Tweet
Ohio’s anti-collective bargaining law, SB 5, passed by Ohio Republicans, is likely to be repealed by Ohio’s voters in next month’s election. According to this Quinnipiac poll, 57 percent of registered voters think the anti-public sector union law should be repealed, while just 32 percent of voters think the law should remain.
This is a mild improvement compared to Quinnipiac’s last poll of the issue in late September. That poll found 51 percent in favor of repeal and 38 percent in support of keeping the law.
While the poll found Republican voters support the law by a margin of 59 to 32 percent, the measure is losing heavily thanks to very strong opposition from both Democrats and Independents. By an overwhelming margin of 77 to 13 percent Democrats think the law should be repealed, and Independents want to see the law repealed by a margin of 56 to 32 percent.
The unions view SB 5 as a death knell for public sector unions in the state. The law is so restrictive it would likely cripple the unions and dramatically shrink their membership rolls. As a result the unions have spent big on both the signature gathering to get the referendum on the ballot, and the campaign supporting the repeal. While turnout can be unpredictable in these off-year elections, it currently looks like the unions are poised to win a major victory.
21 Comments
The pro-SB5 folks are flooding the airwaves, but I have not seen even one pro-sb5 yard sign. I see a LOT of anti-sb5 signs, many of them homemade. And a few bumperstickers.
There is support for keeping SB5 in some areas, but those who favor aren’t saying much. Perhaps they’re ashamed. But I think the pro-sb5 folks will be more numerous than predicted.
Boxturtle (And that’s before factoring in Diebold…)
I certainly hope they repeal this law.
It’s too bad the poll didn’t ask about any alternatives. It’s real easy to pay someone with someone elses money.
The Ohio Office of Collective Bargaining said SB 5 could save the state as much as $1.3 billion, largely because it cuts pay increases for public workers and requires them to pay more for their health insurance. It also limits sick leave and vacation time.
With a population of 11,536,504, that’s $113 per year that every man, woman and child has to come up with. Maybe they could collect it at the voting booth from each person who votes to repeal.
Nice try on the divide and conquer strategy. You sound like a paid political announcement, which I’m guessing you are.
The supposed savings from SB 5 could be made up by making the highest income Ohioans pay more in taxes without lowering living standards of public workers. The problem isn’t working class Ohioans, it’s the loss of tax revenue caused by declines and then slow growth in RGDP. The decline and slow growth in RGDP was caused by the housing bubble bust that Ohio and Wall Street financial capitalists facilitated.
Thank you for helping me help you understand your ideological blindness and misplaced priorities.
Trying to avoid a world without unions. Check out what life was like before we had them.
Cannot watch anything on the local stations without seeing Issue 2 ads.
I think that SB 5 will be defeated, however, Ohio has been known to have the silent white voters of suburbia that do not get polled and vote en masses.
Collective Bargaining isn’t a hostage negotiation, it’s a two-sided transaction. The bargaining ain’t done until both sides agree. Both sides. Kasich et al want to end the bargaining instead of learning how to bargain harder. Kasich’s not only for the 1%, trying to drive the responsibility for even the most basice services down to the small property tax payer, he’s mean-spirited and a nasty individual. Last year, Kasich’s own campaign learned the more Kasich talked, the less people liked him, so they pretty much kept him under wraps after Sept.
There is a real problem here.
Collective bargaining is great. That isn’t the problem.
The problem is the payoffs and conflict of interest when a public employee union gives money to the very politicians who will be voting on their pay and benefits. It is an outrageous conflict of interest that would not be accepted in any other realm.
The public, and FDL memebers, would never allow a person seeking a building contract from a city or county to make big money contributions to politician or official deciding on the amount of the contract.
And, these politicians are definitely bought and paid for. Most of them would never be able to stay in office were it not for money contributions and leg work from union members.
There is nothing wrong with unions contributing to campaigns. There is nothing wrong with collective bargaining. But, there is something wrong with combining the two of them.
In my county, your average person has trouble finding a $50,000 job. But, many, many city and county employees make near and over $100,000.
Of course, that also means that two public employees who are married to each other would nicely fall in the “rich” category and be in the target sights of Obama for a tax raise on families $250 or over.
Not the problem. See above. the problem is those on the other side of the bargaining table have generally been paid off with large campaign contributions.
To me, you can have one or the other. Collective bargaining, or campaign contributions. But, you can be paying money to the very officials who you are negotiating with.
Vote no in Issue 2 has a great ad featuring a grandma whose granddaughter was saved from a fire.
I hope the no votes carry the day.
Another paid political announcement. Well, of course you’re wrong. Let’s count the ways.
Do you count it as a conflict of interest when capitalists contribute to campaigns of politicians who make laws regarding labor, financial and environmental regulations?
This happens all the time regardless of “the public’s and FDL members’” opposition. In fact, that’s the way the local, state and federal government currently operates. Are you stupid or just ignorant?
Where is your evidence supporting your assertion that county employees earn in wages and benefits than comparably educated employees in the private sector? In fact, the evidence is that public employees of comparable education are compensated less than their private sector counterparts.
Next talking point, please?
I was mainly questioning the quality of the poll.
I was thinking it would be shared sacrifice. Everyone gets to give the pollsters their opinion and everyone gets to vote to repeal, but not everyone has to pay for it.
Thank you for helping me prove my point, it’s real easy to pay someone with someone else’s money.
The poll is flawed.
Ask people if they would like to have ice cream parties every Friday afternoon and you’ll get very favorable responses.
Add that they’ll have to pay $50 a week for it, and their “opinions” change.
Yeah, campaign contributions bad when they come from the unions, good when they come from Lehman Brothers. Who you think funded Kasich’s campaign?
If you think the management side of the table is bargaining poorly on your behalf, the answer is to tell them to bargain better or replace them at the voting booth, not eliminate the bargaining.
If that’s true, then it shows the city and county employees collectively bargain for better salaries than your “average person” bargains alone. You just made the argument for strong unions.
Do you always think in slogans?
It is quite a clear conflict of interest to pay off politicians to then pay tax payer money to the person or group paying them off.
Doesn’t matter whether it is a developer paying a contribution to a city councilman who will vote on his project or a union paying off a city councilman who will vote on their contract.
It is plain dishonest.
And, yes, the press regularly makes a big stink about private businesses who contribute to someone who will vote on a specific contract under consideration.
A general lending of support for those who like your approach doesn’t bother me. Including a union giving funds to politicians who support their approach but not who will be directly voting on their contracts.
I also don’t have a problem with a union hiring a lobbyist to influence up coming labor laws–same as a business might hire a lobbyist to get their two cents in on a business regulation affecting their industry.
That is a far cry from paying off politicians who have the power to directly determine your pay and benefits.
Seems like your solution to some dishonesty is to allow more dishonesty. Somehow by balancing the dishonesty, you come up a honest result. No you just get an overall even more dishonest scene–and even farther from the ideal situation you want.
As for the pay discrepancy; in my area it is very common knowledge that the city and country jobs are the best in the area. As mentioned, real world, your average joe or jane would be hard pressed to find even a college level job at $50,000. But, there are many at the city and county who make well over that and many over $100,000. Might be different in your area, but here, unless you are some specialty engineer, you’d have a lot of trouble finding something that paid over $50,000.
And, on top of that, the city workers treat you like crap. Because they know they don’t have to treat well–nearly impossible to fire them.
Even the union guys don’t make what the city and county workers do.
No, it only shows what pay offs and, essentially, bribes will get you.
IN some ways, it doesn’t matter anymore. In today’s criminally oriented society (the criminal always thinks in terms of something for nothing), everyone is trying to feed at the government trough.
You haven’t offered any proof of any “payoffs” you’re claiming if you don’t mean campaign contributions or lobbyists. Sounds like good old sour grapes to me.
In hindsight, all of us who just laid down and took it when corporate America told us we had to accept pay and benefits cuts to keep our jobs in the 2000′s should have fought back.
Cregan is correct,there is an inherent conflict of interest in public employee collective bargaining.Ford and the UAW just settled on a contract.This was done through true collective bargaining because there is no way in hell that the UAW can possibly get control of the Board of Directors of Ford.
However,in the case of public employees,it is quite common for the unions to be able to elect very sympatheic people to local councils and boards of education. Here in New Jersey,in many small towns,the children and other relatives of the politicians manage to get on the public payroll.Does anyone think that the politicans are going to take a tough line if their son worksfor the town? Don’t make me laugh.There are some things that just have to be regulated by statute because to leave all benefits to the unfair collective bargaining process is unfair to hard pressed property taxpayers,many of whom do not make nearly as much as the public employees and their benefits do not even compare.
What you’re describing is a problem with the management side of the collective bargaining process. Your solution to the problem is to enact laws to handicap worker side of the process. Outrageous. If the process you describe is “unfair”, it’s “unfair” because the management side is weak. Solve that problem at the ballot box, not by crippling the worker side of the process.