The November election is a little more than a month away, and already Ohioans are clamoring at the chance to vote yes or no on Issue 2, also known as Senate Bill 5. The issue restricts collective bargaining rights for the state's roughly 360,000 public-sector employees. Not one Democrat voted for the bill when it passed the GOP-controlled legislature in March.
We ran our first article on on Sept. 17, and ever since, Patch readers have been debating the pros and cons.
We've received hundreds of comments, but here's a sample of some of the viewpoints our readers have been discussing.
Several people said they won't vote for Issue 2 because they say it will raise taxes, to which several commenters responded:
says: What makes you think that your taxes won't be going up? This is a bill to break the unions. They never promised that it will keep your taxes from going up. When I began teaching in the 60's, our salaries put us in the lower class financially. Nearly all of us came from middle class backgrounds. After teaching for 40 years, I was receiving a respectable salary thanks to union bargaining over the years. When I began teaching there was a nationwide severe shortage of teachers. If you reduce the total package for a teacher's salary, who is going to go through those 5 years of college with so little incentive to receive an income commesurate with their abilities?
says: Your taxes are going to go up reqardless (sic) at least with Issue 2 we protect those we need the most Police, Firefighters and Teachers (who are grossly underpaid, despite what someone said about $51.00 an hour) VOTE NO ON ISSUE 2.
Others want Issue 2 to pass because they say it will give power back to employers.
says: I'm voting to uphold SB5. The employees of the state of Ohio have no right to hold me hostage, and SB5 begins to restore balance to the employer/employee relationship.
In response, says: ...This will take away rights of not only firefighters, police and teachers, but also office workers and road crews and building custodians (just to name a few). Most of these workers had to face the economic realities of the recession back when the recesson started. It is untrue that public employees do not contribute to their pensions or healthcare costs. There are are also quite a few who have negotiated to pay more than the percentages quoted in the tv ads.
Others are simply looking for more information and asking questions before they vote:
says: If you have a position please offer some facts and support your argument. Take for example the claim by one side that SB5 is an attempt to destroy the middle-class and will result in minimum wages. Please explain how SB5 causes that to happen ? Where can we find those provisions in SB5 ? Make your case in an intelligent and civil manner.
answers: SB 5 doesn't prescribe wages. It allows cities to take at will from their employees. There is no unbiased third party protection from them doing this. Safety forces can't even strike like the private sector can, should they not like the terms of employment. It's illegal. Did you know that's why collective bargaining was instituted in the first place? A neutral third-party was given in exchange for the ability to strike. Now, they're taking the neutral third-party without giving back the ability to strike. Sound fair to you? Sounds like it's eliminating the rights of the workers and the middle class to me.
also responded: ...Keep in mind that the salary is only the beginning---in many districts the teachers pay nothing toward their retirement and health care----issue 2 would require that they pay 15% of their health care and 10% toward their pension. about 90% of the private sector would only dream about such low costs. In the private sector, failure to make a profit results in layoffs, or closure, while with public employees simply roll out the banners and propaganda machine, talk poor, and demand the taxpayer fork over---of course its for the children, nothing selfish here. The same with policemen and firefighters, they are not being asked to take cuts in salary or benefits, only that fairness be introduced to the argument. Issue 2[SB5} is the fair answer.
Related articles:
But the story is different for workers for Franklin County, of which Columbus is the county seat. Almost 90 percent of Franklin County workers pay their own entire pension share, the Dispatch found. Columbus schools pick up the superintendent's pension contribution, but not those of teachers and staff members."...
If only 8% of contracts go to fact finding how many of them flew through because there was no effective taxpayer representation at the table. What if the negotiating officials involved were either politically indebted to one side or politically alligned with that side or both? Everyone knows anecdotally that this is a possibility but could it be determined from the contracts without a full blown legal investigation?
Thanks for your comment. This is only just the beginning of our Issue 2/SB5 coverage, so I can assure you there's much more to come. I will pass your queries along to the main reporter on this issue. His name is Chris Mazzolini, and he is the editor of the Solon Patch. If you have any other questions, please email him at christopher.mazzolini@patch.com. Thank you for your comments and for reading Patch. Megan Rozsa
hardly conspiritoral and definitely not extreme because I have seen it happen and have discussed this with others that have as well. It is not a conspiracy if it is legal, which happens most when Union approved Board Members get legally elected with union support, they then support the unions. Do not tell me that Community Safety Forces have no influence on municipal elections because I have seen proof that they do in my town. If the Council Memebers and City Leadership owe their elections to the goodwill of the unions then they will certainly support them. The cases I inquire about never make it to the fact finders/arbiters because negotiations are successfully concluded. Union Lawyers and Members are expected to do the best for themselves. City Labor Lawyers follow their leadership lead. So yes, you have Politicians screwing the taxpayer. This suprises you?
you don't know the politicians I know. I'm in the 42nd Ohio Cong. Dist. and worked hard to get my candidate in and the incumbant out. I can attest that it was due to policy differences without a hint of "s" the taxpayers on either side. Contact your local Rep. Talk to them. If then they seem to not deserve your support for either policy or character differences, work to oust them. I did, it was good. Don't lump all of them together, find out which ones deserve your ire and act on it.
Hudson Stow Silver Lake Munroe Falls Cuyahoga Falls (except portion surrounded by Akron wards 1 and 8) 43
You're correct that politicians do cater to "them as brought them to the dance". But sometimes the "them" does happen to be us. Sometimes.
you say this like it's a bad thing. I'd bet there are a lot of Cuyahoga County voters who would like to have my problem.
Ohio's government, passed this for the unions.... Our now Governor did NOT take everything away that Celeste gave the unions, just part of it... Our leaders in government must have some say on how much the raises are!!!!
The facts are the union compensation packages is unjustifiably too high compared to the private sector. The bank breaking statistical trend in these ever escalating union costs is freighting if you look at the data. Keeping the modest SB-5 changes through a yes vote on issue 2 is a no brainer if you look at the situation clearly.
Issue two is a very modest trimming of the extreme outer edges of these union contracts. Vote yes on issue #2 Ohio or go broke.
The contract bargaining system is unchanged with issue 2/5 except that in the end, the arbitrator MUST consider the finances of the employer side. The system we have now lets the arbitrator bless union contract increases when the employer (school, city, state) is broke and in bankruptcy.
The fact finder (different statutory job than an arbitrator) will be spinning their wheels because in the end the CITY gets to pick THEIR OWN OFFER 100% OF THE TIME. Either you cannot comprehend the language of issue 2 or your just LYING
(6) The conciliator shall hear testimony from the parties and provide for a written record to be made of all statements at the hearing. The board shall submit for inclusion in the record and for consideration by the conciliator the written report and recommendation of the fact-finders. (7) After hearing, the conciliator shall resolve the dispute between the parties by selecting, on an issue-by-issue basis, from between each of the party’s final settlement offers, taking into consideration the following: (a) Past collectively bargained agreements, if any, between the parties; (b) Comparison of the issues submitted to final offer settlement relative to the employees in the bargaining unit involved with those issues related to other public and private employees doing comparable work, giving consideration to factors peculiar to the area and classification involved; (c) The interests and welfare of the public, the ability of the public employer to finance and administer the issues proposed, and the effect of the adjustments on the normal standard of public service; PAY SPECIAL ATTENTION TO (c)