in March 2013 with a letter of understanding, if a teacher does not pay dues or fees, “[the union] may request that the teacher’s services be terminated.”[75]

However, the tentative agreement to extend this language did not take effect until July 1, 2013.[76] Interestingly, Chippewa Valley also agreed to a separate letter of understanding regarding union dues that did take effect in March. These mulitple letters of understanding could be categorized as separate agency fees agreements, but appear here because the letter of understanding regarding the entire contract, including agency fees, took effect at a later date.

East China is a more clear-cut case. The district ratified its collective bargaining agreement in March 2013, before Public Act 349 went into effect.[77] However, the district’s collective bargaining agreement did not take effect until Aug. 26, 2013.[78]

Graphic 5: Agreements Containing Illegal Language That Became Effective After March 28, 2013

District	Effective Date	Language
Cheboygan	9/1/2013	“[The union] shall certify to the [district] ... the amount of annual membership dues and/or representation service fees required of [union members] and/or non-member fee-payers.”[79]
Chippewa Valley	7/1/2013	“In the event a teacher ... does not join the Association or tender their service fees to the Association, the Association may request that the teacher’s services be terminated.”[80]
Clintondale	9/1/2013	“[T]he failure of any teacher to [pay dues or fees to the union] is just and reasonable cause for discharge from employment.”[81]
East China	8/26/2013	“As a condition of continued employment, all teachers shall ... pay to the Association membership dues ... or pay to the Association a service fee.”[82]
Grosse Ile	8/15/2013	“Each bargaining unit member shall, as a condition of employment ... join the Association/Union, or pay a Service Fee to the Association.”[83]
Litchfield	7/1/2013	“[A]ny teacher who is not a member of the Association ... shall, as a condition of employment, pay a Service Fee established by the Association.”[84]
Marlette	7/1/2013	“The refusal of such teacher to pay such sum equivalent to the dues and assessments is recognized by the parties as reasonable and just cause for termination of employment.”[85]
Merrill	7/1/2013	“Each bargaining unit member shall, as a condition of employment ... join the Association, or pay a service fee to the union.”[86] (Emphasis in the original.)
New Buffalo	8/1/2013	“[E]ach teacher who is not a member of the Association ... shall as a condition of employment pay a service fee.”[87]
Northview	9/1/2013	“Each teacher ... shall, as a condition of employment, either become a member of the Association or pay to the Association a representation fee.”[88]
Pinckney	7/1/2013	“Each Association bargaining unit member shall, as a condition of employment ... either join the Association and remit membership dues or pay a service fee to the Association.”[89]
St. Louis[*]	7/1/2013	“Each bargaining unit member shall, as a condition of employment ... join the Association, or pay a service fee to the union.”[90]
Tahquamenon[†]	7/1/2013	“Each bargaining unit member shall as a condition of employment … join the Association or pay a service fee.”[91]
Tri County	7/1/2013	“Any teacher who is not a member of the Association ... shall, as a condition of employment, pay as a Representation Benefit Fee to the Association.”[92]
Wyoming	8/15/2013	“Any unit employee who is not a member of the Association ... shall pay as a fee to the Association an amount determined by the Association.”[93]

Split Effective Dates

Another issue concerning the implementation of Public Act 349 in school districts was the use of different effective dates for different portions of a collective bargaining agreement. Some districts made the section of language that Public Act 349 makes illegal take effect prior to March 28, 2013, but elected to make the remainder of the contract take effect at a later date. (There may be other districts that made just some portions of their contracts effective after March 28, 2013 — those are not discussed here).

Delaying the majority of a district’s contract shows how districts and their unions identified a way to avoid Public Act 349 immediately, while delaying the remainder of their new contract. The districts with split effective dates employ about 2,200 teachers and enroll 33,800 students.[94]

The collective bargaining agreement approved by the Warren Consolidated School District provides a clear example. The bulk of Warren’s teachers union contract took effect on Aug. 24, 2013. An appendix to the agreement, however, states that “Each teacher shall, as a condition of employment ... join the Association or pay a service fee to the Association equivalent to the amount of dues uniformly required of members of the Association.”[*] This language, according to the appendix, took immediate effect when the district ratified the contract in March 2013. The contract does not expire until Aug. 29, 2021.[95]

Lansing, another large district on this list, employs 900 teachers and enrolls close to 12,000 students.[96] Lansing’s main contract took effect on July 1, 2013, but the article of the contract requiring mandatory union dues and fees took immediate effect when the district ratified the agreement in March 2013.[97]

Berrien Springs is included on this list, but is a slightly different case. The district’s contract states that it becomes effective upon ratification, which occurred in March 2013.[98] However, a district attorney noted in an email to a union official that “the contract will be ratified and become effective prior to March 28th (2013), however the contract language changes we have agreed to will be effective July 1 [emphasis added].”[99] Berrien Springs’ contract states that “each bargaining unit member ... shall, as a condition of employment, join the Association or pay a Service Fee to the Association.”[100]

In Graphic 6 below, “Full contract effective date” indicates the main effective date of the contract.

Graphic 6: Agreements With Split Effective Dates

District	Full contract effective date	Language
Berrien Springs	7/1/2013	“[E]ach bargaining unit member ... shall, as a condition of employment, join the Association or pay a Service Fee to the Association.[101]
Lansing	7/1/2013	“In the event [a teacher does not pay union dues or fees] ... the Board shall ... deduct the Representation Benefit Fee from the teacher’s wages.”[102]
Olivet	7/1/2013	“[E]ach bargaining unit member ... shall, as a condition of employment, join the Association or pay a Service Fee to the Association.”[103]
Warren	8/24/2013	“Each teacher shall, as a condition of employment ... join the Association or pay a service fee to the Association.”[104]
Waverly	7/1/2013	“[I]t shall be a condition of employment that all ... teachers ... either ... cause to be paid ... the membership fee ... or cause to be paid ... a Service Fee.”[105]

Modified Contracts

Some districts have modified parts of their teachers union contracts after March 28, 2013, without changing the contract to comply with Public Act 349. These districts have contracts that were ratified prior to the effective date of Public Act 349. There are about 1,700 teachers employed by these districts, teaching about 24,000 students.[106]

The largest district on this list is Ann Arbor Public Schools, which approved a new “tentative agreement” with its teachers union on June 25, 2014, to modify employee compensation levels and allow the district to pursue teacher merit pay and a new teacher evaluation system.[107] Although it made these changes to the contract, the new tentative agreement did not remove language requiring teachers to pay union dues and fees as a condition of employment.

The Coldwater school district did something similar. It entered into a collective bargaining agreement on March 25, 2013, with its teachers union, requiring employees to pay union dues and fees as a condition of employment.[108] However, on June 24, 2013, the district added an agreement to its contract, changing teacher salary, insurance and merit pay.[109] This behavior may be an indication of a high level of trust between the district and its union, since district officials were willing to give the union a benefit (mandatory dues) in March, while delaying discussions of salary, insurance and merit pay for three more months.

Graphic 7 lists the districts that have been identified for modifying portions of their contracts after March 28, 2013, but chose not to comply with Public Act 349. “Modification Date” indicates when the district appears to have changed its collective bargaining agreement with a “letter of understanding” or some similar action.

Whether or not these districts should be in compliance with Public Act 349 is a question that impacts more than just these districts. Nine other districts agreed to contracts before March 28, 2013, that last at least five years.[*] The longest of these contracts extends until 2023.[110] It is likely that these districts will need to modify their contracts in the future (especially those provisions impacting the district’s budget), but will these districts need to comply with Public Act 349 when these changes are made?

The answer will impact almost 6,400 teachers in some of Michigan’s largest school districts, including Utica, Dearborn, Warren Consolidated, Taylor, Hartland and Woodhaven-Brownstown, in addition to the 1,740 teachers employed in the six districts listed below.[111]

Graphic 7: Contracts Modified After March 28, 2013

District	Modification Date	Language
Ann Arbor	6/25/2014	“Teachers shall either submit a membership form or shall be considered agency shop fee payers to Association.”[112]
Beaverton	5/29/2013	“All teachers ... may either ... authorize[e] deduction of membership dues of the Association ... or [c]ause to be paid a representation fee.”[113]
Coldwater	6/24/2013	“In the event that a bargaining unit member has not [paid union dues] or paid the required service fee ... that member is not considered an employee.”[114]
North Huron	9/18/2013	“All ... teachers ... shall ... as a condition of employment ... either become members of the Association; or [p]ay to the Association an amount of money ... equal ... [to dues].”[115]
Richmond	12/17/2013	“Any teacher who is not a member of the Association ... shall, as a condition of employment, pay as a Representation Benefit Fee to the Association.”[116]
Shepherd	8/1/2013	“Each bargaining unit member shall pay membership dues or a service fee to the Association.”[117]

Possible Explanations for the Varied Reponses to Public Act 349

There may not be one single explanation for why so many school districts, based on the language in their teachers union contract, appear to have failed to completely comply with Public Act 349. Ignorance of the law is not a likely explanation: Officials must have been aware of Public Act 349, given the high level of media attention and deluge of contract negotiations that occurred in March 2013.

District officials may have desired to maintain an amicable relationship with their unions by cooperating with efforts to maintain forced dues. This mindset may explain why some district officials chose to cooperate with fast-tracked negotiations prior to March 28, 2013.

Another possible explanation for the large number of districts who appear to be noncompliant with Public Act 349 may be the strength of Michigan’s teachers unions. There is no doubt that teachers union, and their officials, stand the most to lose from Public Act 349, especially if a significant number of teachers opt to leave the union and halt their financial support. The Michigan Education Association, the state’s largest teachers union, stands to lose hundreds of dollars every year from each member who declines membership.

In late 2012, the Fordham Institute, a nonprofit education research organization, ranked the strength of Michigan’s teachers unions as sixth-highest in the nation in terms of financial resources and membership rates and fourth in political involvement.[118] Nearly a quarter of Michigan delegates sent to both Democratic and Republican national conventions were teachers union members.[119]

But, when it comes to state policy, Michigan teachers unions received the lowest possible ranking. Fordham notes that collective bargaining reform laws passed in 2011 — the implementation of which the Center reviewed in a previous study — reduced teachers unions’ influence. The Fordham authors note that there is a “striking disparity” between Michigan teachers union resources and political involvement and the unions’ actual impact on policy.[120]

The disparity the Fordham report identified may be one influencing the large number of districts that appear to be attempting to avoid the implementation of Public Act 349. Since Michigan’s teacher unions have not been able to stop the Legislature from passing laws they oppose, these unions may be attempting block and stall the implementation of these laws at the local level. With only small repercussions for ratifying union contracts that fail to comply with these new laws, there teachers unions stand to lose very little for encouraging districts to block or stall implementation. Under Public Act 349, individuals and school districts that have violated the law by including mandatory dues language in collective bargaining agreements will be punished with a fine of $500 or less.[121]

The fact that 76 school districts agreed to new collective bargaining agreements during the four-month period between when Public Act 349 was signed and when it took effect suggests that teachers unions were actively seeking and relatively successful at compelling school district officials to act to stall the implementation of Public Act 349. Previous research published by the Mackinac Center suggests that unions acted similarly with regard to other state laws.[*]

Implication for Policymakers

Developing Compliance Guidance

This survey has identified 57 school districts, employing more than 10,000 teachers, whose implementation of Michigan’s Public Act 349 raises significant questions. These teachers union contracts represent close to one-quarter of all the contracts that were signed after Public Act 349 became law.[*]

The variety of district responses to Public Act 349, in addition to previous research showing varied compliance with other state laws, suggests that there is need for better guidance about how school districts can comply with state laws. This guidance could take the form of a detailed compliance document that each district would have to submit to the Michigan Department of Education or the Michigan Employment Relations Commission. An opinion issued by the Michigan Attorney General may also help clarify some of the questions about separate agency fee agreements, delayed and split effective dates and modified contracts. Additional legislation that clarifies the current language may also be of use.

Limiting Noncompliance

Given that the language of Public Act 349 is relatively straightforward and that school districts still seem to have difficulty completely complying or understanding the law, policymakers may need to provide more than just additional guidance to change school district behavior and improve the level of compliance. School district officials may need more of an incentive to comply with these recent changes to state law.

In order to assure that district officials comply with Public Act 349, state officials could consider increasing financial penalties for noncompliance. The current financial penalty for not complying with Public Act 349 is a $500 fine to employers, unions and others.[122] As the evidence provided above suggests, this may not be a large enough penalty to spur school officials and unions to demonstrate compliance. The Legislature might consider a larger fine against school and union officials that ratify contracts that fail to comply with state law.

Another monetary option would be to provide additional funding for school districts that comply with the law. Michigan’s newest school aid budget includes “best practices” funding tied to district compliance with Michigan’s merit pay requirement and Public Act 103 of 2011, which prohibited collective bargaining over teacher personnel policies, including placement, layoff and recall.[123] The 2014-2015 school year will provide an experiment to determine the impact of this financial incentive.

Another possible way to increase school district compliance with state law could be through Michigan’s emergency manager law, which allows the governor to appoint an emergency manager to oversee financially unstable school districts and other local units of government.[124] The state could expedite the process of assigning an emergency manager for districts that fail to abide by state collective bargaining laws.  

The emergency management review process could begin for districts that have ended the most recent fiscal year in deficit and also have failed to remove prohibited language from their collective bargaining agreement.[*] If districts fail to remove that language and continue to overspend, the state could place them under emergency management.

This move would be justified because recent collective bargaining reforms, including the prohibition against making layoffs solely on the basis of seniority, are part of an attempt to help districts better manage their finances. District officials bypassing those laws while still overspending are not responsibly managing public resources and their school system.

Further, it is likely that if such measures were taken, few districts would be placed under emergency management as a result of their collective bargaining agreements. It is far more likely that the possibility of being placed under emergency management would motivate districts to follow state law.

Conclusion

Thousands of Michigan public school teachers are employed by districts that, at best, may be confusing them about their rights as employees under Public Act 349, and, at worst, illegally continuing to force them to financially support a union against their will. Thousands more are employed by districts with collective bargaining agreements that will soon expire — and who may soon also face confusing contract extensions or separate agency fee agreements designed to continue mandatory union dues or fees.

Based on the varied and questionable attempts to comply with Public Act 349 identified here, policymakers should provide guidance to school districts and other public employers as they implement changes to union contracts to comply with the new law. Not only will this increase compliance, it will help public school teachers and other public employees determine whether or not they qualify for protections contained in Public Act 349. In order for public employees to exercise these new rights, they first need to know if they are eligible for them.

Acknowledgements

The author would like to acknowledge the following people for their assistance:

• Gary D. Patterson, attorney, Masud Labor Law Group


• Jarrett Skorup, digital engagement manager, Mackinac Center


• Patrick Wright, vice president for legal affairs, Mackinac Center


• Michael Van Beek, director of research, Mackinac Center

Although these individuals helped significantly with this study, any errors in the report are the responsibility of the author alone.

Endnotes

1 “Public Act 349” (State of Michigan, Dec. 11, 2012), http://goo.gl/ r7AJjx (accessed July 23, 2014).

2 “Public Act 349” (State of Michigan, Dec. 11, 2012), http://goo.gl/ r7AJjx (accessed July 23, 2014); “Michigan Right-to-Work Legislation” (Thrun Law Firm, 2012), http://goo.gl/bPWWCe (accessed July 23, 2014).

3 “History of MEA” (Michigan Education Association, Jun. 13, 2011), http://goo.gl/FrjZhl (accessed Jul. 8, 2014); Steve Cook, “Message from President Steve Cook on Impacts of Right-to-Work — and How We’re Fighting Back” (Michigan Education Association, Jan. 23, 2013), http://goo.gl/WTrfPu (accessed Jul. 8, 2014).

4 Author’s calculations based on Audrey Spalding, “Roadblocks to Reform?: A Review of Union Contracts in Michigan Schools” (Mackinac Center for Public Policy, 2014), 4, 20, http://goo.gl/drb7I1 (accessed July 28, 2014).

5 Michael Van Beek, “Merit Pay Survey Results” (Mackinac Center for Public Policy, Oct. 15, 2012), http://goo.gl/ZNGqCU (accessed July 28, 2014).

6 MCL § 388.1618(2).

7 “Public Act 349” (State of Michigan, Dec. 11, 2012), 3, http://goo. gl/r7AJjx (accessed July 23, 2014). These changes do not apply to police and fire department employees.

8 “Public Act 349” (State of Michigan, Dec. 11, 2012), http://goo.gl/ r7AJjx (accessed July 23, 2014).

9 “Master Agreement Between Forest Hills Public Schools Board of Education and Forest Hills MEA-NEA District Association” (Forest Hills Public Schools, June 20, 2011), 8, http://goo.gl/klVDlR (accessed July 29, 2014).

10 Ibid., 9.

11 “Agreement Between the Board of Education of the Tecumseh Public Schools and the Lenawee County Education Association, TEA, MEA/NEA” (Tecumseh Public Schools, Dec. 17, 2012), 2, http://goo. gl/94AGDP (accessed July 29, 2014).

12 Ibid., 1-2.

13 Author’s calculations based on “School Personnel Data and Reports: Full Time Equivalencies Data” (Center for Educational Performance and Information, Dec. 2013), http://goo.gl/9CqVYv (accessed July 30, 2014).

14 “Master Agreement Between Monroe Public Schools Board of Education and Monroe City Education Association” (Monroe Public School District, March 1, 2014), 22, http://goo.gl/056nbQ (accessed July 29, 2014).

15 “Monroe Public Schools Board of Education Special Board Meeting” (Monroe Public Schools, March 4, 2014), http://goo.gl/pEZCrm (accessed July 29, 2014).

16 Tom Gantert, “School Official Says Illegal Language Should Be Removed From Union Contract,” Michigan Capitol Confidential (Mackinac Center for Public Policy, July 5, 2014), http://goo.gl/BhRHoa (accessed July 29, 2014).

17 “Master Agreement Between Monroe Public Schools Board of Education and Monroe City Education Association” (Monroe Public School District, March 1, 2014), 40, http://goo.gl/056nbQ (accessed July 29, 2014).

18 “Labor Agreement Between Board of Education of the Vicksburg Community Schools and Kalamazoo County Education Association-Vicksburg Education Association” (Vicksburg Community Schools, Sept. 4, 2013), http://goo.gl/F5B9e0 (accessed July 29, 2014).

19 Vicksburg Community Schools Superintendent Charlie Glaes, email correspondence with Michigan Capitol Confidential Senior Capitol Correspondent Tom Gantert, May 29, 2014.

20 Author’s calculations based on “2013-14 Pupil Headcount Data: Fall 2013 Enrollment Data” (Center for Educational Performance and Information, 2013), http://goo.gl/pEuZmh (accessed July 30, 2014); “School Personnel Data and Reports: Full Time Equivalencies Data” (Center for Educational Performance and Information, Dec. 2013), http://goo.gl/9CqVYv (accessed July 30, 2014).

21 Audrey Spalding, “Roadblocks to Reform?: A Review of Union Contracts in Michigan Schools” (Mackinac Center for Public Policy, 2014), http://goo.gl/drb7I1 (accessed July 28, 2014).

22 Michael Van Beek, “Merit Pay Survey Results” (Mackinac Center for Public Policy, Oct. 15, 2012), http://goo.gl/ZNGqCU (accessed July 28, 2014).

23 “Agreement Between St. Clair County Education Association and Algonac Board of Education” (Algonac Community School District, June 24, 2013), 8, 55, http://goo.gl/mSHj1F (accessed July 29, 2014); “Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Algonac Board of Education” (Algonac Community School District, June 24, 2013), http://goo.gl/zsa9VI (accessed July 29, 2014).

24 “Agreement Between Board of Education of Bloomingdale Public School District #16 and the Van Buren County Education Association/Bloomingdale Education Association, MEA-NEA” (Bloomingdale Public School District #16, June 24, 2013), 6, 53, http://goo.gl/C7PmnZ (accessed July 29, 2014); “Minutes: Bloomingdale Board of Education Regular Meeting”, June 24, 2013.

25 “Master Agreement Between Buckley Community Schools Board of Education and Northern Michigan Education Association, MEA/NEA” (Buckley Community Schools, Sept. 1, 2013), 2, http://goo.gl/Rh2XBB (accessed July 29, 2014); “Buckley Community Schools Board of Education Regular Meeting Official Minutes of September 17, 2013” (Buckley Community Schools, Sept. 17, 2013).

26 “Agreement Between the Chassell Township Schools Board of Education and the Chassell Education Association” (Chassel Township Schools, Oct. 21, 2013), 24, 32, http://goo.gl/SWYzbN (accessed July 29, 2014); “Chassell Township School Board of Education Meeting Minutes” (Chassel Township Schools, Oct. 21, 2013), http://goo.gl/V6fNQN (accessed July 29, 2014).

27 “Collective Bargaining Agreement Between Colon Board of Education and Colon Education Association” (Colon Community Schools, Nov. 13, 2013), 9, 47, http://goo.gl/LGBrFx (accessed July 29, 2014);“Colon School Board Meeting Minutes” (Colon Community Schools, Nov. 11, 2013), http://goo.gl/axDXTJ (accessed July 29, 2014).

28 “Master Agreement Between the Dansville Board of Education and the Ingham/Clinton Education Association/Dansville Education Association” (Dansville Schools, July 1, 2013), 26, 29, http://goo.gl/z3nKVX (accessed July 29, 2014); “Dansville Schools Board Meeting Minutes” (Dansville Schools, June 17, 2013), http://goo.gl/c5XPHx (accessed July 29, 2014).

29 “Agreement Between Farwell Education Association and Farwell Area Schools Board of Education” (Farwell Area Schools, Aug. 19, 2013), 7, 38, http://goo.gl/o5EqgN (accessed Jul. 29, 2014); “Farwell Area Schools Board of Education - Regular Meeting” (Farwell Area Schools, Aug. 19, 2013).

30 “Agreement Between Forest Area Board of Education and Forest Area Education Association” (Forest Area Community Schools, July 1, 2013), 5, 29, http://goo.gl/Cnv5xV (accessed July 29, 2014); “Forest Area Community Schools Board of Education Meeting Minutes” (Forest Area Community Schools, July 8, 2013).

31 “Master Agreement Between the Frankfort-Elberta Area School Board and the Frankfort-Elberta Education Association” (Frankfort-Elberta Area Schools, Aug. 27, 2013), 2, 4, http://goo.gl/tPlPR3 (accessed July 29, 2014); “Frankfort-Elberta Area Schools Board Meeting Minutes” (Frankfort-Elberta Area Schools, Aug. 12, 2013).

32 “Gladwin Community Schools Master Agreement Gladwin Education Association” (Gladwin Community Schools, July 29, 2013), 8, 45, http://goo.gl/3yYVJZ (accessed July 29, 2014); “Gladwin Community Schools Board of Education Special Meeting Minutes” (Gladwin Community Schools, July 29, 2013), http://goo.gl/LrM4p3 (accessed July 29, 2014).

33 “Master Agreement Between the Kalkaska Public Schools and the Northern Michigan Education Association” (Kalkaska Public Schools, Sept. 9, 2013), http://goo.gl/b2gLAa (accessed Aug. 26, 2014); “Kalkaska Public Schools Board of Education Regular Meeting” (Kalkaska Public Schools, Sept. 9, 2013), http://goo.gl/NbVFfZ (accessed Aug. 26, 2014).

34 “Collective Bargaining Agreement between Lawrence Public Schools and the Van Buren County Education Association/Lawrence Education Association” (Lawrence Public Schools, June 28, 2013), http://goo.gl/OP0yll (accessed July 29, 2014); “Lawrence School Board Meeting Minutes” (Lawrence Public Schools, June 24, 2013).

35 “Master Agreement Between the Leslie Board of Education and the Ingham Clinton Education Association” (Leslie School District, July 1, 2013), 5, 38, http://goo.gl/RmhDvr (accessed July 29, 2014); “Leslie Public Schools Minutes, Special Meeting” (Leslie School District, Jul. 10, 2013), http://goo.gl/Uz6dxD (accessed Aug. 26, 2014).

36 “Master Agreement Between Ludington Educational Association and Ludington Board of Education” (Ludington Area School District, Sept. 1, 2013), 27, 30, http://goo.gl/smL89F (accessed July 29, 2014); “Ludington Area School District Board of Education Regular Meeting Minutes” (Ludington Area School District, Aug. 26, 2013).

37 “Agreement Between Mattawan Consolidated School and Kalamazoo County Education Association” (Mattawan Consolidated Schools, June 30, 2014), http://goo.gl/mZ58O3 (accessed July 30, 2014); “Regular Board of Education Meeting” (Mattawan Consolidated Schools, June 10, 2014).

38 “Master Agreement Between Monroe Public Schools Board of Education and Monroe City Education Association” (Monroe Public School District, March 1, 2014), 22, 40, http://goo.gl/056nbQ (accessed July 29, 2014); “Monroe Public Schools Board of Education Special Board Meeting” (Monroe Public Schools, March 4, 2014), http://goo.gl/pEZCrm (accessed July 29, 2014).

39 “Master Agreement Between The Mt. Pleasant Education Association And The Mt. Pleasant Public Schools Board Of Education” (Mt. Pleasant Public Schools, June 17, 2013), 12, 67, http://goo. gl/zIX8qx (accessed July 30, 2014); “Mt. Pleasant School Board Meeting Minutes” (Mt. Pleasant Public Schools, July 8, 2013), http://goo.gl/j7votU (accessed July 30, 2014).

40 “Agreement Between the Munising Public Schools and the Munising Education Association” (Munising Public Schools, Sept. 1, 2013), 1, 2, http://goo.gl/LgJfy2 (accessed July 30, 2014);“Munising Public Schools Board of Education Meeting” (Munising Public Schools, July 26, 2013).

41 “Master Agreement Between Northport Education Association And Northport Board of Education” (Northport Public School District, June 24, 2013), 11, 28, http://goo.gl/NiW6wX (accessed July 30, 2014); “Northport Board of Education Special Meeting” (Northport Public School District, June 24, 2013).

42 “Agreement Between Parchment School District And Kalamazoo County Education Association” (Parchment School District, Oct. 4, 2013), 21, http://goo.gl/zZg3wW (accessed July 31, 2014); Julie Mack, “Most Kalamazoo-Area School Employees Will Feel Impact of New Right-to-Work Law This Summer,” MLive.com, March 28, 2013, http://goo.gl/LDJqho (accessed Aug. 22, 2014).

43 “Agreement Between Reese Board of Education and Reese Professional Education Association” (Reese Public School District, July 11, 2013), 2, http://goo.gl/CoZ7Ei (accessed July 30, 2014); “Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the District Board of the Reese Public School District” (Reese Public School District, July 11, 2013).

44 “Master Agreement: Superior Central School and Superior Central Education Association” (Superior Central School District, July 1, 2013), 12, http://goo.gl/3PjfCe (accessed July 30, 2014); “Superior Central School District Board of Education - Regular Meeting” (Superior Central School District, Aug. 19, 2013), http://goo.gl/3SM6xv (accessed July 30, 2014).

45 “Labor Agreement Between Board of Education of the Vicksburg Community Schools and Kalamazoo County Education Association-Vicksburg Education Association” (Sept. 4, 2013): 2, http://goo.gl/ F5B9e0 (accessed July 29, 2014); Vicksburg Community Schools Superintendent Charlie Glaes, email correspondence with Michigan Capitol Confidential Senior Capitol Correspondent Tom Gantert, May 29, 2014.

46 Author’s calculations based on “2013-14 Pupil Headcount Data: Fall 2013 Enrollment Data” (Center for Educational Performance and Information, 2013), http://goo.gl/pEuZmh (accessed July 30, 2014); “School Personnel Data and Reports: Full Time Equivalencies Data” (Center for Educational Performance and Information, Dec. 2013), http://goo.gl/9CqVYv (accessed July 30, 2014).

47 “Master Agreement Between the Board of Education Armada School District and the Armada Education Association” (Armada Area School District, March 6, 2013), 36, http://goo.gl/hKu0M9 (accessed July 30, 2014); “Armada Area Schools Board of Education Meeting Minutes” (Armada Area School District, March 19, 2013), http://goo.gl/AJfucy (accessed July 30, 2014).

48 “Master Agreement Between Clarkston Community Schools and Clarkston Education Association/MEA-NEA” (Clarkston Community Schools, Sept. 1, 2013), 58, http://goo.gl/DaAFHF (accessed July 29, 2014); “Clarkston Community Schools Board of Education Regular Meeting” (Clarkston Community Schools), http://goo.gl/rPoYx2 (accessed July 30, 2014).

49 “Letter of Agreement Between the Haslett Public Schools and the Haslett Education Association” (Haslett Public Schools, May 9, 2013); “Minutes of Regular Meeting of Haslett Board of Education” (Haslett Public Schools, March 25, 2013), http://goo.gl/BMKSyg (accessed July 30, 2014).

50 “Master Agreement Between the New Haven Schools Education Association and the New Haven Schools Board of Education” (New Haven Community Schools, March 21, 2013), 76, http://goo.gl/QkKfwD (accessed July 30, 2014).

51 “Agency Fee Agreement Between Romulus Community Schools Board of Education and the Wayne County MEA/NEA” (Romulus Community Schools, March 26, 2013), http://goo.gl/Pbfuj9 (accessed July 30, 2014); “Romulus Community Schools Special Meeting” (Romulus Community Schools, March 18, 2013), http://goo.gl/BDgHQq (accessed July 30, 2014).

52 “Rudyard Federation of Teachers RTW Contract” (Rudyard Area Schools, Jan. 22, 2013), http://goo.gl/0nCrKD (accessed July 30, 2014); “Minutes: Workshop Meeting” (Rudyard Area Schools, June 10, 2013), http://goo.gl/zDfbF0 (accessed July 30, 2014).

53 “Letter of Agreement Between South Lake Schools and MEA/NEA Local 1, South Lake Education Association” (South Lake Schools), http://goo.gl/fTkw2O (accessed July 30, 2014).

54 “Taylor Federation of Teachers Union Security Agreement” (Taylor School District, Jan. 24, 2013), http://goo.gl/MhaoAW (accessed July 30, 2014); “Tentative Agreement between Taylor School District Board of Education & Taylor Federation of Teachers: Ratification Meeting” (Taylor School District, Jan. 24, 2013), http://goo.gl/dhNjBS (accessed July 30, 2014).

55 Steffke, Metz and Rhatigan v. Taylor Federation of Teachers, Taylor School District and Taylor Public School Board of Education (Michigan Court of Appeals, Jan. 24, 2014), http://goo.gl/dnji7m (accessed Aug. 22, 2014).

56 “Taylor Federation of Teachers Union Security Agreement” (Taylor School District, Jan. 24, 2013), http://goo.gl/MhaoAW (accessed July 30, 2014).

57 “Master Agreement Between the Board of Education Armada School District and the Armada Education Association” (Armada Area School District, March 6, 2013), http://goo.gl/hKu0M9 (accessed July 30, 2014).

58 “Master Agreement Between Clarkston Community Schools and Clarkston Education Association/MEA-NEA” (Clarkston Community Schools, Sept. 1, 2013), http://goo.gl/DaAFHF (accessed July 29, 2014); “Clarkston Community Schools Board of Education Regular Meeting” (Clarkston Community Schools), http://goo.gl/rPoYx2 (accessed July 30, 2014).

59 “Letter of Agreement Between the Haslett Public Schools and the Haslett Education Association” (Haslett Public Schools, 2013); “Master Agreement Betwen the Haslett Education Association MEA/NEA and the Haslett Board of Education” (Haslett Public Schools, Aug. 16, 2013), http://goo.gl/yF0Cit (accessed July 30, 2014); “Minutes of Regular Meeting of Haslett Board of Education” (Haslett Public Schools, March 25, 2013), http://goo.gl/BMKSyg (accessed July 30, 2014).

60 “Master Agreement Between the New Haven Schools Education Association and the New Haven Schools Board of Education” (New Haven Community Schools, March 21, 2013), 55, 76, http://goo. gl/QkKfwD (accessed July 30, 2014).

61 “Agency Fee Agreement Between Romulus Community Schools Board of Education and the Wayne County MEA/NEA” (Romulus Community Schools, March 26, 2013), http://goo.gl/Pbfuj9 (accessed July 30, 2014); “Romulus Community Schools Special Meeting” (Romulus Community Schools, March 18, 2013), http://goo.gl/BDgHQq (accessed July 30, 2014); “Master Agreement between Romulus Community Schools Board of Education and the Wayne County MEA/NEA”, 2013, http://goo.gl/Q0S7Qy (accessed July 30, 2014).

62 “Rudyard Federation of Teachers Contract” (Rudyard Area Schools, July 1, 2013), http://goo.gl/vNpDjp (accessed July 30, 2014); “Rudyard Area Schools Board of Education” (Rudyard Area Schools, Feb. 11, 2013), http://goo.gl/Ww6BJh (accessed Aug. 28, 2014); “Rudyard Federation of Teachers RTW Contract” (Rudyard Area Schools, Jan. 22, 2013), http://goo.gl/0nCrKD (accessed July 30, 2014).

63 “Letter of Agreement Between South Lake Schools and MEA/NEA Local 1, South Lake Education Association” (South Lake Schools), http://goo.gl/fTkw2O (accessed July 30, 2014).

64 “Taylor Federation of Teachers Union Security Agreement” (Taylor School District, Jan. 24, 2013), http://goo.gl/MhaoAW (accessed July 30, 2014); “Memorandum of Agreement Between The Taylor Public School Board of Education And The Taylor Federation of Teachers, AFT Local 1085, AFT Michigan, AFL-CIO,” http://goo.gl/YOwcnE.

65 “Letter of Agreement Between South Lake Schools and MEA/NEA Local 1, South Lake Education Association” (South Lake Schools), http://goo.gl/fTkw2O (accessed July 30, 2014).

66 Author’s calculations based on “2013-14 Pupil Headcount Data: Fall 2013 Enrollment Data” (Center for Educational Performance and Information, 2013), http://goo.gl/pEuZmh (accessed July 30, 2014); “School Personnel Data and Reports: Full Time Equivalencies Data” (Center for Educational Performance and Information, Dec. 2013), http://goo.gl/9CqVYv (accessed July 30, 2014).

67 “Public Act 349” (State of Michigan, Dec. 11, 2012), http://goo.gl/ r7AJjx (accessed July 23, 2014).

68 Tom Gantert, “Union Surrenders Member Benefits To Keep Unenforceable Clause In Contract,” Michigan Capitol Confidential (Mackinac Center for Public Policy, May 9, 2014), http://goo.gl/0yhqaR (accessed July 30, 2014).

69 “Wyoming Public Schools Board of Education and the Kent County Education Association: Agreement” (Wyoming Public Schools, Aug. 15, 2013), 6, http://goo.gl/MSZTzs (accessed July 30, 2014).

70 Tom Gantert, “Union Surrenders Member Benefits To Keep Unenforceable Clause In Contract,” Michigan Capitol Confidential (Mackinac Center for Public Policy, May 9, 2014), http://goo.gl/0yhqaR (accessed July 30, 2014).

71 “Wyoming Public Schools Initial Proposal to the Kent County Education Association” (Wyoming Public Schools, Feb. 26, 2013).

72 “Kent County Education Association Counter Proposal to Wyoming Public Schools” (Wyoming Public Schools, 2013).

73 Wyoming Public Schools Director of Finance and Human Resources Matt Lewis, email correspondence with Michigan Capitol Confidential Senior Capitol Correspondent Tom Gantert, April, 24, 2014.

74 Ibid.

75 “Master Agreement Between the Chippewa Valley Schools Board of Education and the MEA-NEA Local 1, Chippewa Valley” (Chippewa Valley Schools), 49–50, http://goo.gl/C07ZWX (accessed July 30, 2014); “Letter of Understanding Between MEA-NEA Local 1, Chippewa Valley and Chippewa Valley Schools Board of Education” (Chippewa Valley Schools, Feb. 14, 2013), http://goo.gl/fPtGcu (accessed July 30, 2014); “Chippewa Valley Schools Board of Education - Regular Meeting Administration Building” (Chippewa Valley Schools, March 4, 2013), http://goo.gl/kmk9Ga (accessed July 30, 2014).

76 “Letter of Understanding Between MEA-NEA Local 1, Chippewa Valley and Chippewa Valley Schools Board of Education” (Chippewa Valley Schools, Feb. 14, 2013), http://goo.gl/fPtGcu (accessed July 30, 2014).

77 Jack Spencer, “Another School Contract Extended To Lock Teachers Into Union Membership,” Michigan Capitol Confidential (Mackinac Center for Public Policy, March 26, 2013), http://goo.gl/ XQMGJq (accessed July 30, 2014).

78 “Agreement Between East China School District and East China Education Association” (East China School District, March 18, 2013), 42, http://goo.gl/xxQbqW (accessed July 30, 2014).

79 “Contract Agreement: Board of Education Cheboygan Area School District and the Cheboygan Area Education Association” (Cheboygan Area Schools, March 25, 2013), 2, http://goo.gl/r5VhF4 (accessed July 30, 2014).

80 “Master Agreement Between the Chippewa Valley Schools Board of Education and the MEA-NEA Local 1, Chippewa Valley” (Chippewa Valley Schools), 50, http://goo.gl/C07ZWX (accessed July 30, 2014); “Letter of Understanding Between MEA-NEA Local 1, Chippewa Valley and Chippewa Valley Schools Board of Education” (Chippewa Valley Schools, Feb. 14, 2013), http://goo.gl/fPtGcu (accessed July 30, 2014).

81 “Professional Agreement between the Board of Education of the Clintondale Community School District and the MEA-NEA Local 1” (Clintondale Community Schools, 2013), http://goo.gl/sUoccZ (accessed Jul. 30, 2014).

82 “Agreement Between East China School District and East China Education Association” (East China School District, March 18, 2013), 7, 41, http://goo.gl/xxQbqW (accessed July 30, 2014).

83 “Agreement Between the Grosse Ile Board of Education and Grosse Ile Education Association” (Grosse Ile Township Schools, March 19, 2013), 3, 38, http://goo.gl/ThPGmT (accessed July 31, 2014).

84 “Master Contract: Litchfield Community Schools and Litchfield Education Association” (Litchfield Community Schools, July 1, 2013), 3, 29, http://goo.gl/0a1yMK (accessed July 31, 2014).

85 “Agreement between Marlette Community Schools Board of Education and Marlette Education Association” (Marlette Community Schools, July 1, 2013), http://goo.gl/QS8GcF (accessed Aug. 27, 2014).

86 “Agreement between Merrill Community School District and Merrill Education Association” (Merrill Community School District, 2013), 1, 25, http://goo.gl/1gnRSK (accessed July 30, 2014).

87 “Agreement: New Buffalo Area Schools and New Buffalo 5-C Education Association” (New Buffalo Area Schools, Aug. 1, 2013), 8, http://goo.gl/cXCfKI (accessed July 31, 2014); “Minutes of Regular Meeting of the Board of Education New Buffalo Area Schools” (New Buffalo Area Schools, March 18, 2013), http://goo.gl/E45mKj (accessed July 31, 2014).

88 “Agreement Between Board of Education of the Northview Public Schools and Kent County Education Association” (Northview Public Schools, March 22, 2013), 9, 43, http://goo.gl/qqkW8R (accessed July 31, 2014).

89 “Master Agreement Between Pinckney Community Schools Board of Education And Pinckney Educational Association” (Pinckney Community Schools, March 25, 2013), 3, http://goo.gl/SPdWyB (accessed July 31, 2014).

90 “Master Agreement Between the St Louis Board of Education and the St Louis Education Association” (St. Louis Public Schools, July 1, 2013), 8, http://goo.gl/tjoPov (accessed July 30, 2014).

91 “Agreement between the Tahquamenon Area School District and the Tahquamenon Area Education Association” (Tahquamenon Area School District, July 1, 2013), 20, http://goo.gl/zMmaVt (accessed Aug. 26, 2014); “The Minutes of the Regular Board Meeting of June 17, 2013” (Tahquamenon Area School District, June 17, 2013), http://goo.gl/inaekH (accessed Aug. 26, 2014).

92 “Master Agreement Between Tri County Area Schools Board of Education and Tri County Education Association” (Tri County Area Schools, March 26, 2013), 8, 53, http://goo.gl/TCcbhW (accessed July 31, 2014).

93 “Wyoming Public Schools Board of Education and the Kent County Education Association: Agreement” (Wyoming Public Schools, Aug. 15, 2013), 6, 38, http://goo.gl/MSZTzs (accessed July 30, 2014).

94 Author’s calculations based on “2013-14 Pupil Headcount Data: Fall 2013 Enrollment Data” (Center for Educational Performance and Information, 2013), http://goo.gl/pEuZmh (accessed July 30, 2014); “School Personnel Data and Reports: Full Time Equivalencies Data” (Center for Educational Performance and Information, Dec. 2013), http://goo.gl/9CqVYv (accessed July 30, 2014).

95 “Agreement Between the Warren Consolidated Schools Board of Education and the Warren Education Association” (Warren Consolidated Schools, March 6, 2013), 105, http://goo.gl/gNStqH (accessed July 31, 2014).

96 Author’s calculations based on “2013-14 Pupil Headcount Data: Fall 2013 Enrollment Data” (Center for Educational Performance and Information, 2013), http://goo.gl/pEuZmh (accessed July 30, 2014); “School Personnel Data and Reports: Full Time Equivalencies Data” (Center for Educational Performance and Information, Dec. 2013), http://goo.gl/9CqVYv (accessed July 30, 2014).

97 “Conditional Increase Tentative Agreement” (Lansing Public School District, March 15, 2013), 3, http://goo.gl/Xm9oKX (accessed July 31, 2014); “Master Agreement Between Lansing Schools Education Association and Lansing School District Board of Education” (Lansing Public School District, Sept. 28, 2009), http://goo.gl/ZBTkuP (accessed July 31, 2014).

98 “Master Agreement Between the Berrien Springs Education Association and the Berrien Springs Board of Education” (Berrien Springs Public Schools, March 4, 2013), http://goo.gl/8kQvMv (accessed July 31, 2014); “Berrien Springs FOIA Response” (Berrien Springs Public Schools, April 30, 2014).

99 “Berrien Springs FOIA Response” (Berrien Springs Public Schools, April 30, 2014).

100 “Master Agreement Between the Berrien Springs Education Association and the Berrien Springs Board of Education” (Berrien Springs Public Schools, March 4, 2013), 3, http://goo.gl/8kQvMv (accessed July 31, 2014).

101 Ibid.

102 “Master Agreement Between Lansing Schools Education Association and Lansing School District Board of Education” (Lansing Public School District, Sept. 28, 2009), 69, http://goo.gl/ZBTkuP (accessed July 31, 2014); “Conditional Increase Tentative Agreement” (Lansing Public School District, March 15, 2013), http://goo.gl/Xm9oKX (accessed July 31, 2014).

103 “Master Agreement between the Olivet Education Association” (Olivet Community School District, March 15, 2013), 5, 42, http://goo. gl/ve8R8h (accessed July 31, 2014).

104 Full agreement effective on Aug. 24, 2013, agency fee portion effective in March 2013. “Agreement Between the Warren Consolidated Schools Board of Education and the Warren Education Association” (Warren Consolidated Schools, March 6, 2013), 51, 104–106, http://goo.gl/gNStqH (accessed July 31, 2014).

105 “Master Agreement Between the Waverly Board of Education and the Ingham/Clinton Education Association/Waverly Education Association, MEA/NEA”, 38, 63, http://goo.gl/l0H48f (accessed July 31, 2014).

106 Author’s calculations based on “2013-14 Pupil Headcount Data: Fall 2013 Enrollment Data” (Center for Educational Performance and Information, 2013), http://goo.gl/pEuZmh (accessed July 30, 2014); “School Personnel Data and Reports: Full Time Equivalencies Data” (Center for Educational Performance and Information, Dec. 2013), http://goo.gl/9CqVYv (accessed July 30, 2014).

107 Amy Biolchini, “Ann Arbor School Board Passes Budget despite Outburst, Controversy over Custodial Privatization,” MLive.com, June 27, 2014, http://goo.gl/6b4vB6 (accessed July 31, 2014); “Ann Arbor School Board Approves Pact with Teachers Union,” AAPS News (Ann Arbor Public Schools, June 24, 2014), http://goo.gl/pVKDfx (accessed Aug. 22, 2014).

108 “Master Agreement Between the Coldwater Community Schools Board of Education and the Coldwater Education Association” (Coldwater Community Schools, March 25, 2013), 3, http://goo.gl/ S4BqCp (accessed July 31, 2014).

109 Ibid., 53.

110 “Tentative Agreement between Taylor School District Board of Education & Taylor Federation of Teachers: Ratification Meeting” (Taylor School District, Jan. 24, 2013), http://goo.gl/dhNjBS (accessed July 30, 2014); “Master Agreement Between the Board of Education Armada School District and the Armada Education Association” (Armada Area School District, March 6, 2013), http://goo.gl/hKu0M9 (accessed July 30, 2014).

111 “Agreement Between the Dearborn Board of Education and the Dearborn Federation of Teachers” (Dearborn Public Schools, March 14, 2013), http://goo.gl/BMGvjO (accessed Aug. 27, 2014); “Agreement Between the Warren Consolidated Schools Board of Education and the Warren Education Association” (Warren Consolidated Schools, March 6, 2013), http://goo.gl/gNStqH (accessed July 31, 2014); “Taylor Federation of Teachers Union Security Agreement” (Taylor School District, Jan. 24, 2013), http://goo.gl/MhaoAW (accessed July 30, 2014); “Master Agreement Between the Board of Education Hartland Consolidated Schools and the Hartland Education Association MEA/NEA” (Hartland Consolidated Schools, March 25, 2013), http://goo.gl/ajk5cy (accessed Aug. 27, 2014); “Woodhaven-Brownstown School District Board of Education Special Meeting” (Woodhaven-Brownstown School District, March 18, 2013), http://goo.gl/VdOaQq (accessed Aug. 27, 2014).

112 Amy Biolchini, “Ann Arbor School Board Passes Budget despite Outburst, Controversy over Custodial Privatization,” MLive.com, June 27, 2014, http://goo.gl/6b4vB6 (accessed July 31, 2014); “Tentative Memorandum of Agreement Between the Ann Arbor Board of Education and the Ann Arbor Education Association” (Ann Arbor Public Schools, March 18, 2013), 10, http://goo.gl/WT8yX3 (accessed July 31, 2014).

113 “Agreement Between the Beaverton Rural Schools Board of Education and the Beaverton Education Association” (Beaverton Rural Schools, May 29, 2013), 4, 34.

114 “Master Agreement Between the Coldwater Community Schools Board of Education and the Coldwater Education Association” (Coldwater Community Schools, March 25, 2013), 3, 55, http://goo.gl/ S4BqCp (accessed July 31, 2014).

115 “Agreement Between North Huron Board of Education and the Tri-County Bargaining Assocation and the North Huron Education Association” (North Huron Schools, July 1, 2007), 4, 57, http://goo. gl/i0rYxZ (accessed July 31, 2014).

116 “Master Agreement Between the Richmond Board of Education and MEA-NEA Local 1, Richmond Education Association” (Richmond Community School District, March 23, 2013), 4, 59, http://goo.gl/0jTlz0 (accessed July 31, 2014).

117 “Agreement Between the Board of Education of the Shepherd Public Schools and the Shepherd Education Association” (Shepherd Public Schools, July 1, 2012), 2, 43, http://goo.gl/rppAEe (accessed July 31, 2014).

118 Amber M. Winkler, Janie Scull and Dara Zeehandelaar, “How Strong Are U.S. Teacher Unions?: A State by State Comparison” (Fordham Institute, Oct. 2012), 33, http://goo.gl/eqT58O (accessed July 31, 2014).

119 Ibid., 193.

120 Ibid., 194.

121 “Public Act 349” (State of Michigan, Dec. 11, 2012), http://goo.gl/ r7AJjx (accessed July 23, 2014).

122 Ibid.

123 MCL § 388.1622f(2)(g).

124 “Public Act 436 of 2012” (State of Michigan, Dec. 26, 2012), http://goo.gl/er3Jzu (accessed July 31, 2014).