Pros and Cons of the Ohio Senate Bill - Essay Example

?Introduction Indeed the issue of national development is best understood if it is viewed from a collective point of view. This is to say that national development should always be seen as something that comes from among the citizenry and not something from the nation to the citizen – thus the famous John F. Kennedy saying that “ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country.” Understanding this appeal of individual contribution towards national development is very important because every nation is run on the labor and production of its citizens. Having said this, it is not as though the nation has no responsibilities to play in ensuring that the citizen is well protected and provided for to give back to the nation. It is for this reason that bills and laws that are made in the nation must take a human face and consider the welfare of the citizen as the most important conditions. To this effect, it is absolutely necessary, right and appropriate that citizens are airing their views on the Senate Bill 5 and how it might affect them. The debates and discussion are therefore highly encouraged and no side of the argument can immediately be judged as invalid, out of place or unnecessary. Especially as voting is yet to be done, it is important that debates continue to clarify issues so that the voting public would have better reasons why they should make a particular choice on the day of voting. The Issues No body can deny the fact that the mere mention or thought of the fact that a person’s earning would be reduced directly or indirectly is unpleasant news to hear. In fact, monies are earned through labor and labor is a difficult phenomenon. It is for this reason that everyone would want his or her earning secured. But what about cases where the deductions would bring about an eventual and long term benefit. Like in the payment of life insurances and fixed deposits, so would the long term benefit of the Senate Bill 5 be. Vardon and Siegel (2011) note that “Senate Bill 5 also would save $191 million at the state level by eliminating employee longevity and step pay increases.” In the wake of times when America is trumpeting for rapid economic take after the recession, such an amount pumped into the economy would in no small way raise the economic fortunes of the nation. Having made this point, it is important to reiterate the need to ensure accountability at the hands of higher governmental officials so that the professed economic benefits would be achieved. There is also an urgent need for critics’ cry on the implementation process to be considered. This is because there seem to be a kind of disparity that creates the impression that someone is robbing Peter to pay Paul. This point is strongly supported by Kasich who decries how there exists “imbalance between the costs of health insurance for the private and public sectors” such that one group wound eventually be making losses for another person’s gains. There is the much talked deprivation of employees to air their views and bargain on their entitlements. Some say that the Senate Bill 5 will be “taking away the power to negotiate deductibles and co-pays that contribute to the overall cost of health insurance” (Vardon and Siegel, 2011). However, that is not all what the Senate Bill 5 presents as far as employee bargaining power is concerned. As a matter of fact, public service workers such as teachers, firefighters and law enforcers “will be able to negotiate with local and state officials for important contract provisions including wages and some working conditions, including those related to safety” (The Intelligencer, 2011). The fears continue to rage on but citizens are encouraged to consider the full impulse of the bill deeply. If for nothing at all, it is known that the little restrictions on bargaining power would go a long way to restrict excessive spending to help Ohio maintain a balanced budget. It should however be noted with caution that this does not become an avenue for killing the spirit behind the formation and running of labor unions in Ohio as the laws of the land clearly permits and advocates freedom of association. If Ohio is able to achieve a restricted spending and thus keep a balanced budget, Ohio will not incur any long term debt and this development will be very necessary for ensuring the financial success of Ohio so that the State can uphold its constitution. On another brighter note, the Senate Bill 5 if voted for and passed into a binding law would ensure that mismanagement that s usually characterized with bargaining would be stopped. Most often than note, union bosses have nit been very accountable in their roles as mediators and sole bargainers. It is therefore very important that collective bargaining be left with government employees. To this end, Staroska (2011) states that the State Bill 5 “preserves collective bargaining for government employees, but it also returns some basic control of our schools and services to the taxpayers who fund them, not the union bosses who thrive on their mismanagement.” Having made mention of taxpayers, it is important to assert that if collective bargaining is well harnessed and authenticated to ensure that it is free of all forms of misappropriations, the taxpayer would eventually have fewer tax gaps to fill because the deductions would cater for that. With the present economic situation, any attempts to reduce the tax burden on taxpayers should be embraced as an act of ingenuity. Conclusion To conclude, the point will be reiterated again that it is important that debate on the pros and cons of the Senate Bill 5 continues. However, having considered the numerous benefits discussed, it is would be jut appropriate that as citizens go to the poll to vote, they vote yes to the Senate Bill 5. It is admitted that there has been a problem of lack of appropriate education among populace by law makers and advocators. This problem has resulted in the numerous demonstrations experienced in the streets of Ohio. This problem should be solved by starting mass and public education. Not only should voters be targeted for the mass education program but all citizens. As a matter of fact, even the young non-voter must be considered because they are going to be the future beneficiaries of the Senate Bill 5. What is more, mass education should not be difficult at all if well planned. Planning should target employee group leaders who would be expected to send down their education and in-depth knowledge acquired on the bill unto their subordinates. With massive education, it will not be surprising that at the end of the day, the needed majority will vote yes to the Senate Bill 5. REFERENCE LIST Staroska A. (2011). Issue 2 in Ohio (S.B. 5). Retrieved October 30, 2011 from http://truthaboutbills.org/issue-2-in-ohio-s-b-5 The Intelligencer (2011). Get the Facts On Ohio SB 5. Wheeling News-Register. Retrieved October 31, 2011 from http://theintelligencer.net/page/content.detail/id/553707/Get-the-Facts-On-Ohio-SB-5.html?nav=511 Vardon J. and Siegel J. (2011). Is SB5 Good for Ohio? The Columbus Dispatch. Retrieved October 30, 2011 from http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2011/10/16/is-sb5-good-for-ohio.html Read More