Michigan State Utility Workers Council, AFL-CIO
Volume XII, #2 April 25, 1997

To All Union Members and Retirees:

As many of you have seen in the last edition of the Light publication, we are having a Deregulation Summit in Washington, DC and encourage as many Members and Retirees to join us for that important summit. The Michigan State Utility Workers Council, UWUA Local 223, and the National Union will be conducting training in preparation for the Deregulation Summit in Washington DC June 18-19, 1997. Our training sessions will be open to all Utility Workers and Retirees who want to learn how to lobby politicians effectively and will assist them in dealing with legislators Nationally and in Michigan even if they are not going to Washington, DC. Ask your Local Union President for details of where and when this training will be conducted. Deregulation of Utilities is probably the most important issue that will affect our jobs and our communities in this century. Read about what is at risk in your last edition of the Light and help us.

CMS Energy Proxy

Following is a letter asking for support for a shareholders proposal designed to strengthen corporate commitment and be viewed and chosen as a "Utility of Choice" by users and consumers. If you have already sent in your Proxy and wish to change your vote, you may do so by calling Investor Services at 517-788-1868.

Dear CMS Energy Shareholder:

At the upcoming CMS Energy ("Company") annual meeting of shareholders, you will be able to vote on an important shareholder proposal ("Proposal") (copy attached) that outlines a five point program designed to strengthen the Company's commitment to be viewed and chosen as the "Utility of Choice" by its users and consumers in a deregulated utility environment.

Utility Deregulation is causing deep concern among utility managers who are moving to downsize, cut costs, and drive wages down to compete in an unregulated environment. The result is exploitation of low wage workers and the destruction of good paying jobs in the communities served by these Utilities. These are the same jobs which they have trumpeted as one of their prime contributions to the overall health and prosperity of the communities they serve. The association by Utilities with low wage contractors, whose business practices have raised ethical questions also threatens the image of these Companies. I have become aware of these issues in my capacity as President of the Michigan State Utility Workers Council and through studies on the social costs of utility deregulation.

The Proposal urges the Board of Directors to expand its knowledge base and resources to focus on the Company's commitment to the environment, community jobs, and consumer/citizen goals. The "Utility of Choice" concept is an attempt to strengthen the role of the utility as a leader in the community and to protect shareholder value during this period of utility deregulation, when customers will have a "choice" as to which utility will serve and supply them with their energy needs.

Support of the Proposal will help convey the shareholder message to management that the Company can indeed protect and increase shareholder value while still supporting its customers, communities, and other important constituencies. As the regulatory environment in which our Company operates changes, it is important that the Company's management focus be long-term oriented. The Company must be a leader in developing a market plan that does not emphasize short-term returns at the expense of customers, workers or the environment.

I urge all shareholders to support the Proposal so as to send a positive and important message to the Company's Board of Directors.

Sincerely,

s/Gary M. Ruffner

SHAREHOLDER PROPOSAL

Whereas, continuing deregulation of the utility industry will force companies, including Consumers Power, to question the underlying corporate assumptions about mission service and cost, and

Whereas, users and consumers of Consumers Power service will be bombarded with a massive campaign by other providers, private and public, to accept competing power and services, and

Whereas, consumers and the public need to more fully understand the factors like quality, safety, reliability, being a provider of stable community jobs, corporate dedication to community goals, and overall company accountability that make a utility worthy to be regarded as a "Utility of Choice" by its users and consumers,

Therefore, be it resolved, that the shareholders urge the Board of Directors to strengthen the Company's internal commitment to continuing to be the "Utility of Choice" by its users and consumers through adoption of the following five point program:

1. That the Board of Directors expand the membership of the Environmental and Corporate Responsibility Committee to include more consumers and representatives of the Company's employee and Union groups, and direct the expanded committee to undertake the drafting of a clear statement of the Company's responsibility to quality, safety, reliability, being a provider of stable community jobs, corporate dedication to community goals, and overall Company accountability which taken together, make a utility worthy to be regarded as a "Utility of Choice" by its users and consumers;

2. That the Compensation Committee be directed to consider the inclusion of "Utility of Choice" indicators in the corporate performance factors used in the calculation of compensation for Company officials;

3. That the Company publicize the "Utility of Choice" guidelines to give consumers and users a basis for calculation when considering energy and service alternatives, and as the basis of questions to ask competitors who seek to have consumers and users change service;

4. That the Company use the "Utility of Choice" guidelines in its legislative education and lobbying efforts so as to have our public officials understand the importance of an expanded cost/benefit analysis in the era of utility deregulation;

5. That the Company make the "Utility of Choice" campaign a priority by setting a January 1, 1998 deadline for the completion of the Committee's work and the Company's implementation of their report and recommendations.

ATTENTION ALL LOCAL UNION MEMBERS
"JOB SITE REPORTING"

Is the Company bargaining directly with employees regarding Job Site Reporting and four, ten-hour days? Are these employees eligible for Job Site Reporting and four, ten-hour days, according to the Working Agreement? What effect does that have on contractual rights and entitlements?

When management allows employees to Job Site Report to work which is not project work, they are violating the Working Agreement. A job site is one project such as a subdivision or one small area of a circuit and not an entire system or service territory. If the Company allows employees to Job Site Report from occupational groups that are not entitled to Job Site Report, they are violating someone's contractual rights to overtime and are violating the Working Agreement by working ten-hour days for straight time. If the Company has an employee who does not qualify for Job Site Reporting, as recognized by Article X, Section 7(b) (Energy Distribution employees), work ten-hour days, it is the same as having them report to another headquarters. If the Company only pays them straight time, they are not being paid the appropriate rate of pay and should be paid overtime rates in accordance with Article XI, Section 14 and all applicable articles and sections of the Working Agreement, in addition, mileage, etc. to and from their headquarters, as well as an additional eight hours straight time pay for the fifth day of the week (40-hour work week straight time guarantee).

Management knows that assigning ten-hour days to those not eligible for Job Site Reporting is a blatant violation of the Working Agreement, but does not have enough honor and integrity to put a stop to it. We think the Company is trying to implement their "Neighborhood Concept", which is something they failed to get in negotiations with the Council. The Company is trying to convince employees that 4-10's is in their best interest without having them job-site report. In other areas, the Company wants employees to report to some other central location, get their work orders and equipment and do routine work on 4-10's. These types of situations are the Company's attempt to avoid paying overtime and pit one worker against another.

The Council Board has discussed this at length and it is the opinion of the Board that the only time the Company can have OM&C employees working on a 4-10 schedule is when they are doing project work on job-site reporting.