Senate Bill 5 and Issue 2
Senate Bill 5, passed by the Ohio General Assembly and signed by Governor Kasich in
March 2011, was one of the most controversial bills passed in recent years.
Immediately following its adoption, opponents initiated a petition drive to force a
referendum. The effort was successful and the referendum will appear on the November
2011 ballot as Issue 2. The ballot language asks, “Shall the law be approved?” A “Yes”
vote means you favor SB 5 remaining as the law; a “No” vote means you oppose SB 5.
Both proponents and opponents of SB 5 have organized and begun their campaigns. It
is expected that millions of dollars will be spent in the days leading up to the election.
Media ads have already started appearing and the campaign already has all the
hallmarks of being bitter and divisive.
The proponents, organized as Building a Better Ohio, seek to retain the collective
bargaining reforms of SB 5. They have received endorsements from the Ohio Chamber
and regional chambers of commerce, as well as representatives from Ohio
manufacturing, construction, agriculture, small business and accounting sectors. They
state that passing Issue 2 will give flexibility to government to control labor costs while
helping to save jobs of Ohio public employees.
The opponents, organized as We Are Ohio, seek to repeal SB 5 and state that they
represent hard-working middle class families who deserve the right to work one good job
and to pursue the American Dream for themselves and their children. The coalition has
received the endorsements of local, state and national public and private sector labor
organizations representing police officers, firefighters, teachers, nurses and other public
employees. More than 10,000 volunteers collected nearly 1.3 million signatures to place
the issue on the November ballot.
OSBA did testify in support of some aspects of SB 5 in hearings in both the House and
Senate. OSBA testified that we do support the concept of collective bargaining, and
believe that all public employees should have the right to negotiate for their salaries and
wages. We noted that, over time, a combination of the law, court cases, SERB
interpretations, and prior decisions at the local level have significantly eroded
management rights and made it increasingly difficult for local boards of education to
effectively manage their schools.
Our testimony was based on the OSBA Legislative Platform which supports changes
and modifications to collective bargaining in general, and specifically supports legislation
that:



Narrows the scope of negotiations that excludes certain topics from the
bargaining process, including school day and school year, class size, curriculum,
course of study, and selection of textbooks and instructional materials.
[Personnel Plank 1B – Collective Bargaining (Scope of Negotiations)]
Prohibits strikes by public employees and provides penalties and sanctions
imposed upon striking employees as a deterrent to strikes. [Personnel Plank 1E
– Collective Bargaining (Strikes)]
Rejects a requirement for binding arbitration as a method of resolving collective
bargaining disputes. [Personnel Plank 1F – Collective Bargaining (Binding
Arbitration)]
Our testimony also supported those SB 5 provisions that restore management rights and
provide management with greater flexibility with regard to:






Restricting bargaining to a specific time period and accelerating the dispute
resolution process.
Eliminating continuing contracts in effect after the bill becomes law.
Changing the criteria for reductions in force.
Adopting locally developed leave plans.
Establishing a minimum level for employee contributions for health care benefits
and removing health care from the bargaining process.
Limiting the requirement for “effects” bargaining.
We also supported the requirements for greater transparency in the bargaining process,
permitting both sides the opportunity to communicate with members of the other side,
and requiring both sides to present their last, best offer to the public at large.
However, there were certain provisions included in the final version that we believed
have the effect of eroding local control and which we could not support. Specifically, we
objected to:









A final dispute resolution procedure that would require a public election on the
last best offers of each side in the bargaining process. We believe that it is the
responsibility of the elected board of education to make the final decisions in
such matters and that such a process would be costly and divisive. [Personnel
Plank 1D – (Dispute Resolution)]
Provisions that prohibit boards of education from choosing to “pick up” all or
some of an employee’s pension contribution.
A teacher, principal and district leadership evaluation model that has limited
opportunity for tailoring at the local level.
A top-down compensation plan driven at the state level without local input.
[Personnel Plank 1H – (Professional Compensation)]
Restriction on rights of staff to participate in collective bargaining. [Personnel
Plank 1-C– Collective Bargaining (Right to Organize)]
Restrictions on the rights of the board to negotiate vacation accrual above the
mandatory caps.
Uncertainty about how health care pooling would work and the possible
elimination of the School Employees Health Care Board.
Restrictions on the ability of the board of education to waive penalties, fines or
deductions in pay as part of settlement of a strike.
Restriction on the ability of a board member to participate in collective bargaining
if an “immediate family member” has a “direct interest in the outcome.”
Throughout our testimony and personal contacts with legislators we expressed our
concern with the pace at with which the legislation was moving and with the limited
opportunity for thoughtful dialogue and even compromise among all parties.
In the final analysis, SB 5 contains many provisions that will restore management rights
in collective bargaining, but there are other provisions that weaken local control and
which could create a climate that negatively impacts the opportunity for important
collaborative work among educators. We stand behind our testimony and our
communications with members of the Ohio General Assembly during the process. Our
opinions have been voiced to our legislators and our membership.
It is clear that local boards of education and individual board members are squarely in
the middle of the issue, facing pressure from both sides to take a position either for or
against SB 5. Each board of education faces a unique situation depending upon the
circumstances in their local community.
The Board of Trustees recommend that local boards of education encourage the
voters in their communities to become fully informed about the various provisions
of SB 5 prior to voting.
The Board of Trustees also offers the OSBA staff serve as an source of facts,
figures and information for the membership and stakeholders of public education.