Ohio 2 Defeated, Anti-Union Bill overturned

[SCRawl]

AP called it USA Today copies and reports
USA Today

COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) – The state's new collective bargaining law was defeated Tuesday after an expensive union-backed campaign that pitted firefighters, police officers and teachers against the Republican establishment.

Firefighter Tom Sullivan campaigns against Issue 2 outside a polling location in Strongsville, Ohio, on Tuesday.

By Mark Duncan, AP

In a political blow to GOP Gov. John Kasich, voters handily rejected the law, which would have limited the bargaining abilities of 350,000 unionized public workers.

Labor and business interests poured more than $30 million into the nationally watched campaign, and turnout was high for an off-year election.

The law hadn't taken effect yet. Tuesday's result means the state's current union rules will stand, at least until the GOP-controlled Legislature determines its next move. Republican House Speaker William Batchelder predicted last week that the more palatable elements of the collective bargaining bill — such as higher minimum contributions on worker health insurance and pensions — are likely to be revisited after the dust settles.

Earlier this year, thousands of people swarmed the Statehouse in protest when the bill was being heard. The bill still allowed bargaining on wages, working conditions and some equipment but banned strikes, scrapped binding arbitration and dropped promotions based solely on seniority, among other provisions.

Kasich and fellow supporters promoted the law as a means for local governments to save money and keep workers. Their effort was supported by the Ohio Chamber of Commerce, the National Federation of Independent Business-Ohio, farmers and others.

We Are Ohio, the largely union-funded opponent coalition, painted the issue as a threat to public safety and middle-class workers, spending millions of dollars on TV ads filled with images of firefighters, police officers, teachers and nurses.

Celebrities came out on both sides of the campaign, with former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin and singer Pat Boone urging voters to retain the law and former astronaut and U.S. Sen. John Glenn and the Rev. Jesse Jackson urging them to scrap it.

Labor and business interests poured more than $30 million into the nationally watched campaign, with the law's opponents far outspending and outnumbering its defenders.

Opponents reported raising $24 million as of mid-October, compared to about $8 million raised by the committee supporting the law, Building a Better Ohio.

Tuesday's result in the closely divided swing state was expected to resonate from statehouses to the White House ahead of the 2012 presidential election.

Ohio's bill went further than a similar one in Wisconsin by including police officers and firefighters, and it was considered by many observers to be a barometer of the national mood on the political conundrum of the day: What's the appropriate size and role of government, and who should pay for it?

Kasich has vowed not to give up his fight for streamlining government despite the loss.

For opponents of the law, its defeat is anticipated to energize the labor movement, which largely supports Democrats, ahead of President Obama's re-election effort.

Good deal, I wonder what the win margins will look like tomorrow.

[Dominus Atheos]

Um, no. Issue 2 was defeated, which overturned the anti-union bill.

Issue 2 was essentially "should the collective bargaining rights of unions be stripped?". People voted no.

Can we get a thread title change?

[Darth Lucifer]

As an Ohioan, I was proud to vote against this union-busting law.

I'm no legal scholar so I wanted to ask someone more educated on the topic than myself; Isn't preventing workers from striking a violation of the First Amendment right to peaceably assemble? I know Wal-Mart and other private businesses can get away with rules about their employees not unionizing, but since these are government sector jobs, they have to uphold the constitution, is that correct?

[Civil War Man]

Not necessarily. There are a lot of locations where public sector unions are not allowed to do any work stoppages because they provide a critical service like public transportation, police work, or firefighting. Same goes for emergency medical staff and nurses, though they are often not public workers depending on where they work.

They have the right to peacefully assemble, but they also are responsible for providing for part of the public good. They can still technically go on strike, but they still have to continue doing their job while on strike.

[evilsoup]

Does 'the right to peacecable assembly' grant the right not to be fired for going on strike? After all, they're not firing you for being in a protest, but rather for not doing your job.

[Terralthra]

Does 'the right to peacecable assembly' grant the right not to be fired for going on strike? After all, they're not firing you for being in a protest, but rather for not doing your job.

The NLRA prohibits firing employees for striking. The company may hire replacement workers (scabs), but may not fire.

[evilsoup]

It's good to hear that the US has some protection in law for strikers (and more proof the FDR was best President), but I was really referring to

Isn't preventing workers from striking a violation of the First Amendment right to peaceably assemble? I know Wal-Mart and other private businesses can get away with rules about their employees not unionizing, but since these are government sector jobs, they have to uphold the constitution, is that correct?

Would it be correct to say that the right to strike actually isn't enshrined in the First Amendment, but rather stems from the Wagner Act?

[Terralthra]

It's good to hear that the US has some protection in law for strikers (and more proof the FDR was best President), but I was really referring to

Isn't preventing workers from striking a violation of the First Amendment right to peaceably assemble? I know Wal-Mart and other private businesses can get away with rules about their employees not unionizing, but since these are government sector jobs, they have to uphold the constitution, is that correct?

Would it be correct to say that the right to strike actually isn't enshrined in the First Amendment, but rather stems from the Wagner Act?

The NLRA was found Constitutional under the Commerce clause in National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation, 301 U.S. 1 (1937). Striking may be an example of peaceful assembly, but the 1st Amendment protects peaceful assembly from state interference, it does not immunize them against any consequences.

[evilsoup]

Wow, that's (judging from the Wikipedia article) a pretty broad definition of 'regulating interstate commerce', and only a 5-4 ruling? I'm surprised that nobody's tried to appeal that more recently (is that how it works? What's the process for trying to repeal Supreme Court decisions?).

Oh, and

The Act does not apply to workers who are covered by the Railway Labor Act, agricultural employees, domestic employees, supervisors, federal, state or local government workers, independent contractors and some close relatives of individual employers.

So the NRLA wouldn't apply to this case, I think. So, it's all down to whether it would be constitutional under the First Amendment... but this is all academic, thankfully, congrats to Ohio.

[Simon_Jester]

The Supreme Court has usually been pretty broad-minded about the interstate commerce clause. Most mature people in the US recognize that it would be impossible to govern a modern nation without a certain amount of centralized regulation of issues that impact nationwide conditions on things like labor, the quality and safety of goods, and so on.

Lawyering the commerce clause is the accepted way to deal with it without having to admit that yes, the Founding Fathers did write a document that isn't as applicable to modern government as we might like, and that strictly enumerating the powers of the legislature wasn't as hot an idea as we might like.