Vote “No” on Issue 2
Editorial
In typically sardonic tones, Kurt Vonnegut once described government as “…whatever the people who have all our money, drunk or sober, sane or insane, decide to do today.”To be certain, Vonnegut owns a uniquely fatalistic view of American government – and the human condition – which may be more exaggeration than reality. But the sinking feeling that the falcon cannot hear the falconer, that somehow things are falling apart, that the center has indeed failed to hold, seems to lock more and more of us in its paralyzing grasp each passing year. And the desire – the out and out need – to find someone to blame for our lots in life has grown right along with it: Q: “Why are my taxes so high? I can’t even afford to send my kid to college.” A: “Because of the Welfare Queen with her sixteen kids and her Cadillac.”Q: “Why can’t I get ahead? I deserve the nice house and the fast car.”A: “Because of the poor people who refuse to work. They’re a drain on the public coffers.”Q: “Why did I lose my job, I was a conscientious employee. I was a good worker.”A: “Because of the damn unions. They drive the cost of doing business through the roof, and corporations must compensate by downsizing.”These simple questions – and their inane responses – are illustrative of the mentality proponents of State Issue 2 are hoping to tap in their referendum attempt to dismantle workers’ compensation laws. On Nov. 4 Ohio voters will have the opportunity to repudiate these efforts by voting “No” on Issue 2.On the face of it, Issue 2 seems like a good idea. Nobody wants to see individuals bellying up to the compensation trough, abusing the system by feigning injury to collect benefits. We would be the first to support laws tightening the screws on workers’ compensation abuses.But that law is not Issue 2.In fact Issue 2 – despite what its supporter’s sensationalistic commercials would have you believe – has nothing to do with cracking down on abusers. In actuality, the heart of the law is a reduction in eligibility for wage-loss payments from 200 to 26 weeks, an 87 percent cut. This would be an enormous, unprecedented step backwards for the Ohio worker.Additionally, if the law passes it will shift the burden of proving an injury work-related from the employer to the employee. Although this may seem sound, it will invariably lead to an increase in litigation from both sides, as injured workers denied compensation sue their employer, while companies will go to court to prove an employee’s injury was caused by a preexisting condition. In short, the claims by proponents that Issue 2 reduces the role of lawyers – who by law can’t directly solicit injured workers anyway – will likely have the opposite effect.Finally, it should also be noted that the passage of Issue 2 would result in all safety and hygiene records of employers to – poof! – suddenly become confidential. Common sense dictates that this provision is meant to hide impropriety by employers; impropriety which must remain a matter of public record.There are many things amiss at the Bureau of Workers’ Compensation, this we’re not denying. However, Issue 2 is not the panacea its supporters would have us believe. Politics is the allocation of resources, a balancing act between interests. Passage of this referendum would upset that balance, unfairly hurting Ohio’s workers in the process.Vote no on Issue 2.
