Saturday, October 1, 2011

Collective Bargaining and Ohio Senate Bill 5

Ohio's controversial Senate Bill 5 is a political lightning rod. When I think about this bill and how I may vote this November, I believe I have to a) consider the fundamental role of government and b) consider the constitutional rights of American citizens to participate in collective bargaining. For what I see as a fair summary of the bill's impact to labor union's in the public sector,please see this article.

There are certainly several topics to discuss concerning the bill. My perception is the Republicans would like to focus on requiring public sector employees to receive pay increases based on merit and pushing more of the health care costs back onto the employees to be more in line with the private sector. Democrats would like us to focus on provisions in the bill which forbid police officers and fire fighters from negotiating on what they consider to be safety issues. These are certainly fair topics to discuss but I can't help but notice a two basic realities which make me uncomfortable with this entire issue.

The first issue I have with the bill is I believe limiting the rights of individuals to collectively bargain on any issue to be unconstitutional. The first amendment is clear in saying: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." The provision of the bill which essentially makes it a criminal offense for public sector employees to strike, punishable by heavy fines, is especially concerning. I think these implications alone are enough to vote against this bill, and if it weren't for my second concern with this issue, I would vote 'No' on issue 2 without any reservation.

My hesitation is due to the second reality which makes me uncomfortable with this issue: forced union dues. Ohio teachers, police offers, fire fighters and others are required to pay union dues for their "privilege" to work and earn a wage. I also find this to be unconstitutional. The ninth amendment states: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Meaning, the right to collectively bargain does not give the labor unions the power to require all individuals who wish to be a teacher, police officer, fire fighter, etc. to join their union. As a result, I have a very difficult time supporting the  rights of a union which I believe has core practices which are unconstitutional.

What I would like to see is a state law or a federal ruling banning forced dues. People have a right to collectively bargain voluntarily and employers (government and private) should be given the choice as to whether or not they wish to negotiate with the union. I know there are public sector workers which would gladly negotiate with their employer on their own. Labor unions have every right to exist and to bargain on behalf of their members; they do not have the right to a forced monopoly of their labor market.

The sad reality is Ohio voters are being forced to choose between a government which infringes on the rights of its citizens or a union which infringes on the rights of its members. It's a classic case of the lesser of two evils. All that being said, I have several friends and family members which are impacted by this bill. While I vehemently disagree with several of their respective union's practices (i.e., raises, layoffs, etc. based on seniority instead of merit), I recognize and support their right to collectively bargain. The members who are forced to join their union are already having their rights violated by their union; I will not support a law which will add the additional injustice of their government violating their freedom of association.

Yes, it is fair to say the labor unions potentially drive up costs on the taxpayers. However, the response or remedy cannot include the violation of any individual's first amendment rights.

No comments:

Post a Comment