Yet this bill would require that union bosses be given access to the personal contact information of workers regardless of their criminal history. And we’re not just talking about their work e-mail addresses or office phone number here. We’re talking about home addresses, their personal cell phone numbers, and their personal e-mail addresses. Historically this body has worked hard to protect that personal information. Working to ensure the safety—and, necessarily, the privacy—of our citizens is one of the fundamental roles of state government. This isn’t just an invasive, government-mandated breach of personal data. It’s outright dangerous.
My amendment would remove from this bill the requirement to share personal contact information with union officials who have been convicted of fraud or sexual assault. We as lawmakers should not make it easier for criminals or abusers to access personal information of our citizens. I ask for support of my amendment.
Senator Cherry’s statement is as follows:
I just wanted to speak about really the issues that have fostered the bill. We’ve heard a lot about how horrible unions are and how we don’t want them talking to anybody, but ultimately it is the role of a union to represent employees and when there’s an issue between a represented employee and their employer, to defend that employee and to help them. It had been in previous administrations the practice of the state to not inform unions when there are people they are supposed to be representing. Fortunately that changed with the change of administration. But ultimately, when a union does not know about and cannot contact an employee they are supposed to represent, it’s the employee that is harmed. Denying access hurts the worker.
Now, why is it necessary for a union to have the home contact information for an employee? It actually turns out employees are not supposed to actually be talking to their union representatives while they’re on the clock. If they can’t use their work e-mail or their work phone to talk to their union representative, then that does have to be done outside of work hours which typically means it’s at home.
There were a lot of what I might consider inflammatory amendments put forward earlier, and I’d just like to posit that in fact there are protections for leaks which, there was a lawsuit referenced by one of the previous speakers, and the fact that there is a lawsuit shows that there were protections in place for workers to make sure their identities are not stolen. I would just add the fact that if you do have union representatives convicted of sexual assault, they shouldn’t be working there in the first place; I would expect for them to be fired so I don’t see that as—well, quite frankly, they’d be in jail, so I don’t think we’re going to have an issue there.
This bill is really about making sure public employees have the ability to be represented by their unions and I urge my colleagues to support the bill.
The following bill was read a third time:
Senate Bill No. 103, entitled
A bill to amend 1994 PA 451, entitled “Natural resources and environmental protection act,” (MCL 324.101 to 324.90106) by adding sections 48714a and 48714b.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows: