Strickland, Fisher come out against "Sick Day" Initiative
Submitted by modernesquire on Thu, 08/21/2008 - 3:02pm.
From the e-bag:
While important members of the business community and SEIU participated in good faith discussions, it was, unfortunately, not possible to achieve a compromise acceptable to a sufficient portion of the business community and the proponents to cause its removal from the ballot. We regret that a reasonable compromise was not possible. This reality means that there will be a hard fought campaign centering on this initiative in the coming months. During that campaign, we call upon both sides to avoid portraying Ohio as unfriendly to business and economic development.
“We also recognize it is important to make clear our thoughts on important public policy issues and today are announcing that we cannot support the paid sick-day ballot initiative. While we would hope that all Ohio businesses would make paid sick days available to their employees whenever possible, we believe that this initiative is unworkable, unwieldy and would be detrimental to Ohio's economy, and we will be opposing it and asking Ohioans to oppose it as a result.”
I'm betting that SEIU is going to regret not reaching a settlement. To have the Democratic Governor and Ohio's chief State economic development official to be against this initiative is going to be, shall we say, problematic.
I'm conflicted. It's the ol' heart v. wallet debate. I want employees to be able to have time off work care for themselves and their loved ones without bankrupting them in the process. However, I do have to wonder why no middle ground couldn't be reached to keep small employers .... well, employers. Ohio's unemployment rate is at a 15-year high. This simply isn't the right time for this proposal.
Flame away.
who's fault?
Submitted by Nifty Lawrence on Thu, 08/21/2008 - 4:04pm.
Selective memory or lack of knowledge seems to be causing many to forget that those who support this bill *first* attempted to go through the OGA via the initiated statute process. That gave the OGA 120 days to work out a bill.
When the OGA, Strickland, Fisher, etc did literally NOTHING during that time to address this issue, supporters were forced to rely on the ballot initiative process.
Now they've all been left scrambling at the end of the process to fashion a compromise with Big Business, who's supporters are on record saying they won't accept even a single sick day.
But, yeah, it's the fault of workers. Like always.
Not the workers
Submitted by kJk on Fri, 08/22/2008 - 8:33am.
I did not say--ever--"it's the fault of workers." I said it's the fault of SEIU/District 1199, because they are the biggest group of stubborn, inflexible, wannabe radical, wannabe hardasses you'll ever meet. All they want is more members so they can blackmail Democratic candidates with Andy Stern and his unethical leadership team's personal agendas. They do NOTHING to represent their own members, and THEY RAN A FREAKING BOSS CAMPAIGN AGAINST THEIR OWN ORGANIZERS AND OFFICE STAFF! They organize around the tragic irony of healthcare workers having no healthcare, and in the meantime, they don't give many of their own organizers healthcare!
It's not the workers fault. It's SEIU's fault. It's the not fault of the people who put in their time every day to provide for their families. It's the fault of the people who are hell-bent on trying to become bigger than the UAW no matter who they stomp on in the process.
What compromise
Submitted by LaborGuy on Thu, 08/21/2008 - 5:26pm.
There was no chance at compromise thanks to the business community. While Ohioans for Healthy Families coalition worked with the Governor on ways the bill could be clarified, NFIB and Chamber of Commerce refused to come to the table. As discussions went on they undermined them by working over the Republican leaders to poison them to any reasonable bill.
The union wasn't the problem. They worked with Strickland, even though the bill as written makes reasonable exemptions for business, petitions were signed by 500,000 Ohioans, and the issue supported by 69% of voters.
It is the business community of this state that disrespected the Governor and the people of Ohio who signed the petitions. It was the Republican leadership of the General Assembly who refused to do anything during the four months they had to debate and amend the legislation.
Bottom line: While business asserts this measure is costly they have no data. Independent studies show providing paid sick days saves money. There is no evidence to support the NFIB claims. In fact, the track record is that the business community has been consistently wrong about the fiscal impacts of previous minimum standards including FMLA, minimum wage, mental health parity. WHY WOULD WE BELIEVE THEM NOW??? Why would Governor Strickland? I'm very disappointed in him.
Coming back to play in the sandbox, eh, LaborGuy?
Submitted by tudorman on Thu, 08/21/2008 - 7:28pm.
I was hoping you'd come back to the debate. I thought you got scared away in the other thread about the sick day initiative. You gave up way too easily.
Could you provide more details on the "independent studies" and the "track record" you cite in your last paragraph? I'd be interested in seeing those, because if what you say is true, Big Business is leaving money on the table. I mean, really, they don't have to wait for a law to give sick time to their employees, right? They could do it without a law. You've got to admit, those guys usually don't miss a trick.
While you are gathering your sources, I'll say this - for me, the debate is less about whether granting paid sick time to all employees is good for Ohio, although that is certainly an issue. At stake here is the prospect of the government again inserting themselves into what should be a mutual agreement between two private parties.
But I'm willing to take a look at the data that supports the economic case for this issue and the others you reference. I look forward to your reply.
Tudorman
Different thread deserves different debate
Submitted by LaborGuy on Fri, 08/22/2008 - 5:01pm.
Since we've been graced with two threads on this topic in a week I felt compelled to post and correct the mis-impressions people seem to have about the Ohio Healthy Families Act.
Unfortunately, I wouldn't call this a debate. It appears to be the same suspects, grinding the same axes as last time. So I don’t expect to spend much time here.
As far as independent research on the cost of illness to business and the benefit of providing paid sick days, here’s a sample:
Institute for Women's Policy Research
http://www.iwpr.org/pdf/B242.pdf
Policy Matters Ohio
http://www.policymattersohio.org/AHealthyStandard2007_1002.htm
Cornell University Institute for Health and Productivity Studies
http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/April04/cost.illness.jobs.ssl.html
Center for Law and Social Policy
http://www.clasp.org/publications/presenteeism.pdf
These are respected, non-partisan research organizations, unlike the NFIB Research Foundation doing a study for the NFIB. (hmm, I wonder who their results are likely to favor.) In fact, they didn’t really release the NFIB study, they only released a summary of the report with press release. The full study with methodology isn’t available.
Bottom Line: Barack Obama is a cosponsor of the federal paid sick day legislation that was a model for the Ohio version (though the Ohio Healthy Families Act is actually written more favorably towards business.) Hillary Clinton is a cosponsor as well.
On the other hand John McCain recently expressed his opposition to a paid sick day standard.
I’m proud to support Obama and the Ohio Healthy Families Act. “We are the change we have been waiting for.”
libertarian argument
Submitted by Nifty Lawrence on Thu, 08/21/2008 - 9:09pm.
At stake here is the prospect of the government again inserting themselves into what should be a mutual agreement between two private parties.
I'm somewhat sympathetic to most libertarian positions. But thinking that labor & business are going to come to some sort of mutual agreement, without government involvement, is obviously fantasy.
Look at just some of the history of labor in this country - child labor laws, worker safety laws, minimum wage, mandated breaks, the 40-hour work week. Which of those happened without government involvement? None. Why would this issue be any different? In fact, it hasn't been.
It appears labor did the responsible thing & first went to the General Assembly where it was promptly ignored. Now it will most certainly be voted into law. Big Business had a shot at diluting it but refused.
I'm not referring to Business and Labor...
Submitted by tudorman on Thu, 08/21/2008 - 10:00pm.
Because you are absolutely right, they would not come to a mutual agreement as opposing groups on a state or national level. And they shouldn't, because individuals and businesses are indeterminately varied, with different capabilities, needs, and desires. It would be impossible to devise the optimum terms that could be applied across the entire spectrum of employment situations. It's foolish to attempt to nail down even the minimum terms. Leave that to the individuals involved. I am speaking of the compensation package that a person and the business he is selling his labor to are both willing to accept. I think that most people would agree that in a free society, an employer should be free to engage employees with whatever terms the two parties find satisfactory.
As far as the initiative's prospects, we shall see, eh? It is certain, however, that if passed, it will be the citizen taxpayers of Ohio, in the aggregate, that will suffer, as jobs move to other states or out-of-country, businesses reign in expansion, and mom-and-pop operations across the state find it even more difficult to turn a profit and justify their time and effort.
Tudorman
Who Has the Power?
Submitted by Nick D on Thu, 08/21/2008 - 10:32pm.
Tudorman, like so many other conservatives before you, you've failed to ask this question: Who has the power in this situation?
In your example above of an employer and employee negotiating, its clear that the employer has the power. The worker needs to feed his family and put a roof over their heads. The employer can always move to the next resume on the pile who may be willing to work for a little bit less. That's why an "agreement" under such terms is no agreement at all, in the legal sense, because it is made under durress.
Were that worker to be union represented however, he wouldn't be forced to sign an agreement under duress. The union can always strike if it feels it isn't being negotiated with in good faith. By helping to bridge the gap between the powerful and the powerless, the union has helped put the parties on equal footing.
I think that most people would agree that in a free society, an employer should be free to engage employees with whatever terms the two parties find satisfactory.
I disagree entirely. In a democratic society, people can make a moral judgement about the minimum amount of money or benefits a person's work is worth, and enforce that judgement via their elected representatives in government.
The employee has power too - at least I know I do
Submitted by Randy on Fri, 08/22/2008 - 6:21am.
I'm an employee of a large Fortune 100 company. Sometimes I really hate the things they do. When that happens, I go to my boss and complain. We even have an Open Door policy, where I can go to any manager in my chain (and even out of my chain) and complain.
Sometimes, things change. Sometimes they don't. At any time, I am free to walk out the door. I know of one company that does similar work that would hire me on the spot. Others may take a day or two.
Currently, I'm evaluating other jobs inside my company. There is a jobs database that gets posted daily with new listings. I am free to apply for any of these. On the last interview, I was evaluating the new prospective boss and the new prospective job as much as she was evaluating me. After a short conversation, I dedcided it wasn't right. I had the power to look at the next job.
Unions may have their place, but I'll take the free market anyday.
not about you
Submitted by Nifty Lawrence on Fri, 08/22/2008 - 9:30am.
Randy - I, too, have a job I like. It has great benefits & I already receive at least 7 paid sick days. I also think I could get a similar job, if needed or desired.
But this issue isn't about you or us. It's about all those people who aren't as fortunate as us.
Have some empathy. Try to see past how it does or does not effect you.
I do feel for those people
Submitted by Randy on Fri, 08/22/2008 - 6:31pm.
There was a day when I was one of them. I started working at age 14 to help pay for the things I needed and sometimes wanted. I worked myself through college in order to get ahead. I even lost one of my grants my senior year because I worked to much.
I recently helped a friend who has no benefits by "loaning" her money to get to the next payday. I doubt I ever get repaid. But I also insisted that she let me help her manage her money for the next several months. That's rmpathy and education.
Anyone in a job with no paid sick leave and low wages should be working on a plan to move up.
Yes!
Submitted by Nick D on Tue, 08/26/2008 - 9:50am.
Anyone in a job with no paid sick leave and low wages should be working on a plan to move up.
Randy, I agree with you, and God bless you for being the person in your friends life who can offer them a hand up. Unfortunately not everyone has someone in their life like you. Hence the importance of education, and government programs to offer a hand up, not a hand out.
ytownboy3 says the
Submitted by ytownboy3 on Fri, 08/22/2008 - 10:51am.
ytownboy3 says the following: The Governor did the right thing. Ohio businesses are not ready for this kind of shackle. SEIU was overreaching. Strickland waselected w/out owing them or anybody else. I applaud the decision. To support it would have been a deathknell to his 2010 campaign. Now if it passes, it is not his fault. Right now it is favored in the polls 72%. GO BUCKS!!
another bad part of the bill
Submitted by bshuff on Fri, 08/22/2008 - 11:32am.
Taken from www.bearsleft.com:
"SEIU began the petition collection project before talking to the progressive coaltion and before gathering feedback about the lanugage of the act. They then held a coalition meeting where organizations were asked to sign on to support the effort and gather signatures. At this meeting I, on behalf of Equality Ohio, raised the question of why wasn’t language used that would allow same sex partners to use these same earned sick days to care for their partners.
SEIU informed those of us gathered that they had not polled to find out if that sort of language would make it harder to pass. We were told that they had not tested the language. We were told that there was not consensus among their lawyers about if it would pass Ohio’s Marriage Amendment, though other states are introducing inclusive language and the Ohio Supreme Court decided later that the Amendment did not apply to anything but marriage. Simply, SEIU chose to use a less inclusive language, just because.
SEIU in the past, and nationally, has been a stauch ally of the LGBT community. They were opposed to the Federal Marriage Amendment, etc. However, when faced with an opportunity to help protect same-sex couples, SEIU 1199 chose to cave. "
Bo Shuff
Columbus
SEIU/District 1199 is the problem
When Ted Strickland and Lee Fisher try and fail to reach a compromise in a matter involving those koolaid drinkers, it's clear who is at fault.
SEIU's sole purpose is to increase its own numbers to increase its political clout. Once it has members, it does very little to represent them. That union's leadership ran a boss campaign against its own organizers and office staff to prevent them from having a vote or a voice in their own union.