One of the many signs, yesterday, at the rally outside of the Dayton Convention Center
Ohio’s Senate Bill 5 is a bold move by Ohio Republicans to destroy public workers’ unions. This bill erases a lot of the Ohio Revised Code and completely destroys decades old procedures dealing with public employee contracts. It is incredible that legislation of this scope should be pushed through without a longer and more careful public debate. It seems a blatant power grab by Republicans who, after the last election, now have the upper hand.
South of Dayton Republican State Senator, Peggy Lehner, had an interesting request of teachers that was quoted in the DDN: “Help us (the State Assembly) figure out a system that blends merit with seniority. … To put the best possible teacher in the classroom should be your goal. It’s my goal and I’d like you to help me get there.”
Yes, I agree, we need a very different organizational structure for our system of public education. In my campaign to be elected to the Kettering School Board, I spoke of the need for “transformation,” and I believe transformation means radical change. But, in my view, this transformation, in order to be effective, must be a cooperative, long-term effort and the goal must be to raise and empower teacher professionalism. Nothing I see in Senate Bill 5 makes me think that this type of transformation is part of the Republican motivation.
This attack on public employee unions by Ohio Republicans parallels what is happening in Wisconsin. Paul Krugman writes that Republicans want to make America, “less of a functioning democracy and more of a third-world-style oligarchy.”
Stephen Lahanas writing on David Esrati’s blog makes this observation:
The current legislation being proposed by Gov. Kasich has absolutely NOTHING to do with Ohio. This is a coordinated effort across 14 states thus far and this latest strategy was developed by the CATO, Heritage Institutes over the past two years or so. Whatever complaints anyone here might have about unions locally or nationally, the goal of this effort has nothing to do with reforming current practices or even with budget shortfalls. The goal here is clear – to disempower all government services employees by breaking their unions. This is has been combined with a sustained propaganda attack in the media against teachers and state and federal employees (blaming teachers for all issues related to education, claiming state workers are overpaid etc.)”
A big crowd -- at least 1000 -- chanted "Kill the Bill" at the Dayton Convention Center. Senator Peggy Lehner met with a group of teachers inside of the Center.
Lot’s of interesting comments — pro and con — at Cleveland.com:
- pogoaddict writes: “It is brain washed people LIKE YOU who do not realize that YOU and YOURjob will be next.Unless you own your own business or are a Millionaire everything thing that Unions do benefits YOU. Your pay is based on Union Scales. You work a 5 day work week because of Unions. You work in a safe environment because of Unions, you get vacation days because of unions, you get overtimes because of Unions. … I am truly sorry for all of you people who are so brain washed and brain dead you can not look at the facts and see that you are being lied to by the Republicans AGAIN.”
- larrylicious writes: “The unionthug leadership that relies on other peoples labor to support them in their upper middle-class lifestyles are worried that they may be out of a job. And well they should be. Maybe you should have been more careful with the dues money you collected instead of supporting Democrats 100% of the time. This shameful practice is coming to an end. Republicans are now in charge, and they are going to restore things to the way they should be.”
- lndep1 writes: “On a strictly political level, there’s a couple of reasons to listen to the safety unions. Unlike the teachers’ unions, AFSCME, and the SEIU, safety unions are not essentially an affiliate of the Democratic Party. They are much more politically independent. … One can understand why Republicans are hesitant to sit down with unions that always support Democrats, and contribute money and and other efforts to defeat Republicans. But that’s not the safety unions.”
- hoipolloi writes: “I support the proposed changes, but frankly I have no problem “slowing down” the process. The more people learn about this the more support it will have. Thevery concept of a public employee union is dubious — they create a fundamental unbalance at best and corruption of government at worst. The more it is talked about the clearer it becomes. And passing this bill after a convincing public debate is the best way for the change to be permanent.”
- Will_444 writes: “If we want to break up unions for first responders, teachers, and other government workers, why hide it in a fear-induced funding bill? We should have the guts to vote on a straight up/down bill to take away collective bargaining for workers. There may be more than one way to get through a budget crisis then on the backs of just one group of Ohio workers. The whole way this is set up in Ohio, Wisconsin, and other states seems too much of a political set-up.”
The real power grab was done by public employee unions over the past 40 years. Well, it’s finally catching up to them.
Public employee (the tax payers servants) pay now is more that the average private sector worker makes. How does that make sense?
Mike, I am really disappointed in you. First, you ignore the biggest issue: WE ARE BROKE! Rather than discussing the current system and why it is broke, you engage in class and partisan warfare.
What is wrong with the system? Collective bargaining with public employees does not involve an effective brake to employee demands. Public employee unions mount not only expensive campaigns to persuade the public, but their employees are often residents of the municipality or district in question. The managers/school board/city commission have no financial “skin in the game.” Unlike private sector collective bargaining, there is no profit motive or “bottom line” involved
I am a federal employee. We cannot bargain over wages and benefits. We have pay decisions decided by a Pay Board, with the concurrence of the President. We do not work in unsafe conditions with substandard wages. Granted, comparing skill by skill the federal government wages are lower than the private sector, but that is made up for by greater job security and pension. The world of us feds is not some bleak existence, as these municipal labor unions would have you believe.
On the other hand, I can certainly understand that the angst of public employees who are in one of these unions. The present situation is all they know and change is always hard. But change there must be.
I don’t know the perfect answer and would hope that reasonable people could sit down and come up with several alternative solutions. The status quo is unsustainable. I am glad to see the unions have come up with some proposals of their own. Class and partisan warfare will get us nowhere. Having thousands of screaming protesters in the Capital will not be productive of a solution. I agree we need to take time and do this right. It does not have to be an all or nothing situation. Maybe there still could be unions, but they could not bargain over wages and benefits. That is what we have in the federal government.
BTW, the reason so many states are looking at something like a SB 5 is not because of some capitalist cabal but rather many states are facing the same problems.
I am sorry I have to so forcefully disagree with you.
If SB 5 is passed public employees in Ohio will not be working for third world wages, they will still be eligible for pensions,
Mike,
I love the first paragraph! If you substitute ‘democrats’ for ‘republicans’ and ‘health care reform’ for ‘SB5 or collective bargaining’ you would be making the exact same arguments conservatives and republicans were making against passing the health care bill.
Funny how that works…
Collective bargaining changes are inevitable, and long overdue. Public employees can be a part of the reform or try to block everything. Either way, changes in some form are going to happen with the backing of many many taxpayers.
As far as getting rid of collective bargaining altogether, I have an alternative solution. They should indeed have the ‘right to assemble,’ just as others should have the ‘right NOT to assemble.’ If someone doesn’t want to join the union, don’t force them to pay ‘fair share’ dues. Let people vote on the relevance of unions with their money.
That is a lot of nonsense Bryan. Giving people the option of not joining the union will make us a right to work state. That means even if you do not join, you will get the same benefits as union members. This will destroy the unions and leave us more vulnerable to our corporate masters Right to work means right to work for less. I do not want Ohio to end up being a backward state like Mississippi, which seems to be the aim of Idiot Kasich and his Neanderthal Republicans.
RWE, your question — “Public employee (the tax payers servants) pay now is more that the average private sector worker makes. How does that make sense?” — is a good question to ask. And, certainly our democracy could find a solution. But, it is an unreasonable and unnecessary response to propose that the solution requires the destruction of the public employee unions.
It has been a consistent Republican position to seek to undermine and to bust unions. A time of distress gives the opportunity for a power grab — to impose a solution much more radical than what would ever emerge in a truly representative democracy.
Rick, In order to deal with what you call the biggest issue — “WE ARE BROKE” — our democracy must be willing to deal with some hard issues. The fact is, the wealthy are not paying their fair share and, if our democracy had any life remaining in it, our representatives would make the tax system much more progressive. Ohio’s budget is in the mess, because, in 2005, the Republicans who were in complete control of Ohio government, pushed through a change in Ohio’s tax system that reduced taxes on business and on the wealthy. Ohio reduced its revenues by a big amount — making the income tax 21% less progressive, and reducing business tax by 50% — and so, it is no surprise that the state budget is now in deficit.
The Republican agenda, at heart, is one of class warfare — giving ever more advantage to the wealthy, and taking from the middle class and the poor. Historically, seeking to bust the unions has been part of this Republican agenda and this current budget crisis — manufactured by Republican policies — is now the excuse for a power grab to push an agenda that goes well beyond what an informed general public would ever support. After SB5 is approved, you can look for the Republicans to further seek to reduce state revenue by giving additional tax breaks to the wealthy — via reduction in the state income tax and the state estate tax.
Over the last couple of years, I’ve written a number of posts that deal with this general question:
The Rise Of The Oligarchy — How The U.S. Became a Country “Of The Rich, By The Rich, For The Rich”
Ohio’s Budget Crisis: Ohio Must Find A Way To Make Its Total Tax System More Fair, More Progressive
Ohio’s New Budget Will Hurt The Poor, $500 Million Needed, Report Criticizes Ohio’s 2005 Tax Cuts
How Much Revenue Would Ohio Gain, If Ohio’s 2005 Tax Reduction Act Was Rescinded For Top Incomes?
Governor Strickland Fails To Explain Impact Of 2005 Tax Reduction Act On Ohio’s 2009 Budget Shortfall
Ohio’s 2005 Tax Reduction Act Was Predicted, By 2010, To Result In Yearly State Budget Shortfall of Billions
Democrat Candidates For Ohio State Assembly Fail To Challenge Republicans On Crucial Budget / Tax Issues
Twelve Tax Loopholes Ohio Should Close To Generate $270 Million Additional Revenue Each Year
Ohio’s 2005 Tax Reduction Law Diminished, By 21%, The Progressivity of Ohio’s Tax Code
Study Says Ohio Should Raise State Revenue $817 Million By Revising 2005 Income Tax Reduction Act
Bryan, I don’t see a parallel between Ohio’s SB5 legislation and the Federal health care reform act. At the federal level, Obama and the Democrats made it clear in the 2008 campaign that, if elected, improving health care would be at the top of their agenda. In Ohio, Kasich and the Republicans gave no indication in the 2010 campaign, that, if elected, destroying collective bargaining for public workers’ unions would be something they would push.
I’m mainly focused on how this impacts public education. I believe there is a need for a transformation in public education — a very different structure is needed. This is an opportunity for leadership, but instead, we are getting a simplistic, one dimensional power play. Teachers and unions should be part of the problem solving process. Destroying collective bargaining will create a huge imbalance, and will not lead to the improvement that is needed.
Mike, for federal income tax, the rich pay more than their fair share. You did not comment on my experience (and millions of others) who are federal employees and are not working for slave wages. You are engaging in class warfare.
Help us (the State Assembly) figure out a system that blends merit with seniority. … To put the best possible teacher in the classroom should be your goal. It’s my goal and I’d like you to help me get there.
So how’s that going? Hundreds of teachers with masters degrees, compensated for education and experience, and … what?
Rick, you write, “I am a federal employee. We cannot bargain over wages and benefits. We have pay decisions decided by a Pay Board, with the concurrence of the President.”
I didn’t respond to this in my last comment because I really know nothing about the federal work situation. I’m looking at the situation in Wisconsin and Ohio from the POV of a retired teacher who was an officer in my local teachers’ union. But you’ve inspired me to do some Google research.
I found that here that, “Federal employees’ right to organize and bargain binding labor contracts was established in law by the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 … All union membership in the federal sector is entirely voluntary, as the law does not allow for the “closed shop” and federal employees are barred from being candidates for partisan political office and no dues money may be spent on partisan political campaigns.”
I found here that there are competing unions. The National Federation of Federal Employees (NFFE) says, “Our mission is to advance the social and economic welfare and education of federal workers through our continued work in organizing units of federal employees, representing their interests through collective bargaining, lobbying for legislative action, fighting for better working conditions, and promoting labor-management partnerships in agency decision-making.”
From the Washington Post, I found, “The number of federal workers represented by unions — dues-paying union members and other employees whose jobs are covered by union contracts — climbed to 33.2 percent, up two-tenths from 2008.”
I found that Obama’s order to freeze pay for federal workers will likely be challenged in court by those relative few federal workers whose unions have the authority to negotiate wage increases. The following comment, made here, was written in December 2010: “These next few days should be very interesting for those who work at agencies that have collective bargaining agreements, such as the FDIC, NCUA, FAA, SEC, etc. Now, that the pay freeze legislation has passed and Obama signed it, the White House is set to issue a directive for those agencies on how to implement the legislation. This gets really tricky especially for those independent agencies that are not taxpayer funded like the FDIC and NCUA. If the White House decides to order a pay freeze despite the CBAs, I assume the NTEU and FAA’s union, etc. will sue the administration and their respective agencies. Should the unions win, which seems likely (though I think a settlement would actually occur), the taxpayers will most likely end up paying the settlement.”
What seems likely to happen in Ohio and Wisconsin is that all collective bargaining rights of public workers will be abolished. This means that the contracts showing step increases and working conditions will be erased. Seniority will lose all significance. As a federal worker with a lot of work protection, it seems you might have some compassion for your fellow public servants.
I am mystified as to how you reach the conclusion that I am, “engaging in class warfare.”
Eric — Peggy Lehner seems sincere. But, she is missing an opportunity. What is needed is a radical vision of transformation and a plan — an answer to “By What Method?” — such a transformation may occur. Destroying the present system without having some notion of what might replace it seems shortsighted and irresponsible and really against what I would see as a “conservative” approach. How do we keep what is good and encourage and empower those in the present system to work like crazy to build a better future. Burning the whole structure down doesn’t seem a good way to start. As Chairperson of the Senate Education Committee, Lehner has a huge opportunity and a big responsibility. I hope she is responsive to ideas that I hope to share with her. I did send her this e-mail and got no response. Of course, maybe she never received, nor read it.
Mike, most federal employees can join a union or not. Those unions cannot bargain for wages. If certain unions for employees were allowed to bargain for wages and did so, then those contracts should not be unilaterally be set aside. I do have compassion for public employees and taxpayers too. Your experience has been with the status quo but my point is that the changes necessary to balance the budget will not be catastrophic. Federal employees have done reasonably well for decades without the ability to bargain for wages. This hyper-partisan rhetoric by the left (like calling the Wisc Gov Hitler) is dangerous and may lead to violence. I just heard about a Democrat who said that demonstrations may have to “get bloody.” That is encouraging violence. Be careful what you ask for.
@John, in response to my suggestion that people not be forced to join the union, you say this:
“That means even if you do not join, you will get the same benefits as union members. This will destroy the unions and leave us more vulnerable to our corporate masters.”
First, how do you know people who do not join a union will get the same benefits as public union members? Is it not possible for them to negotiate their own contracts and get better terms than the public union contract? Second, if forced unionization were to be abolished, and the unions would die as a result, as you suggest, you have to ask yourself this: If union dues paid by workers provide such a great value, wouldn’t you expect for them to continue as a paying union member?
@Mike,
I stand by the parallels made between health care reform and collective bargaining. While they may differ in origination, as you point out, (campaign agenda vs post election agenda), they are being executed in very much the same manner. Party power grab, large bills that seem to come from no where, rushing to get it approved by legislature, crowds of protesters in support and opposition, calls for ‘the other side’ to be a part of the process, calls for compromise, the list goes on and on.
There are a few key differences worthy of note:
1. No one protesting healthcare (that made the news to my knowledge) was calling for violence or bloodshed.
2. Those opposed to the healthcare law didn’t flee the capitol in order to completely shut down the entire democratic legislative process.
The phrase ‘elections have consequences’ comes to mind. Just how collective bargaining laws were first passed!
Looking back at how everything has unfolded thus far on both issues, I believe it shows that opponents of collective bargaining changes (elected officials & citizens) have behaved much less professionally and more juvenile than those who opposed the health care bill. How many public buildings had to be shut down due to health care protests?
While I am supportive of most parts of Senate Bill 5, I have absolutely no problem slowing down the process. In fact, I would welcome it.
It’s nice to suggest that a “radical vision of transformation and a plan” are needed instead of “destroying the present system,” however, we all know people don’t like change. Sometimes mandates for radical transformation need to come first and the plan on how to implement it come later. Think of it as forced adaptation. Now if the bill forces these changes weeks after passage, that is just ridiculous. But allowing a year to implement is certainly reasonable. The wheel isn’t being reinvented — it’s just that many local government officials aren’t accustomed to being able to truely manage, evaluate, and reward a work force of employees.
Mike,
I’m interested in seeing some proof that the Ohio budget is in trouble due to public employee salary and benefits. Has anyone shown this????
Bryan,
The scenario of non-union members getting the same benefits as union workers is the model used in the “right to work’ states in this country.These states are mainly in the South and remain very backward. Your other statement that non-union people could negotiate better terms then unions is prepsoterous. The reson unions were formed was to give workers an advantage in negotiation
Mike,
Wouldn’t Senator Lehner be better off heeding the advice of Secretary Duncan?
“How do we move from islands of excellence–which exist today in virtually every school district–to systems of excellence which unfortunately today are much harder to find? Many of the answers lie in the Montgomery County story. We can hope to serve every child only by committing to whole-district transformation–and Montgomery County is one of the examples that shows us the way.”
Rick, you write, “Federal employees have done reasonably well for decades without the ability to bargain for wages.” But, you seem to be ignoring the advantages federal workers have gained via the guarantee of their right to collectively bargain. Kasich wants teachers’ right to collectively bargain to be abolished and with it decades of established contract rights dealing with seniority and job security. You seem to be OK with this Republican initiative. As a federal worker, if the same threat was given to you and your fellow workers, I imagine you would be yelling bloody murder. The issue for state workers is the right to collectively bargain, not the specifics of wages or health benefits.
Bryan, in your attempt to make a parallel between Obama’s federal health care bill and Kasich’s SB5, you describe both as a “large bill that seem to come from no where.” This is not accurate (and show me links to news reports, if you can show that I am wrong). Obama in his campaign was clear that he would have a major legislative initiative aimed at health care reform. Kasich gave no indication in his campaign that his first move would be to push a law to abolish collective bargaining for state workers.
Vic, when you say — “I’m interested in seeing some proof that the Ohio budget is in trouble due to public employee salary and benefits. Has anyone shown this????” — you’ve hit the nail on the head. According to Policy Matters Ohio, that I reported here, public workers make less in total pay and benefits than their private worker counterparts. Once again, our mainstream media has failed in its reporting obligations.
Eric, I found the reference for your quote from Secretary Duncan: “How do we move from islands of excellence–which exist today in virtually every school district–to systems of excellence which unfortunately today are much harder to find?” Duncan was praising a book from Harvard Press, “Leading for Equity The Pursuit of Excellence in the Montgomery County Public Schools,” dealing with reform in Montgomery County, Maryland.
Yes, I hope Senator Lehner, in her role as Chair of the Education Committee, will want to investigate how to inspire and empower the creation of “systems of excellence.” My vision of what such a system should be would probably be a lot different from Secretary Duncan’s, but simply agreeing on a systems’ approach or a systems’ POV would be a good start.