As another election day nears, Ohioans will be facing one of the most controversial choices to come down the pike in many years. Issue 2 has become one of the most divisive political hot potatoes that I have seen and all indications are that its proponents and opponents will be further estranged regardless of its outcome.
While many of us have followed Issue 2 from its inception as Ohio Senate Bill 5, the firestorm that has ensued over the past ten months has caused me to take a hard look at what I really believe but more importantly, why I believe it.
Being raised in a blue collar unionized home instilled no particular ideologies in me as my parents had typical lower middle class hodge-podge political leanings, or as many Americans now call it “Independent”. I did however come away with a work ethic that understood that there were no guarantees in this life and that I was not promised any outcomes good or bad. When I eventually became a small business owner and much more importantly, a Bible believing follower of Christ, my philosophies understandably evolved. I now clearly identify myself as a social and fiscal conservative because I concluded it most clearly aligned itself with my life experience, historical understanding and faith.
Reconciling faith and politics can be dangerous without an understanding that God transcends all of our petty opinions but with that being said, worldview remains an important component in an attempt to live a consistent life.
So as I attempted to analyze Issue 2 and the choice to repeal or endorse SB 5, I had to look through this prism that I call my worldview which does include many staunch ideological beliefs. Issue 2 was only reaction to SB 5 so understanding the bill is the real debate. In my attempt to become educated on the topic, I listened to the various news stories, blogs and websites but also made a deliberate attempt to spend more time on the side I was inclined to be opposed to, that is the union perspective. I must however acknowledge that I have a close friend who was involved in the direct drafting of some of the legislation and did receive many “inside” perspectives on the whole chain of events and processes.
There are clearly dozens of sub-issues and the debate has the potential to go in so many directions. That is why I believe it is so divisive and why foolish things have been said on both sides. One point often leads to another point and so forth but after months of introspection, I kept coming back to the same simple conclusion that the bill is generally fiscally conservative. In the process though, my opinion was shaped by some of what I believe to be the more important points of the debate which I have detailed below.
The current system involves little to no accountability
The basic process of public employee collective bargaining consists of contract negotiations between the workforce (via a union) and a governmental administrative unit. Typically both sides dig their heels in until arbitration when a legally enforced compromise is in effect forced on both sides. This results in both sides making concessions where workers get less than they wanted but never less than they already have and management giving something smaller than originally desired by the workers.
The problem with this is that it becomes a perpetual upward movement and overall costs can never be truly cut. We are routinely told that union workers made several concessions to save money but they receive benefit somewhere else. Why would one even negotiate if they ended up taking less? That’s not how the process works.
By allowing management and ultimately elected officials more say in the process and the ability to control costs in more areas, taxpayers are now involved. If constituents do not approve of increases or cuts, they can factor this into their vote. As it stands, elected officials do not have final say when arbitration trumps their actions. SB 5 opposition campaign ads have asked “do we really want politicians deciding what we spend on safety services”? My answer is absolutely. This is what the intent of a democratic republic is. Elected officials are to be directly accountable to the citizenry for the performance and function of government.
The theory that SB 5 supporters hate public workers is illogical
Passions have been running way too hot for my tastes on both sides but are clearly driven by efforts to win arguments in 30 second sound bites. While there has been a combative attitude between public workers and SB 5 supporters, it is due to their disagreement over the proposed changes and not because of job titles. It is simply irrational to believe that SB 5 was created out of jealousy or even hatred of public workers. With the possible exception of anarchists, who believes public workers are not a necessary function of government? There may be disagreements in regards to scope of services and more often spending, but not the mere existence of such workers.
The notion that politicians would use so much political capital just to be vindictive is mentally vacuous. In fact, politicians have a lot to gain by maintaining a governmental work force that consists of qualified and professional employees. It does not serve their interest to be viewed poorly unless they are acting on what they believe to be right or beneficial to their constituents.
I certainly have concern for public employees as I have two brother in-laws and two nephews who are fire fighters, as well as numerous friends and family who are teachers, police officers and even utility workers. That does not mean however that I can throw away logic and what I believe for a few more dollars to go their way. There is a much bigger picture that must be understood.
Management is not a bad guy
The concept of merit pay and performance standards has been ridiculed by many SB 5 opponents but there must be a tangible way to determine who are the most efficient and effective employees. The legislation itself does not clearly define the methods to determine these issues. It does however promote a system where additional needed accountability can be implemented.
I freely admit that the particulars for judging merit and performance can be complicated, particularly for positions like teachers, but management is the proper way to accomplish this. While it makes good sense to include actual employees in the process, ultimately management should be the liaisons to elected officials. It is much better for something like a department budget to be ironed out between these parties rather than a union. An effective management will naturally attempt to retain the resources and funding that is required to keep a satisfied work force, and at the same time be concerned for the fiscal health of the entire branch it represents.
In a recent televised debate, the spokesman for the opposition (thinking he was clever) asked Senator Keith Faber if he also supported performance and merit analysis for politicians. The correct reply should have been “yes we do… in fact it’s already in place and we call it an election”.
SB 5 opponents have strange bedfellows
Perhaps one the most surprising results of the whole SB 5 debate is the alliance between radically opposed political adherents. It’s not every day that we see self-professed conservative republicans protesting alongside the likes of Jesse Jackson, Jimmy Hoffa Jr. and various left wing ideologues. It’s clear that national unions like AFL-CIO and SEIU have long sympathized with the far left but even local FOP and IAFF charters were endorsing neo-Marxist organizations like Progress Ohio for their opposition to SB 5.
It’s likely this resulted from each effectively using one another to further their goals in defeating the bill but something still feels very wrong when two polar opposites unite. Historically, the far left would clearly be the supporters of such opposition so it is enigmatic when professing conservatives agree and even join forces.
It’s not about the children or public safety
While watching the protest at the State House this past winter, one could hear chants from teachers yelling that they were fighting for the rights of children. Recent campaign ads utilized clips of police officers and fire fighters in the line of duty. When compared to the actual legislative language, I must conclude all this is just imagery intended to scare voters. Ultimately it diverts discussion from the budgetary intent of SB 5 to a more emotion based rationale. Why haven’t we seen visuals of disrupted water service or piling up trash heaps since other workers like utility services and refuse collection could also be affected? Is it because they are less important or is it because they do not evoke the same public sympathies?
Even if the argument was truly about safety, then why wouldn’t all public safety departments be fighting for significant increased spending on new precincts, fire houses, equipment and personnel? This would obviously increase response times and therefore improve safety. The standard is always defined where things currently are but if something like a budget crisis requires a retraction, then arguments like this come up.
SB 5 does not specifically call for the reduction in equipment and safety spending but may allow agencies to determine how they allocate funding for such items rather than through union contracts. Opponents would have us believe that the answer will always be “no” but by having elected officials more involved; the taxpayers will be the ones who decide the level of safety services they want.
The common thread is unionization
As the various debates are made, the end point to every argument always seems to boil down to whether or not one supports union control. While many opponents have called the legislation “union busting”, it will in no way deter union money and support still going to Democrats. The simple fact is that unions will maintain their influence in the process even if Issue 2 is passed. Yes, collective bargaining would be reformed but not eliminated.
My personal view is that unions are intrinsically anti-free market but that can be left for another debate. We must however decide if it is ultimately better for the entire system or only better for particular public employees. Like it or not, the primary intent of SB 5 is to gain more control over unionized public employee spending because management already has that ability with non-union employees. The Department of Administrative Services estimates that SB 5 will save taxpayers about 1.2 billion dollars over the next fiscal cycle with savings coming from details like the 15% and 10% mandates for employee contributions for health and retirement benefits.
Local, State and Federal governments are broke. If reductions are not made across the board somewhere, then harder choices will need to be made and that translates to layoffs. How will that be good for public employees or taxpayers?
I believe it is highly likely that Issue 2 will be defeated and if that is the case, it will clearly be due to the high numbers of self-proclaimed fiscal conservatives who opposed it. It seems as though many accept the realities of reduced compensation, benefits and jobs in the private sector but fight the same market forces when it threatens unionized public workers. It is understandable that no one wants to pay more but conservatives supporting the status quo in government spending is obvious hypocrisy.
At the end of the day, SB 5 allows local and state agencies to control operating costs and is why I will be voting Yes on Issue 2.
