Collective bargaining makes reference to a process during which employees through unions make negotiations regarding their employment contracts with key issues regarding their employment terms, benefits, salaries, and their general welfare are discussed. Collective bargaining has been cited as one of the most amicable approaches to find solutions that are affecting employees without victimizing such employees. In the United States, collective bargaining has been used widely as a platform through which employees seek pay rises as well as safer working places and as such it is regarded as dear to employees ( Kear & Wells, 2014) .
Even though collective bargaining has been widely employed in the United States as a means to advocate for better contracts for the employees, the Ohio State can be argued as being exceptional noting the state's passing of a bill and subsequent enactment into law of the bill seeking to clamp down on collective bargaining. According to Kear and Wells (2014) , the Senate Bill 5 is a legislation that was enacted into law through the signature of the Ohio state government seeking to limit employees within the state from using collective bargaining as a means of seeking better remuneration. While the legislation has been cited as having potential benefits to the Ohio taxpayers there are significant effects that the same legislation is bound to have on the public workers who have continually used collective bargaining as a means of putting forward their grievances.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The basis of the law
As noted earlier, there are numerous reasons why Senate Bill 5 was being formulated and its subsequent passing into law. To begin with, the bill was aimed at ensuring that education in the state was not negatively affected. Schools being in the public sector have continually faced the challenge of having to lay off the best teachers usually on a seniority basis (“ What's really in Senate Bill 5? Clearing up the rumors, misinformation surrounding collective bargaining overhaul” 2011) . Therefore, the proponents of the enactment of the bill have argued that passing the bill into law will reduce the negative and unfair employment practice. There was a widespread view that Senate Bill 5 was aimed at giving the taxpayers autonomy over the control of the schools within Ohio State. Over time, contract negotiations for teachers have not been transparent with the taxpayers knowing little about such contract contents. Subsequently, it was believed that passing the bill into law will work to reverse the long-held trend making the taxpayers regain control over the contract negotiations for public school teachers. In summary, the Senate Bill 5 was aimed at creating a conducive teaching environment for teachers where schools would be in a position to reward as well as retain teachers based on their performance rather than through collective bargaining efforts ( Kear & Wells, 2014) .
Another notable basis upon which the Senate Bill 5 was being created and championed is the perception that it passing it into law would be a positive step towards ensuring fairness as well as restoring balance. In addition to making performance be the ultimate basis for pay raises, the bill aimed at making sure that employees in the public sector receive quality healthcare. As such, the bill would require that public employees make a remittance of 15% towards coverage of health insurance consequently making it possible for them to the gain access the better healthcare ( McNay, 2013) . On the same note, the proponents of the bill postulate that the bill will be pivotal in ensuring that public employees receive a considerable amount of retirement benefits by making a fair contribution towards the retirement plans which have over time been funded by the taxpayers providing such benefits for free. Therefore, the public employees will be better cushioned during their retirement years in comparison to the workers within the private sector who do not get retirement benefits.
Impact of the bill on taxpayers
The management of the wage bill is usually on the agenda of nearly every government making efforts towards creating protection of the public coffers. While drafting Senate Bill 5, there were notable efforts geared towards putting under control government spending. It is worth mentioning that collective bargaining provides workers with a platform to push for an increase in remunerations which is usually borne by the taxpayers ( McNay, 2013) . As such, the creation of Senate Bill 5 was aimed at giving the taxpayers the ability to control government spending through rejecting government employment contracts that they deem as unaffordable. According to Ohio governor’s spokesperson, enacting the bill is an integral component of controlling government spending as it will act as a tool which local governments will utilize as a means to control spending in the wake of declining revenue from property tax. In addition, the governor’s spokesperson opines that the bill will be useful in enabling the government to protect jobs. An advocacy group “Building a Better Ohio” championing for the bill to remain a state law argues that moving forward with the bill will be critical in ensuring that communities among others Mount Sterling avoid laying off employees.
Impacts of Senate Bill 5 on workers
Collective bargaining forms a paramount part of workplaces that are unionized. Usually, collective bargaining adds up as a process whose main aim is to assist employees to have a voice in improving their benefits, wages, and working conditions while enhancing the ability of employers to have the best employees who are consistent and productive since they set standards within which employees are held to during their employment tenure ( Kear & Wells, 2014) . Therefore, maintaining the Senate Bill 5 as an employment law will have significant negative impacts on the employees.
First, enacting the bill reduces the ability of the employees to work reduce the workers’ voice. Removing the right to collective bargaining for employees makes it challenging for them to negotiate with employers. Studies indicate that many employers who are not unionized are faced with a challenge to take what the employer gives or leave as such making them disadvantaged. It follows that if an employee does not take the offer that has been given the employer will automatically make a replacement with other employees who are willing to take such offers. Subsequently, with the Senate Bill 5 remaining as state law will make it difficult for employees within Ohio State to form unions which would be beneficial in championing for their rights.
The quality of life for employees within Ohio State will be significantly affected by the passing of the Senate Bill ( McNay, 2013) . The quality of life is largely hinged on the ability of employees to have a considerable level of disposable income. Subsequently, scrapping collective bargaining in the state will render it impossible for employees to push for better wages thus affecting their levels of disposable income and the overall quality of life.
As indicated earlier, non-union workers are employed in at a “will” basis which has the negative impact of reducing consistency in employment terms. When workers are in unions, it becomes possible to champion for their rights such as fighting against discrimination as well as protecting such employees in case of whistle blowing coupled with employment security. Consequently, enacting the Senate Bill 5 to remove collective bargaining makes employees prone to negative employment practices that may include being fired without notice and victimization at the workplace coupled with the potential for discrimination ( McNay, 2013) .
In workplaces, it is paramount to create close working relationships to gain binding results. While in collective bargaining all parties are bound by the terms of engagement it becomes significantly challenging for employees to hold their employers into account should they breach their terms of engagement. Collective bargaining enhances the creation of communication lines between the involved parties in such a way to forge positive working relationships ( McNay, 2013) . It is worth noting that collective bargaining is not an exclusionary process as such making it possible for every member to be represented in the process to give their views, opinions, and desires. Consequently passing Senate Bill 5 works to tread down the gains that may have been achieved through collective bargaining in such a way that the employers’ views and opinions will never be heard.
References
Kear, A. R., & Wells, D. D. (2014). Coalitions Are People: Policy Narratives and the Defeat of Ohio Senate Bill 5. The Science of Stories , 157-184. doi:10.1057/9781137485861_8
McNay, J. T. (2013). Gop Forces Senate Bill 5 on Ohio. Collective Bargaining and the Battle of Ohio , 73-88. doi:10.1057/9781137350251_5
What's really in Senate Bill 5? Clearing up the rumors, misinformation surrounding collective bargaining overhaul. (2011, March 20). Retrieved from https://www.cleveland.com/open/2011/03/whats_really_in_senate_5_clear.html
