The Editorially Independent Voice of The University of Akron

The Buchtelite

The Editorially Independent Voice of The University of Akron

The Buchtelite

The Editorially Independent Voice of The University of Akron

The Buchtelite

Response to Kasich Critics

By: Nic Miller

Real conservatives at the University aren’t non-existent, they just aren’t very loud. The loud ones are the liberals. So it’s time someone got loud. The latest shouting lib is Matthew Balsinger with his libelous, contradictory evaluation of our own Governor Kasich.

I wish people could be honest about Issue 2/SB 5. It seems nobody is. Sitting in a class last spring, I was listening to my professor lamenting SB 5 and how destructive it was. I raised my hand and said, “Uh, pardon me, sir. Did you know SB 5 does not affect collective bargain for the wages of public employees?” I thought I was going to be thrown out of the room, and not just by the professor, but a few of the students as well. He thought I was lying. He knew I was lying. But I wasn’t.

Issue 2/SB 5 does not affect collective bargaining for public union employees. So let’s go through Balsinger’s lies and talk about them individually, from his slanderous opening to his apocalyptic, melodramatic closing.

Lie number one (first paragraph): Voting yes on Issue 2 means “destroying the collective bargaining right for all state employees.” To reveal the truth, I quote the law itself: “Public employees have the right to… bargain collectively with their public employers to determine wages, hours, terms and other conditions of employment and the continuation, modification or deletion of an existing provision of a collective bargaining agreement, and enter into collective bargaining agreements.” (Ohio Revised Code 4117.03(A)(4)). Furthermore, as to the blatant lie that SB 5 is a safety risk because it eliminates collective bargaining for safety equipment and training, I quote again from the law itself: “equipment issues directly related to personal safety are subject to collective bargaining.” (ORC 4117.08(F)).

Balsinger, without an ounce of intellectual honesty, submits that SB 5 will “destroy education as we know it in the state of Ohio” and that the true purpose of SB 5 is “set at muting the voice of the people.”

Continuing on the lying spree that is his fourth paragraph, he posits that “Issue 2 eliminates the right of public employees to form unions.” It’s hard to know where to start defending your position with someone who is systematically lying to make a point. Let me just ask, then, this question: why would Kasich and company want to destroy education as we know it, or mute the voice of the people? There is simply no sense in these statements. They are libel, nothing else. And to state that Issue 2 eliminates the right of public employees to form unions is nothing but an outright, categorical, bald-faced lie. Issue 2 simply does no such thing. There is nothing more to say.

Most of the rest of Balsinger’s article is not a lie, just a statement of his philosophy (much of it is based on a false premise… but I digress). “Education does not need to be reformed in this country – it needs to be cared for and supported.” This is like taking the position that if I’m walking down a path with my daughter, and she begins to wander off in a different direction, I should not reform her path, I should encourage and support her for being so adventurous, despite the fact that she will invariably become lost. Critics of SB 5 decried how it victimized teachers. They fail to see that striking down SB 5 creates another victim: everyone else.

I have children who will someday be of school-going age. I don’t want to send them to a school where the teachers are paid based on how long they’ve been teaching. I want to send them to a school where the teacher is paid based on how good he or she is at the job. That’s what Issue 2 is about. And contrary to the mudslingers, there is actually intelligent debate taking place over how to evaluate teachers beyond their students’ test scores. It’s crazy, isn’t it? Paying someone based on how well he or she does a job? Insane!

View Comments (1)
More to Discover

Comments (1)

All comments that are well-informed, civil and relevant to the story are welcome. To leave a comment, please provide your name and email address. The Editorial Board reserves to right to remove any comment that is submitted under false pretenses or includes personal attacks, libel, hate speech, profanity, spam or inaccurate/misleading information. All comments are screened and are generally approved unless they are found to be found in violation of these standards. Readers who notice comments that appear to violate these standards are encouraged to contact the Online Editor at [email protected].
All The Buchtelite Picks Reader Picks Sort: Newest

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  • D

    D. SmithJan 17, 2012 at 1:28 PM

    Sorry this is so late, but I just saw it now.

    You’ve got your talking points down, but you’re ignoring what you don’t want to see–mainly because it destroys your argument.

    First, SB5 would have affected collective bargaining.

    SB5 would have taken away the neutral third party used when unions and employers come to an impasse. The decision on how to proceed would have been left solely in the employers’ hands–just like if there were no union and no collective bargaining.

    The idea that employers bargain fairly is a complete myth–especially when a law is enacted that says they don’t have to.

    SB5 would have essentially taken away collective bargaining in every aspect besides leaving the name intact. The concept would have been changed.

    And a second quick point:
    If your kid goes to school and wants to learn, he’ll learn; If he doesn’t want to learn, he won’t.

    But the question begs: How do you teach kids who refuse to learn?

    Use UA classes as an example. You could go into a class, do nothing, listen to nothing, take no notes, and learn nothing.

    Would this be a reflection on how well the teacher performs? Of course not.

    Sure, you could blame the teacher for not making it interesting enough, not teaching what you wanted to learn, or any of a thousand other excuses that shift any personal responsibility for learning away from you…but the simple fact remains that if the student doesn’t want to learn that they won’t learn anything.

    So how is this the teachers’ fault?

    Simple questions…