Commentary on Demand

                                    Editorials by Request

                                             Fuel your discussions

We are Ohio was wrong not to talk with Kasich about SB5

 21 Aug 2011

Watch some of the posturing here 

First let me state one disclaimer.  In order for there to have been any real compromise resulting in the issue 2 referendum getting pulled from the ballot, some form of legislation would have had to been approved and signed by the governor before 30 Aug 2011.   Since the governor didn't even propose that the first talk take place until 19 Aug 2011, this was very unlikely.  However, we are Ohio's position that they would not meet with the governor because they didn't like the way the original bill became law and they wanted to show they are capable of being as inflexible and stubborn as the next guy is the wrong position. 

I know they believe they have public opinion on their side and are likely to win total victory and be able to keep the pre-SB5 status quo.  This is a gamble I don't think they should be making.  More importantly I don't think this is in the best interest of the state and local governments, their employees, or their citizens.  It is obvious some aspects of state law needs to be changed.  I tell you that the current formula arbitrators use to decide how to settle contract issues often places unreasonable burdens on tax payers.  But this can be changed by requiring the arbitrators to consider budget and tax burden citizens voted on.  I also believe the way the first in first out layoff rules that currently dominate collective bargaining agreements needlessly degrade the quality of public services during those times when they are needed the most and they destroy public confidence in the people providing those services.  The greatest public relation mistake teachers unions have made is including the first in first out poison pill in their contracts and then using it to blackmail the public with the choice of higher taxes or an unreasonable number of teacher layoffs.  Alternatively, they likely would have already achieved a higher pay structure if they would have stuck to real arguments.  For instance I have a masters degree in education and I occasionally teach courses at Sinclair because I enjoy doing it.  But I haven't seriously considered becoming a full time math or physics teacher because of the pay and benefits differences between a teacher and an engineer.  For me when teachers say you have to vote to raise taxes or else we will let the schools go to crap - it's a losing argument for the teachers.  When they stick to "we are professionals and we should be paid like professionals" it not only makes sense, but it also helps inspire students to become professionals.  It not only inspires them to become teachers but also engineers and doctors.  

I've gotten away from the main theme - but I'm off to church and I want to write about council business later so I'm afraid I have to end it here for now.