We are in a crisis—a staffing crisis, and a violence crisis—at our state facilities. Retention of our officers is a major crisis, and I don’t know how many of you have seen the recent report to the Legislature that is offered to us through boilerplate language, and it’s required annually from the department to report on employee departures. In the last year, employee departures who had worked for less than one year was 108, and those who had worked between one and three years was also 108, which is almost 50 percent of the recruiting class leaving. We have people going to other states where starting pay is better, where the end-of-career pay is better, where the end-of-career benefits are better. Clearly we need to step up our game because the situation is dangerous and people are being hurt—officers are being hurt, inmates are being hurt. The situation is intolerable and shouldn’t be tolerated any longer.
I want to challenge us to recognize that this alone is not enough to address this crisis. We have both an urgent immediate need, we have a short-term need and we have a long-term need, to address with our corrections officers and with the department. This is addressing the long-term, hoping to keep people retained longer, but until our starting pay competes with Wisconsin and Kansas and other neighboring states, we’re still going to be missing the boat. Until we address the fact that we’re leaving them hanging for post-employment healthcare before Medicare kicks in, we’re still missing the boat, especially considering so many of them get out ten years before Medicare with significant injuries or mental health needs. We have to do more and we need to do it soon.
I encourage a “yes” vote today and continued work to follow.
The following bill was read a third time:
Senate Bill No. 166, entitled
A bill to amend 1943 PA 240, entitled “State employees’ retirement act,” by amending section 55 (MCL 38.55), as amended by 2011 PA 264, and by adding sections 50b, 50c, 50d, 64a, 64b, and 64c.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
Senator Albert offered the following substitute:
Substitute (S-4).
The substitute was not adopted, a majority of the members serving not voting therefor.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows: