DIFFERENTIAL PAY FOR MILITARY SERVICE

House Bill 4117

Sponsor:  Rep. John Proos IV

Committee:  Local Government and Urban Policy

Complete to 2-7-05

A SUMMARY OF HOUSE BILL 4117 AS INTRODUCED 2-1-05

House Bill 4117 would amend Public Act 133 of 1955 (MCL 32.271 et al) which provides for the granting of military leave and re-employment protection for officers and enlisted personnel, to allow a local unit of government to establish a differential pay program for employees who request or are required to take a leave of absence to enter into active military service.

The bill would define "differential pay program" to mean a program through which the local unit of government agrees to pay during the leave of absence all or a part of the difference between the amount the employee is paid by the local unit of government and the amount the employee receives through military service.

The bill specifies that a local unit of government (a city, village, township, or county) can provide, by ordinance or resolution or through a personnel policy, for a differential pay program, or for a specific number of paid days of leave, for those employees of the government who take a leave of absence to enter into active military service. 

Definitions.  The bill would define "active military service" to mean 1) active service in the Michigan National Guard or Michigan Defense Force as an officer or enlisted person, or both; 2) federal service in response to a call or order of the President in time of declared national emergency when such service is not voluntary; and 3) voluntary active duty in the service of the United States by members of the state military establishment, not in response to a call or order of the President in time of declared national emergency, but only when such duty is in support of a National Guard mission.  Any fractional part of a year amounting to six months or more would be counted as a complete year.  Active service is terminated by an honorable separation from the Michigan National Guard or Defense Force.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There would be no state revenue impact.  The cost to local units would depend on how they chose to implement the program.

                                                                                           Legislative Analyst:   J. Hunault

                                                                                                  Fiscal Analyst:   Jim Stansell

■ This analysis was prepared by nonpartisan House staff for use by House members in their deliberations, and does not constitute an official statement of legislative intent.