SB 5 is an overhaul of a collective bargaining law which gave public employees, such as firefighters and teachers, the right to bargain for their wages, hours, working conditions and benefits. A poll from Quinnipiac University on Sept. In July, 56 percent of Ohio voters wanted to appeal SB 5, while only 32 percent did not.
Peter Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute, said in a press release that the public opinion has changed drastically since July. SB 5 has caused controversy in the state, enough to put the issue up for voters to decide in November. On March 31, when SB 5 was signed into law by Gov. For example, SB 5 lists 15 topics that management can refuse to negotiate.
These issues include employees' qualifications and work assignments. The bill also lists topics that cannot be negotiated under any circumstances, including health care benefits costs locked in at a minimum percent employee contribution and the number of workers required to be on duty or employed in any department of a public employer.
This has been a contentious issue between some Republicans and opponents of the bill. At the heart of the disagreement are two topics of negotiation that employers can refuse to discuss under the bill: "the type of equipment used" and "the making of technological alterations by revising either process or equipment or both.
Republicans who support the bill, including Senate President Tom Niehaus, deny that employers can take safety equipment off the bargaining table under SB 5. Niehaus suggested the issue is subject to legal interpretation, and said any problem would be remedied before the bill becomes law.
He said Senate Republicans never intended to compromise safety equipment for police officers and firefighters. SB 5 bans all public workers from striking and establishes penalties for violating the ban. Under current law, only certain workers, such as police and firefighters, cannot strike. Under SB 5, employers could obtain a court order to halt any strike. Among the topics teachers cannot collectively bargain in SB 5 is "a maximum number of students who may be assigned to a classroom or teacher.
SB 5 sets standards of performance that will determine how much teachers are paid. The standards are: the teacher's level of license; whether the teacher is considered a "highly qualified teacher," as defined by law; a "value-added measure" of student performance; teacher evaluations; and any other criteria the school board establishes.
The performance-based salary schedules will vary by school district, but standardized test scores are a type of value-added measurement elsewhere in Ohio law. A provision of the bill aims to address the management-like authority afforded some unionized college professors. The language in the bill mirrors a U. In that case, the court ordered the decertification of the faculty union after determining faculty members were performing significant managerial functions involving tenure, hiring and curriculum.
SB 5 would classify professors who participate in such activities as "management level" workers and, therefore, exempt from collective bargaining rights. What's not in SB 5. Currently, a salary scale for teachers is set in state law. Many school districts, however, have adopted their own salary scale, through collective bargaining, to replace the state's scale.
SB 5 completely removes the scale from state law. In its place, the bill establishes performance-based criteria for teachers' raises. The bill does not establish a new minimum or maximum salary that teachers will be paid. That will be up to individual school districts. The process to place the referendum on the ballot for voters to decide was completed by supporters , as signatures were certified for the Ohio Secretary of State.
The group behind the referendum effort was the political action committee We Are Ohio. Senate Bill 5 would have impacted the state's , public workers, restricting their ability to strike and collectively bargain. As it stood, the bill only permitted public employees to collectively bargain for wages, preventing them from collectively bargaining for health insurance and pensions.
It would have also prohibited all public employees from striking and could have increased employee contributions for pensions and healthcare. According to reports, the measure's language was decided on August 3, When voters went to the polls, a "yes" vote was a vote to keep the law, while a "no" vote was a vote to repeal the law. A "yes" vote would have kept the law, while a "no" vote would have repealed the law.
On November 8, voters voted "no" resulting in the repeal of Senate Bill 5, therefore Issue 2 was rejected.
The ballot language that voters saw on the ballot read as follows: [5]. The title of the referendum, according to the petition, began: [6]. The following was the introduction to the Official Argument and Explanation for Issue 2, therefore in favor of Senate Bill 5. Read the entire text :. The following was part of the beginning to the Official Argument and Explanation against Issue 2, therefore against Senate Bill 5. Below is a summary of Senate Bill 5 provisions.
Had the measure stayed in effect, it would have done the following: [7]. Supporters of Issue 2 supported the enactment of Senate Bill 5. The bill was sponsored by Sen. Proponents of the bill said that the law was needed to let state and local governments to better control their costs.
Kasich argued that the bill would have restored "balance to the system. Opponents of Issue 2 opposed the enactment of Senate Bill 5. We Are Ohio was the political action committee behind the effort to place the proposed repeal on the ballot. The following opposed the enactment of Issue 2.
This section includes organizations and individuals who participated in the effort to put the law to a public vote: [27]. The following were perspectives that did not take a stance for or against the measure when making these comments:. The following are contributions that were made toward the effort in favor of Issue 2, therefore in favor of Senate Bill 5.
The contributions were all made by Building A Better Ohio, according to reports. The following contributions are the five highest donations made by the group. The following are contributions that were made in opposition of Issue 2, therefore in opposition of Senate Bill 5. To view the total list of contributors to the campaign in support of the repeal , as of the semi-annual report filed on July 29, , click here :. This chart below show polls where the question presented asked the respondent if they were for or against Senate Bill 5 outright.
State Representatives Kathleen Clyde and Michael Stinziano stated concerns over possible confusion on referendum ballot language.
According to reports, the lawmakers were adamant on Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted keeping consistent with constitutional precedent in the wording of the language. Clyde and Stinziano voiced at the time that a "no" vote should be a vote against Senate Bill 5. This came amidst reports that Husted and the Ohio Ballot Board could have altered the referendum language to where a "yes" vote would be required to repeal the bill. According to a joint letter written by the two legislators to the Secretary of State: "
0コメント