|
Columbus
Dispatch
Some GOP senators say
bill goes too far
Friday, February 18, 2011
By Jim Siegel
A bill making major changes to state collective-bargaining law is not a
slam-dunk to pass the Senate in its current form.
The Dispatch talked to seven Republican senators this week who either
would not commit support or expressed varying levels of discomfort with
Senate Bill 5, which would eliminate collective bargaining for state
workers, take away binding arbitration for police and firefighters, and
limit the bargaining power of teachers and other local workers.
Republicans hold a 23-10 majority and need 17 votes to pass a bill.
Democrats are expected to unanimously oppose it.
“While there is much in the bill I think is good, there are some things
I think are decidedly a bridge too far,” said Sen. Bill Seitz,
R-Cincinnati. He said the bill gives management too much power.
Sen. Frank LaRose, R-Fairlawn, said he doesn’t believe the system is
functioning as well as it should, but “I think that reforming
collective bargaining doesn’t mean getting rid of it. I believe in the
right of people to gather as a group and advocate on their behalf.”
LaRose said he also doesn’t support doing away with binding arbitration
for police and firefighters, who cannot strike. “If binding arbitration
is taken away, what are they left with? My fear is it becomes a
situation where litigation is used, and I don’t think that’s the best
way to solve our problems.”
But even Seitz said the Senate will pass something related to
collective bargaining: “We need to do some things. I think the unions
realize we’re going to do some things.”
The question is, what will the bill look like? Sen. Keith Faber,
R-Celina, the Senate’s No. 2 GOP leader, said he was confident there
would be “clear majority support in my caucus.” First, however, he
expects some changes, though he would not speculate further.
Sen. Scott Oelslager, R-Canton, expressed the most definitive
opposition to the bill. “I’ve been a strong supporter of collective
bargaining my entire career.”
The bill makes a number of changes affecting teachers, including taking
salary “step” increases out of state law, removing the ability to
bargain for health care and certain work conditions, and weakening the
threat of a strike.
A teacher for 37 years, Sen. Gayle Manning, R-North Ridgeville, said
she understands the teachers’ perspective, but she also understands the
budget deficit and has not made a decision on the bill.
“I’m meeting some teachers next week, and hopefully we can come up with
some sort of a compromise,” she said. “When I started in 1972, I saw
teachers laid off not because they were poor teachers, but because they
were at the top of the pay scale. I don’t want to go back to that.”
Sen. Bill Beagle, R-Tipp City, said the bill’s replacement of
continuing teacher contracts with one-year contracts could be difficult
to implement and is a fairness issue because administrators can have
five-year contracts.
Beagle also worries about eliminating binding arbitration. “I’m
concerned maybe we’re giving too much to management.”
Sen. Jimmy Stewart, R-Albany, would not say whether he supports the
bill, but he stressed he is searching for some middle ground with “some
of my labor friends.”
“I’ve generally been pro-labor. But I do understand there are
legitimate concerns from the sponsor and folks who have testified,”
Stewart said.
Sen. Jim Hughes, R-Columbus, said he is keeping an open mind on the
bill and offered no commitments to its major provisions.
The bill’s sponsor, Sen. Shannon Jones, R-Springboro, said she suspects
the bill will undergo changes, and she is gathering suggestions.
“Anytime you deal with a big bill, there are lots of people with lots
of different ideas,” she said. “I feel confident where we are, but this
is a complicated issue, and this is a process.”
Read it in the Columbus Dispatch
|
|
|
|
