By Danielle Emerson
Staff Writer
Posted: April 28, 2017 12:16 PM

Earlier this week, Senate Democrats unveiled a large package of bills aimed at equal pay and prohibiting certain forms of employment discrimination. They were all sent to Government Operations, presumably to languish and die, but one bill stuck out to me: wage garnishments, sponsored by Sen. Bert Johnson.

Mr. Johnson (D-Highland Park) has been in the news a lot lately, and especially so last night with the unsealed search warrant that had been executed on Mr. Johnson’s home and Lansing office regarding allegations he hired a no-show employee as a way to repay her for a loan.

The warrant revealed that Mr. Johnson had asked Glynis Thornton, convicted of being part of a kickback scheme with the Education Achievement Authority, for a $10,000 loan to pay for his son’s high school tuition (See Gongwer Michigan Report, April 27, 2017). She obliged, but he never paid her back, and eventually Mr. Johnson allegedly concocted a scheme in which Ms. Thornton would be a part of his staff but not have to do anything except receive a paycheck – what has become referenced as a “ghost employee.”

Sources I’ve talked to about their dealings with Mr. Johnson and especially his lack of paying people all have something in common: They want his money, and he avoids showing he has any. So it’s ironic that Mr. Johnson is the lead sponsor of a bill introduced earlier this week that revises the notice period employers must give to employees about garnishment of wages without written consent.

Now, let’s be clear: It doesn’t appear he would gain anything from this legislation, so this is genuinely ironic. His bill, SB 328, revises the time period during which an employer may deduct without written consent to be the greater of one pay period or, his bill includes, 10 business days. Some of the sources seeking Mr. Johnson’s money say much of it already is under garnishment. How much, we don’t know. The Senate has refused to provide that information.

It’s also worth noting that most of the Senate Democratic Caucus agreed to co-sponsor the legislation with him, as he is also a co-sponsor on other bills in the equal pay package.

Regardless, there’s no getting around how it looks – Mr. Johnson, fighting for those like him having their wages garnished. But there’s also no getting around how it would’ve looked if, say, one of his colleagues was the primary sponsor and then he or she opens himself or herself up to an argument of doing Mr. Johnson a solid (even if that would not have been the case).

Talk about having an elephant (or donkey?) in the room.