Columbus Dispatch...
Meet in the middle
Ohio should avoid political warfare, seek compromise on collective bargaining
Sunday August 7, 2011 

Ohio is about to tear itself apart. 

No matter which side wins the impending war over State Issue 2, the state will suffer deep and long-lasting wounds that will threaten its already fragile economy. At a minimum, labor-management relations will be set back years. 

The referendum to keep or reject Ohio Senate Bill 5, the collective-bargaining-reform effort, will become a historic study in a avoidable tragedy. 

That is why, while there still is time, the wiser and cooler heads in the opposing camps owe this state a serious effort to determine if compromise is possible. 

State law allows a campaign committee to withdraw an issue already qualified for the ballot, until 70 days before the election. This year, the deadline is Aug. 30. The election is Nov. 8. 

Obviously, those seeking to repeal Senate Bill 5 would pull Issue 2 off the ballot only if the existing legislation, signed into law March 31, were repealed by the General Assembly and replaced with a less-severe version. 

Most informed, objective-minded Democrats and Republicans agree on two truths about Senate Bill 5: 

• Some of its elements are essential to curb unsustainable expenditure trends in local and state government, and to give public-sector managers more power to control their budgets. 

• Some of its elements, written entirely by Republicans, overreached in an effort to weaken the political power of public-sector labor unions, which overwhelmingly favor Democrats. 

In the former category, it is mathematically indisputable that Ohio’s taxpayers cannot continue to bear the runaway costs of public employees’ health-care and pension costs. Requiring Ohio’s public employees to pay a greater share of their health-care and pension costs is unavoidable, regardless of the outcome of State Issue 2. 

In the latter category, prohibiting bargaining units from collecting “fair-share fees” from nonmembers of the employee organization is a political arrow aimed at unions’ existence. It has nothing to do with improving Ohio’s economic well-being. 

These are only two examples of issues within Senate Bill 5 that should be no-brainers for compromise. As in all monumental political showdowns, avoiding casualties is possible only if both sides acknowledge the obvious and are willing to compromise. 

Neither side has reason for undue optimism about the outcome of this battle. On one side, the public clearly understands the imperative of collective-bargaining reform to balance public-sector expenditure trends with taxpayers’ ability to pay. On the other side, Ohioans respect and support their hardworking firefighters, police officers, teachers and other public employees, and want them treated fairly within those budgetary constraints. 

A monstrously expensive campaign — tens of millions of dollars on each side, by some estimates — undoubtedly would create deep divisions not only among Ohioans, but within individual voters who see merit on both sides of the issue. 

If only those millions of dollars could be redirected to the state’s most-promising economic-development initiatives, rather than making Ohio the national poster child of labor-management warfare. 

Most Ohioans understand that the collective-bargaining status quo is unacceptable. But, as much as possible, they also would prefer that necessary changes be phased, not abrupt. 

It is worth noting that Ohio’s existing collective-bargaining law was crafted 28 years ago when the executive and legislative branches of state government were under the control of Democrats. Upon enactment in 1983, it was one of the most liberal and union-friendly collective-bargaining laws in the nation. It still is. 

The new collective-bargaining law, crafted in the first three months of 2011, with the executive and legislative branches under the control of Republicans, is one of the most conservative and union-unfriendly bargaining laws in the nation. 

The simple truth is that a majority of Ohioans, if given the facts and the choice, would not entirely embrace the old law or the new. They would choose a middle ground and avoid an all-or-nothing war. 

Gov. John Kasich previously has made overtures to union leaders for compromise, but so far, union leaders have not reciprocated. All of Ohio would benefit if the two sides renewed these discussions while there still is time to avert a collision. 

Read it at the Columbus Dispatch