Vote No on Issue 2
Ohio Issue 2 severely restricts the power of unions for state employees, which primarily include firefighters, police officers, and teachers. The main argument for passing Issue 2 is that local governments are facing difficult deficits, and unions are preventing them from taking cost cutting measures. The argument is also made that these employees are getting a much better deal than their private sector counterparts (with regard to compensation, such as health care and retirement contributions), and so adjustments need to be made. Supporters of the issue suggest that restricting the powers of these unions (like not allowing them to strike, only allowing them to negotiate on specific topics, and letting the legislature have the final say on unresolved disputes) will solve many of the financial problems of the state and local governments.
I think that’s dumb.
First, enough with the complaints about these union employees paying lower percentages of their health care or retirement costs. Any (private or public sector) employee’s compensation can be split into two parts: salary and benefits. The beauty of unions is that for years, public employees have negotiated to get their preferred blend of salary and benefits. Many have chosen to have better benefits over a lower salary. However, in this debate over Issue 2, this is never brought up. Instead, people only mention the low percentage that they contribute to retirement or health care, as if everything else (like salary) is equal. It is not.
Secondly, unions aren’t the stubborn beasts that people make them out to be. Many unions (for example, the auto workers) have taken a lot of cuts in salary and benefits to allow their companies and industries to survive in this tough economic time. In the case of the auto workers, they would rather have jobs than to see an entire sector of the economy (and their employers) disappear. Public employee unions have chosen to not fight for higher wages, because they understand the economic hardships of the local governments. There is a benefit to having a deal worked out between the government and workers — the primary benefit being that it is fair for both sides, or at least more fair than had that discussion not taken place. As we have learned from incidents these last few years, the government doesn’t always make the right call, so having more people involved in the discussion seems like a pretty good idea to me.
Thirdly, people don’t acknowledge the real reason why they support Issue 2. I think it largely comes down them making less money than the public employees. Everyone likes to think that they have the most difficult and demanding job in the world, and therefore deserve to make more money. Since public employees are paid with tax dollars, the tax payers think that they should always make more than the public employees, regardless of their level of education, industry, years of experience, hours of work per week, skills, importance to society, etc. I’m not sure why this happens so frequently, but this superiority complex needs to stop. Public employees serve critical roles in our society, and odds are, their job is more important than your job.
On a final note, so what if a public employee is compensated (through benefits and salary) better than their private sector equivalent? Why is the conclusion immediately “the public employee is making too much” instead of “the private employee is making too little”? Companies want to make profits, and in order to do that, they would like to get away with paying you as little as possible, without it backfiring on them. I don’t blame them for that. It’s just how the free market works. But it is then up to you to raise concerns when you are no longer being fairly compensated. This is why unions were created in the first place — to fight for the workers. Instead of questioning another worker’s salary versus your own, take up your argument with your employer. I think the vast majority of employees are undervalued and under-compensated. Private or public, these employees are your peers. Maybe you both deserve to make more money. Instead of picking a fight with them, take the fight to your company and voice your concerns.
And hey, if other coworkers agree with you, perhaps you could work together to have more leverage. Perhaps you could come up with common goals and work with the company next time it hands out salaries and benefits, workplace safety guidelines, etc. Perhaps this group could ensure that the workers now have representation and a seat at the table. Oh crap, that sounds exactly like a union. Nevermind.
November 2, 2011