Tea Party Patriots Ordinary citizens reclaiming America's founding principles.
Showing posts with label 129th OGA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 129th OGA. Show all posts

Monday, April 16, 2012

Support OH HB 380: Promote Transparency in Ohio's Legal System

While maybe not sounding or seeming as important, pressing or appealing as some of the other bills in the Ohio legislature, you can be sure HB 380 is equally important as it is a much needed step in reforming some of the judicial process in our state.

HB 380 will, "enact sections 2307.951, 2307.952, 2307.953, and 2307.954 of the Revised Code to require claimants in asbestos tort actions to make certain disclosures pertaining to asbestos trust claims that have been submitted to asbestos trust entities for the purpose of compensating the claimant for asbestos exposure."  (HB 380).

In short, by enacting safeguard's against frivolous lawsuits, the unfair practice of double-dipping, inconsistent claims, incorrect and fraudulently obtained a award payments and unscrupulous attorney's, HB 380 will promote integrity, uniformity, fairness and transparency for asbestos related litigation in Ohio.

By enacting these safeguard's, HB 380 will also assure the funds from the asbestos trusts are serving the intended purpose of aiding and compensating individuals affected by legitimate work related asbestos illnesses.

Currently, Cuyahoga County is the only court jurisdiction that requires claimants to notify defendants of any other work related asbestos litigation.  HB 380 will require claimants to identify, "all existing asbestos trust claims made by or on behalf of the claimant and all trust claims material pertaining to each identified asbestos trust claim."

Testifying before the OH Senate, Mark Behrens, a partner in the Public Policy Group of Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P., in Washington, D.C., stated...
"Because the trusts operate opaquely and make little effort to compare their claims amongst each other or to claims made in the tort system, the trust system is fertile ground for inequity," he told the Senate committee.

"While involved in trust governance," he informed the committee, "plaintiffs' attorneys are also actively engaged in soliciting trusts claims through television and Internet advertising, filing trust claims, and receiving contingent fees from trusts' payments."

"Abuse of the trust process has the potential to impact both defendants and bankruptcy trusts, as starkly demonstrated in the Ohio case of Kananian v. Lorillard Tobacco Co.," Behrens told the senators.

"As I'm sure you're aware, in that case, Judge Harry Hanna barred a prominent California asbestos personal injury law firm from practicing before his court after he found that the firm and one of its partners failed to abide by the rules of the court proscribing dishonesty, fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation.

"Judge Hanna's ruling received national attention for exposing 'one of the darker corners of tort abuse' in asbestos litigation: inconsistencies between allegations made in open court and those submitted to trusts set up by bankrupt companies to pay asbestos-related claims."
Behrens also cited a report from a company where out of 255 randomly sampled claims against an asbestos trust, only 19 had disclosed their exposure to asbestos. And Behrens noted in another case, after continued foot dragging by a plaintiff's legal counsel to comply with numerous requests for discovery, of nine (9) other trust claims showing conflicting exposure periods and discrepancies in legal positions taken between the courts and the trusts.

 The funds in the asbestos trusts must be protected and used to compensate those who truly and unfortunately deserve them, not to pad the pockets of less than desirable ambulance chasing attorneys and individuals trying to game the system. It is only through the transparency enacted through HB 380 that you can help stop these abuses.

HB 380 has passed the Ohio House and currently sits in the OH Senate Judiciary Committee. Please contact the below listed State Senators and ask them to support HB 380....

State Senator Gayle Manning (District 13)
Phone: (614) 644-7613
Email: Click Here

State Senator John Eklund (District 18)
Phone: (614) 644-7718
Email: Click Here

State Senator Frank LaRose (District 27)
Phone: (614) 466-4823
Email: Click Here

State Senator Scott Oelslager (District 29)
Phone: (614) 466-0626
Email: Click Here

To keep track of the status and results of your calls, please click here to fill out the HB 380 Contact Form to record the response of your call(s) to the above State Senator's offices.

Saturday, January 21, 2012

Statement on Appointments for 87th & 98th House Districts from OH House Speaker

H/T Matt at Weapons of Mass Discussion

From Speaker of the Ohio House Bill Batchelder --

COLUMBUS—Speaker of the Ohio House William G. Batchelder (R-Medina) today released the following statement regarding the currently vacant 87th and 98th House district seats, formerly held by Republican Representatives John Carey and Richard Hollington:

“As the Speaker of the House, it is of the utmost importance to me that each House district has appropriate representation and that every Ohioan has a means to make his or her voice heard in Columbus. However, we are also in a situation that gives Ohioans themselves the opportunity to help us choose the appointees to succeed Representatives Carey and Hollington in the Ohio House during this General Assembly.

“Given the fact that multiple Republican candidates have filed for these offices prior to the March primary, voting for which begins in less than two weeks, we feel it would be most prudent given this timeline for the residents of the 87th and 98th districts to decide for themselves who their representatives will be. The Republican Caucus has decided to honor the outcome of the March primary for these two districts and ultimately appoint the winner of each race. We believe waiting until the results of the primary election will give the people of the 87th and 98th districts the most influence over their representation and ensure that their voices are being heard.

However, I also believe it is of the utmost importance that the constituents of these two House districts have a voice during the next few months of what promises to be a busy legislative session before the March primary. Therefore, I have been in contact with local officials in these individual House districts about the possibility of appointing someone to fill these seats until mid-March, so the voices of the constituents in the 87th and 98th House Districts can continue to be uninterrupted.”

Speaker Batchelder intends to make an announcement as details become available in the coming days about any potential appointments to the vacated seats.

Tuesday, November 15, 2011

The Ohio Health Care Compact: The Second Step for Health Care Freedom in Ohio

Finally bringing the Constitutionality of Obamacare to an end the U.S. Supreme Court has decided to hear the lawsuits brought by 26 states and the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) sometime this spring.

Taking the first step towards healthcare freedom in Ohio and sending the U.S. Supreme Court a booming message against Obamacare, voters across the state -- Democrat, Republican and Independents alike -- passed the Ohio Healthcare Freedom Amendment with a mandate vote in all 88 counties.

Now it is time to take the second and most meaningful step in securing our Healthcare Freedom in Ohio! 

Regardless of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling on Obamacare, be it ruled Constitutional or Unconstitutional, the old healthcare system in our country was sorely lacking and clearly not working. 

An exciting & fast-growing 50 state initiative of the Tea Party Patriots & The Health Care Compact Alliance to enact Interstate Health Care Compacts, is the second step in securing true Healthcare freedom in Ohio. 

Health Care Compacts are quickly becoming a big hit for states looking to take back control of their health care and move the decision making process away from federal bureaucrats and closer to the people. These Constitutional Interstate Compacts (Article 1 Section 10) for Healthcare shift the responsibility of health care decisions closer to the people will give the states more flexibility in combating the rising costs of medicaid/medicare and health care in general.

The Health Care Compact has been introduced in 14 states and has passed the State House of Representatives in Montana and Colorado.  In more than 36 states, citizen groups and state legislators are actively considering the Health Care Compact.  In addition, the Governors for the states of Georgia, Oklahoma, Missouri & Texas have already signed the Health Care Compact into law.

Ready to take the second step in securing Health Care Freedom in Ohio, the Ohio Health Care Compact (SB 189) has already been introduced in the Ohio Senate (Click to read the full text).

To learn more about the Tea Party Patriots Ohio Health Care Compact efforts and how you can help, please click here
*Note - For more information or to set up an interview with the board of the Health Care Compact Alliance or a local Ohio supporter of the Compact please contact Marianne Gasiecki or Gary Young at Ohiohcc@gmail.com.

Sunday, September 25, 2011

Action Alert: Protect Voter Integrity in Ohio / Call the Ohio Senate

Action Alert

The bill requiring Photo ID for voting in Ohio (HB 159) is expected to come up for a vote in the Ohio Senate this Tuesday 9/27/11. 

Already passed in the OH House and delayed in the OH Senate since June, HB 159 will require voters casting provisional or voting in person to furnish a photo ID for identification purposes...
To amend sections 3501.01, 3503.14, 3503.15, 3503.16, 3503.19, 3503.24, 3503.28, 3505.18, 3505.181, 3505.182, 3505.183, 3509.03, 3509.031, 3509.04, 3509.05, 3509.08, 3511.02, 3511.05, 3511.09, and 4507.50 of the Revised Code to generally require electors who appear at a polling place to vote or who cast absent voter's ballots in person to provide photo identification, to establish a process for electors to receive free photo identification, to establish a process to permit electors with a religious objection to being photographed to vote, and to revise the information that must accompany a provisional ballot for that ballot to be eligible to be counted.
With more than can be counted examples of illegal immigrants voting illegally, and with OH being a known battleground state for the Presidency, it is important we protect the integrity of the voting process in Ohio. 

The OH Senate passing HB 159 will minimize the chance of illegal immigrants and non-residents from voting in Ohio.

The OH Senate, though having a GOP majority, is not the bastion of conservatism as you may think. The vote on requiring Photo ID for voting has been put off by the Ohio Senate since June.  WHY?

Because of this, we must let them know keeping the highest standards in voter integrity is of the utmost importance. It is important pressure be put on the GOP members in the OH Senate to pass HB 159. 

The question is very simple... if you cannot provide an ID proving who you are and that you are a resident of OH -- why should you be allowed to illegally vote in elections affecting Ohio?

OH Senate Leadership

PresidentState Senator Tom Niehaus
Phone: (614) 466-8082
Email:
SD14@senate.state.oh.us

President Pro Tempore

State Senator Kieth Faber
Phone: (614) 466-7584
Email:
SD12@senate.state.oh.us

Majority Whip

State Senator Shannon Jones
Phone: (614) 466-9737
Email:
SD07@senate.state.oh.us

Majority Floor Leader

Senator Tom Patton / District 24
Phone: (614) 466-8056
Email:
SD24@senate.state.oh.us


N/E Ohio Area GOP State Senators

Senator Gayle Manning / District 13
Phone: (614) 644-7613
Email:
SD13@senate.state.oh.us

Senator Larry Obhof / District 22
Phone: (614) 466-7505
Email:
SD22@senate.state.oh.us

Senator Frank LaRose / District 27
Phone: (614) 466-4823
Email:
SD27@senate.state.oh.us


State Senators from the Cuyahoga County area

Senator Shirley Smith / District 21
Assistant Minority Leader (D)
Phone: (614) 466-4857
Email:
SD21@maild.sen.state.oh.us

Senator Michael Skindell (D) / District 23
Phone: (614) 466-5123
Email:
SD23@maild.sen.state.oh.us

Senator Nina Turner (D) / District 25
Phone: (614) 466-4583
Email:
SD25@maild.sen.state.oh.us

For contact information for OH Senators outside Cuyahoga County, please click here.

Sunday, August 28, 2011

Bill to Require Drug Testing for Welfare Recipients in Ohio

State Senator Tim Grendell (District 18) will be introducing a bill that will make it a requirement for people receiving state assistance to submit to drug testing.

You can expect the usual howling from the left about how this bill is racist, will harm the poor, and of course -- will hurt the children.

From the News-Herald --
State Sen. Tim Grendell announced Thursday that he intends to introduce a bill that would require any Ohioan receiving state assistance to submit to a drug test.

“Hard working taxpayers of the State of Ohio should not have to pay for the drug habits of illegal drug users,” Grendell said. “This assistance from the state is for those who need these funds for food and shelter, not illegal drugs.”

Under the potential legislation, state welfare and unemployment applicants would pay for their own testing. People who pass the drug test would then be reimbursed.

Applicants who fail the test would be required to enter into a drug treatment program approved by the Ohio Department of Alcohol and Drug Addiction Services.

As long as the program is fully complied with, the applicant would continue to receive his or her benefits.

Noncompliance would result in the person’s benefits being revoked immediately. The applicant could not reapply for benefits for six months from the time they are revoked.

Anyone who fails a second drug test would be banned from receiving their funds for three years.

Children of applicants who fail a drug test would still be able to receive their benefits.

The parents could name a state-approved person to receive and administer cash benefits on behalf of the children. That designated person must also pass a drug test.
Dismissing the expected howls from the left, the proposed bill is not racist as it requires drug testing for ALL recipients of State Assistance, allows those that qualify (the poor) to continue receiving State Assistance as long as they are not drug users, and has provisions safe guarding support for children of drug users.

One would think with Ohio trying to save every penny we can and trying to cut future costs this bill should fly through the Republican led Ohio Senate. Sorry to say that is not the case, and we will have to fight to get this bill passed out of the Ohio Senate.

Under the leadership of former OH Senate President Bill Harris and current OH Senate President, State Senator Tom Niehaus, (both Republicans) it should come as no surprise that several versions of this type of Bill have either died or are sitting stagnant in Committee. 

Last year, an alternate version of this Bill died in the GOP-led Senate Finance Committee. Currently, SB 69 as introduced in February of 2011 by State Senator Tim Schaffer (R-Lancaster) and co-sponsored by State Senatot Gayle Manning (R-North Ridgeville), is sitting stagnant in the Ohio Senate Health, Human Services & Aging Committee and has yet to even have one Committee hearing.

So as you can see, even though Ohio's State Senate is GOP-led this year - as it was last year - there is no guarantee the new version of this bill will make it out of  the OH Senate. 

Please contact your State Senator and urge them to support Senator Grendell's Mandatory Drug Testing for Ohio residents receiving state assistance bill.

Ohio Senate Leadership

President

State Senator Tom Niehaus
Phone: (614) 466-8082
Email: SD14@senate.state.oh.us

President Pro Tempore

State Senator Kieth Faber
Phone: (614) 466-7584
Email: SD12@senate.state.oh.us

Majority Whip

State Senator Shannon Jones
Phone: (614) 466-9737
Email: SD07@senate.state.oh.us

State Senators from the Cuyahoga County area --

Senator Shirley Smith / District 21
Assistant Minority Leader (D)
Phone: (614) 466-4857
Email: SD21@maild.sen.state.oh.us

Senator Michael Skindell / District 23
Phone: (614) 466-5123
Email: SD23@maild.sen.state.oh.us

Senator Tom Patton / District 24
Phone: (614) 466-8056
Email: SD24@senate.state.oh.us

Senator Nina Turner / District 25
Phone: (614) 466-4583
Email: SD25@maild.sen.state.oh.us

For contact information for OH Senators outside Cuyahoga County, please click here.

Saturday, April 30, 2011

Bill introduced to teach Founding Documents in Ohio Schools

Imagine that.... teaching the children in our schools about the Founding Documents of our country -- What a novel idea! 

From WMD --
COLUMBUS—House Majority Whip John Adams (R-Sidney) recently introduced legislation that will incorporate the study of historically significant government documents into the educational curriculum of Ohio students.

Specifically, House Bill 211 will require that the social studies curriculum for elementary and secondary students in grades 4-12 includes the study of the following:
  • Declaration of Independence
  • Northwest Ordinance
  • Constitution of the United States (with emphasis on the Bill of Rights)
  • Ohio Constitution
“We can’t expect our children to understand and defend the rights and freedoms the Founding Fathers intended for us—and that many people have died for—if they don’t have an understanding of how these documents led to the system of government we have today,” Adams said. “By giving these young people an understanding of our heritage, we are better preparing them to be active and productive citizens down the road.”
 
The study of these documents has recently been diminished in the standards and curricula developed by the Ohio Department of Education during the previous administration. If passed, the State Board of Education would be required to revise the standards and curricula to include the additional content.
For text of HB 211, click here.

Saturday, April 16, 2011

OH Senate Passes Bill Eliminating Death Tax

From the Columbus Dispatch --
A bill to eliminate Ohio's estate tax in 2013 passed a Senate committee yesterday, a move local governments see as another potential blow to their already strained budgets.

But supporters say it's time for Ohio to eliminate a tax that they say drives wealthy seniors out of the state.

"Repealing Ohio's death tax will help keep more of our family farms in business, and it will also help keep more of our small business owners and the jobs they create here in Ohio," said Sen. Kris Jordan, R-Powell, the sponsor of Senate Bill 90.

An identical bill passed a House committee in mid-February but has not yet come up for a full House vote. GOP leaders in the House and Senate say they want to eliminate the estate tax, but they first want to finish up the two-year budget to get a clear understanding of the cuts that governments will face. More....

f

Saturday, February 26, 2011

SB 5; Let's Make Sure We Get it Right

The below memorandum of concerns on SB 5 was forwarded from State Senator Tim Grendell to OH Senate President Tom Niehaus, State Senator Shannon Jones (SB 5 Sponsor) & State Senator Kevin Bacon (Chairman - Insurance, Commerce & Labor Committee & SB 5 Co-Sponsor).

In offering his opinion, State Senator Grendell brings up some very good points that clearly must be addressed. 

While fully supporting the concept of a much needed reform on Collective Bargaining Agreements (CBA's) to get OH back on sound fiscal footing and reflective of the feedback from our members, CTPP's position from the day SB 5 was introduced has beeen --CBA's should not be removed but completely reformed, Safety Forces should be exempted, safe guards must be installed on the merit pay provisions, worker rights are respected and above all SB 5 MUST be in accordance with the OH Constitution.  

We would ask the OH Senate members to review and debate the following concerns as outlined by State Senator Tim Grendell and supported by several other GOP State Senate members. The last thing we want to do is pass a Bill to find out what is in it.  For the future of Ohio -- it is important we get this right.

From State Senator Tim Grendell --
This memorandum reflects my initial primary concerns with SB5 as currently drafted. I fully appreciate the complexity of this bill and the time and effort expended by its sponsor. This memo is by no means an exhaustive discussion as to the constitutional and legal issues raised by SB 5, which are many.

           Abolishment of Collective Bargaining Rights
What does it mean to “abolish” collective bargaining for public employees? What method of addressing the interaction between public employees and management will replace collective bargaining? In my experience, civil service is not a functional alternative and will cost both the employee and the taxpayer’s substantial legal expenses. Does a public employer have to bargain with each employee? Can groups of public employees ban together to negotiate employment terms? Will the loss of collective bargaining grievance procedures lead to substantial individual lawsuits?

Under current Ohio law, an “at will” employee can pursue a wrongful employment termination lawsuit if the suit is based on a public policy basis (e.g. age discrimination, sex discrimination, race discrimination, whistle blower). Greeley v. Miami Valley Mnt. Contractors, Inc., 49 Ohio st.3d 228 (1990).

The Ohio Supreme Court has ruled that union workers covered under a collective bargaining agreement cannot pursue a wrongful termination lawsuit based on public policy because those union workers have recourse through the collective bargaining agreement’s grievance procedures. Haynes v. Zoological Society of Cincinnati, 73 Ohio St. 3d 254 (1995). If eliminating collective bargaining opens the door to wrongful termination/public policy lawsuits by public employees, the cost of that litigation, even if successful for government-management, could become more expensive than the purported savings from abolishing collective bargaining.

Under civil service, an aggrieved classified public employee my appeal a layoff or displacement to the state personnel board of reviews and then to the Common Pleas Court. R.C. Sec. 124.328; Collyer v. Darling (6th Cir. 1966), 90 F.3d 211. This is a far more cumbersome and costly way to resolve such disputes. Moreover, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that union collective bargaining – not civil service status, precludes Greeley wrongful discharge public policy lawsuits. See Haynes, supra.

If the state is going to rely on civil service to fill the collective bargaining gap, the Legislature will need to rewrite Ohio’s Civil Service Law, R.C. Chapter 124. I have discussed this with far more knowledgeable folks in DAS, and they agree with this assessment. Additionally, a home rule municipality’s civil service rules prevail over state statute. See, e.g., Fenton v. Enahore (1987), 31 Ohio st. 3d 69. Relying on civil service will result in a patchwork of requirements.

Based on my 30+ years of legal experience, it is my opinion that SB 5, in its current form, will lead to costly litigation and labor strife. It will lead to impasse rather than less costly dispute resolutions. Contract settlements will be less likely and strikes (unless statutorily prohibited) will be more prevalent than under current collective bargaining procedures. It is extremely difficult to see how the taxpayers will benefit from the ultimate impacts of SB5 as written.

Simply put, collective bargaining has some benefits, particularly in the lawsuit avoidance, grievance process. I support reforming collective bargaining, not its elimination. If it is eliminated, something will fill the gap and I suspect that something will be litigation, blue flu, and (unless prohibited) more public employee strikes.

 At a minimum, SB5 must permit and provide for (if not require) a collective bargaining grievance dispute resolution process to avoid Greeley lawsuits.

Unconstitutional Contract Interference
While SB5 appears to say that it does not interfere with existing contracts, other provisions in the bill raise constitutional contract interference concerns.

As I read SB5, it provides that laws pertaining to the provision of health care benefits to pubic employees prevail over conflicting collective bargaining agreements. The bill also invalidates any agreement that purports to require the public employees join any exclusive representative. (lines 10848-10850) (“Any agreement that purports to require that employees join any exclusive representative is void and unenforceable”)

“The bill permits termination of a collective bargaining agreement when, per the Auditor, a public employer is in a state of emergency. There may be some SERB opinion support for this provision.” There are other provisions that invite constitutional inquiry or concern.

I have two constitutional based concerns:

First, some of these provisions appear to violate the constitutional prohibition against contract interference and most certainly will invite litigation. Second, even if one justifies such interferences on the statutory nature of pubic employment, the precedent that the Legislature can reach in and terminate, interfere with, or negate contractual terms because of economic exigencies opens a Pandora’s Box that could serve as a terrible precedent for a future liberal administration seeking to extend this power to other private contractual business relationships or public contracts for private services or materials. The Tea Party and Liberty Council members should be very careful on this issue.

Elimination of Binding Arbitration
SB5 essentially eliminates binding arbitration and replaces it with the possibility of a perpetual contract or management mandates. If either party does not accept the SERB panel’s recommendation, the parties must execute a collective bargaining agreement with the same terms as in effect prior to the appointment of the fact-finding panel, unless the public employer implements the panel’s recommended options (in whole or part) while negotiations continue. If SB5 eliminates collective bargaining, how can it force employees to execute a collective bargaining agreement? If the expiring agreement is better than the panel’s recommendations, why would the benefitting side accept the panel’s recommendations – ever? What happens if the parties do not reach an agreement – does the last year of the previous agreement continue for one year or indefinitely?

We certainly can tighten up the binding arbitration provisions, such as:
(1)   Enact a statutory cap such as in New Jersey (based on public revenues and current economy).
(2)   Submit the binding arbitration report to the Common Pleas Court for plenary, de novo review, using the court’s equitable powers.
(3)   To address Governor Kasich’s concern, require that all arbitration or panel members be Ohio Citizens (although I think this is already the case).
(4)   Tighten the SERB process.

Right to Strike
A good argument can be made that public employees should not be allowed to strike. However, eliminating the right to strike for all public employees would require a functional and mutually fair binding arbitration process.

Teacher Tenure/Continuing Contracts
While concerns about teacher tenure (continuing contracts in Ohio) should be addressed, total elimination will undermine the ability to attract good teachers to Ohio. If you are a hard working teacher who could get longer employment protection in Pennsylvania or Kentucky, why would you settle for a year to year job in Ohio? Moreover, terminated teachers will claim that they were the victims of arbitrary, capricious, or discriminatory actions -- end result -- more lawsuits. We should change the law to require that teachers retain their tenure through their satisfactory performance on a regular basis. This can be accomplished by giving school management the right and authority to conduct annual performance evaluations of teachers. If a teacher is placed on a “Needs Improvement Status,” the teacher goes on the top of the RIF list and, if the teacher’s performance remains substandard, the teacher can be terminated for poor performance, despite longevity.

The total elimination of the “seniority” employment protection factor also exposes hard working, long term public employees (who have no social security or 401K benefits) to premature termination preventing them from earning their full public pension benefits. If these “good” older public employees are terminated early and cannot find reasonable employment elsewhere, will they further burden state support programs? Will they file age discrimination based lawsuits? Some seniority based protection should be provided for long term hard working public employees, who deserve it.

Health Care Benefits
Even Wisconsin is only requiring 12.6% contribution by public employees. Where did 20% come from? While I see no legal impediment to the healthcare provisions in SB5, we could save more taxpayers’ dollars by removing healthcare from public collective bargaining and requiring all public schools to participate in a statewide health insurance pool. This should save taxpayers millions of dollars. Moreover, the management and union healthcare plans must be commensurate.

Eliminating Higher Education Collective Bargaining
I still do not understand how this will affect state university and college professors/teachers. Will they negotiate their employment terms individually? Will this make tenure an individual threshold? Will the best and the brightest professors/teachers find states with collective bargaining at their level more attractive than Ohio? The UC Professors’ testimony certainly raises concerns about discouraging the best and brightest to teach at Ohio’s universities and colleges.

Police/Fire/Highway Patrol
Even Wisconsin understands the wisdom of exempting police, fire, and state highway patrol from collective bargaining elimination. This is especially true if police/fire still are prohibited from striking. Police, fire, and the highway patrol should either be exempted out of SB5, or the bill should include some fair and functional binding arbitration provision. Sergeants (perhaps lieutenants and captains in local police departments) should not be included as supervisors because they do not have the appropriate level of power and responsibilities. Police and fire must be allowed to bargain staffing levels and equipment issues when safety-related. To not do so, places Ohio’s safety focus at risk of injury or worse.

Miscellaneous

There are numerous provisions in SB5 dealing with the bargaining process that need to be reconsidered. These include, but are not limited to:

·        Public employer refusal to talk provision
·        Deletion of language that prohibits pension pick up procedures in collective bargaining agreements. (what about previously negotiated arrangements?) Pension pickup saves money.
·        Under the National Labor Relations Act, permanent replacement workers can be hired for an economic strike, but not for an unfair labor practice strike. SB 5 fails to make this distinction.

Saving Money – State Budget Shortfall

The assertion that SB5 is the answer to the state’s current purported 8.5 billion dollar plus state budget shortfall is misleading and perplexing. The current state collective bargaining agreement runs through FY 2012. Since SB5 would extend the State’s FY 2012 terms for at least another year, if the parties do not reach a new agreement, the current  agreement  could cover both years of the FY 2012 – FY 2013 budget. Many existing police, fire, and teacher collective bargaining agreements have 1 or 2 years remaining. How can SB5 reduce the economic costs of these existing contracts without totally vitiating the Constitutional prohibition against contract interference? Since SB5 does not apply to local governments (excluding police/fire), how will it help local governments offset their expected local government fund losses? Is there a fiscal analysis that supports the “savings” argument?

This memo is by no means an exhaustive constitutional or legal analysis of SB5; that would take days or perhaps weeks. I recommend that the Senate obtain such an exhaustive legal review before acting on such an overwhelming change in Ohio’s public labor law.


I also note that we, as a caucus, never discussed abolishing collective bargaining at our mini-retreat in December, 2010, or retreat in January, 2011. Rather, we talked about collective bargaining “reform,” without discussing any details. SB5 goes far beyond “reform.” At a minimum, we should discuss each of the broad sweeping changes proposed in SB5 in Caucus before moving forward on SB5.

I am having amendments drafted to address my concerns based on SB 5 as currently in committee.

I will continue to support defensible collective bargaining “reform.”

I will continue to review SB5 and provide further comments as appropriate. 

Thank you for your consideration.


Sunday, February 13, 2011

Mandatory Drug Testing for Recipients of Public Assistance Bill introduced in OH Senate

State Senator Tim Schaffer has reintroduced a bill in the Ohio Senate (SB 69) that would require drug testing for those receiving any type of public assistance.  Several other states (SC, FL, WV & KY) have also introduced varying versions of this bill.

From The Newark Advocate --
People in Ohio asking for government assistance from the state would have to be screened for drugs if a bill introduced Thursday in the Ohio General Assembly is passed and signed into law.

Sen. Tim Schaffer, R-Lancaster, introduced Senate Bill 69, which would establish drug-testing requirements for adults who apply for need-based programs.

The bill would deal with people applying for state programs that provide cash assistance, medical assistance, housing assistance, food assistance or energy assistance.

The bill is co-sponsored by Sen. Gayle Manning, R-North Ridgeville.
Under the leadership of former OH Senate President Bill Harris and new OH Senate President, State Senator Tom Niehaus, it should come as no surprise that last years version of this Bill died in the GOP-led Senate Finance Committee. So as you can see, even though Ohio's State Senate is GOP-led this year - as it was last year - there is no guarantee SB 69 will make it out of  the OH Senate.

Please contact your State Senator and urge them to support SB 69. 

State Senators from the Cuyahoga County area --

Senator Tim Grendell / District 18
Phone: (614) 644-7718
Email: SD18@senate.state.oh.us

Senator Shirley Smith / District 21
Phone: (614) 466-4857
Email: SD21@maild.sen.state.oh.us

Senator Michael Skindell / District 23
Phone: (614) 466-5123
Email: SD23@maild.sen.state.oh.us

Senator Tom Patton / District 24
Phone: (614) 466-8056
Email: SD24@senate.state.oh.us

Senator Nina Turner / District 25
Phone: (614) 466-4583
Email: SD25@maild.sen.state.oh.us

For contact information for OH Senators outside Cuyahoga County, please click here.