The drama surrounding public unions in Wisconsin has spilled over into yet another state. On Tuesday, Republican lawmakers in Ohio released a new version of a bill that would severely curb the ability of public unions to protect their workers. The amendments to the bill include eliminating public unions' right to strike and sharp limitations on their collective?bargaining power.
Should the bill pass, unions would retain the right to negotiate wages, hours and certain terms of employment, but they would be prohibited from bargaining with employers over health benefits, pensions and working conditions. By far, the bill's most disturbing example of regression is its attempt to outlaw union workers from striking.
Preventing workers from utilizing strikes as a means of negotiation is a heavy - and unacceptable - blow to workers' rights. Though Republicans have proposed this measure in an effort to be fiscally responsible, it goes unnecessarily far in trying to achieve this goal. The ability to strike gives workers leverage in negotiating labor terms and contracts. Employers fear strikes for obvious reasons. Without workers there is no production. Yet without the ability to strike, the bargaining strength of unions is significantly diminished. In the words of Ohio State Sen. Joe Schiavoni (D), who spoke with The New York Times, removing strikes as a negotiating tool would be "taking the biggest bargaining chip off the table."
Most Americans agree that this is undesirable. According to a New York Times/CBS News Poll released on Monday, the majority of respondents supported the rights of unions to bargain collectively - 60 percent of those polled were in this camp, nearly double the number who favored weaker unions. A plurality of those responding, to the tune of 40 percent, favor closing state budget gaps by increasing taxes; by contrast, only 22 percent would favor decreasing the power of public unions. Finally, 56 percent of those polled oppose cutting the pay or benefits of public employees for the purpose of reducing state budget deficits.
Lawmakers need not follow the whims of their constituents to a T, especially when it comes to difficult austerity measures. But with a subject so fundamental as the ability of workers to negotiate as a group with employers, the American will cannot and should not be ignored.
The bill's measures are termed as budget?cutting and business?friendly. Though this may be the case, the negative political and economic effects outweigh any of these benefits. Bargaining power is essential to workers' rights. Without it, we will slide back to the days before the Progressive Era, perhaps the first period when strikes were widely used by workers as a tool to gain better working conditions and higher wages.
The Ohio bill, much like its Wisconsin counterpart, will not do much in the way of saving money in our weakened economy. With greater social benefits, workers would more readily spend their salaries, and thus further stimulate the economy. But without such protections, workers will feel more vulnerable and will be more likely to tighten their purse strings.
In addition, striking has nothing to do with the budget: It is merely a way for workers to maintain the worker?employer balance. The political implications behind union busting, however, are quite clear. Since public unions overwhelmingly support the Democratic Party with their political contributions, it only makes sense for the Republican?controlled state legislatures and Republican governors to weaken them.
The efforts of lawmakers in Ohio, as well as those in Wisconsin and other states, to weaken public unions are politically motivated, against the will of the country and counterproductive. There are better, and fairer, ways to close state budget gaps.
