It's just business - yeah, right

Hey Folks -

The power structure works overtime propagating myths which many of us mindlessly adopt as our own. One such myth is:

. . . . .Whatever helps workers or citizens hurts business . . . . .

It's never pointed out, however, that if that is true, then:

. . . . . Hurting workers and citizens helps business . . . . .

That's not mentioned because it would conflict with the second myth attached to the first:

. . . . . Helping business helps workers and citizens . . . . .

i.e. . . . . . You gotta sacrifice to help business. If you don't, you're out of work entirely . . . . .

If actually considered, that sounds like blackmail, and in reality the claim should read:

. . . . . The way to help workers and citizens is to help business by hurting workers and citizens. If you don't go along with that, we'll find someone somewhere desperate enough to oblige us . . . . .

The truth is a little harder to sell, don't you think? I bet that even the poor simpleton whose letter I respond to below wouldn't buy that.

- Uke Man

To the Editor,

On the same day you reported that active Ohio military personnel were to be “shielded” from discrimination by businesses and landlords [full story below], a letter was published complaining that “Mandatory sick leave would harm business.”

Previously, comments have been published claiming that an increased minimum wage, unpaid leave for mothers with newborns, and jury awards for injured workers would harm business.

Will we soon read complaints that restricting discrimination against our troops harms business? If not, are the complainers afraid or ashamed to state their case? Or do they actually think that soldiers deserve to be treated fairly as human beings but the poor, new babies, and injured workers do not?

Tom Harker

Mandatory sick leave would harm business
Monday, January 28, 2008


I respond to the Jan. 20 letter "Sick-time off also is public-health issue" from Abramo Ottolenghi, which pushes for mandatory paid sick leave in Ohio.


The proposed legislation would require employers with more than 25 employees to provide seven paid sick days per year, and it is my opinion that enacting this legislation would seriously harm business within the state of Ohio and limit growth.


As a human-resources director in a small business, I understand the plight of ill workers, which is why businesses voluntarily offer vacation, sick and personal days. We offer these benefits to be competitive and keep our employees.


The Family and Medical Leave Act protects those with serious illness from losing their jobs, and many employers allow a doctor's note as an excuse to keep employees from coming to work ill.


Passing this legislation will hurt our company, and we will have to find ways to reduce the cost increase, including reducing benefits or head count. Many other small to medium businesses would have to employ similar strategies to find a way to profit in these tough economic times.


Additionally, businesses outside of Ohio do not generally consider our state business-friendly because of our workers' compensation and unemployment systems, in addition to our taxes. The 2007 State Business Tax Climate report placed Ohio at 49th out of 50 states, which is a major reason those precious jobs don't come here.


Requiring this leave will cause companies to look elsewhere for their new facility or to move existing operations because the cost of doing business in Ohio will be too high.


Our state economy is fragile enough. Let's not destroy it by passing this legislation.


BRENDA ROBINSON
Worthington






State shields military 'class'
Protected status helps service members fight bias in housing, jobs
Monday, January 28, 2008 3:08 AM
By Jeb Phillips
THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH

It will soon be illegal in Ohio to discriminate against people because of their military status, the same way that people can't be discriminated against because of race, religion or disability.

Regular active-duty service members and reservists or National Guard members who have been activated for service or who must report for training will be considered a "protected class" as of March 23. That means that in the areas of employment, housing, real estate, credit and public accommodation, military status can't be a factor.

A landlord can't refuse to rent an apartment because the tenant will ship out. An employer can't fire a worker because he will be gone for a year on duty. The Ohio Civil Rights Commission can issue cease-and-desist orders and order violators to pay damages to the service member.

Experts say that federal law covers some of this ground already, particularly with employment, but the Ohio law goes further in protecting military status. It should also cut through some of the bureaucracy that goes with filing a federal claim, said state Rep. Peter Ujvagi, a Democrat from Toledo who was a sponsor of the legislation. The bill requires the Ohio attorney general's office to assign a staff member to ensure that state complaints are handled as quickly as possible.


The courts will eventually decide how to interpret the new law, though it's not hard to guess what some interpretations might be, experts say. For example, gender-based discrimination is illegal, and courts have decided that means that sexual harassment is illegal, said Jonathan Hyman, a labor and employment lawyer with the Cleveland firm of Kohrman, Jackson & Krantz.

"It's not a stretch that harassment because of military status could be illegal," he said. In that interpretation, an employee who is anti-war could violate the law by making fun of an activated military member's service.
It's also not a stretch, he said, to think that the courts will be asked to decide whether the law covers reservists and National Guard members who aren't activated. The law doesn't include them now, but a Guard member denied an apartment because he might be activated in the future, for example, could have an argument.

In Ohio, employers, landlords and the rest cannot discriminate on the basis of race, color, age, ancestry, religion, disability, national origin or gender. What seems to separate military status from these other protected classes is that service members are often praised and better respected because they are service members, said Robert Stalter, a labor and employment lawyer with the Columbus firm of Porter, Wright, Morris & Arthur.

Even without the protection, most people would try to do the best they could for service members. Still, the new law will result in more lawsuits that wouldn't be filed without it, Stalter said.

The Ohio committee of Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve fielded 413 calls about employment concerns in 2006. The new state law will allow the Ohio Civil Rights Commission to investigate complaints.

Ujvagi worked for several years to make military status a protected class; it took inclusion in a larger military bill -- one that exempts military pensions from state income tax, among other measures -- to get it passed. No one seemed openly against the protected-class status, Ujvagi said; it just took awhile to work out the specifics.

The Ohio National Guard worked with Ujvagi on the status and will be glad to see it go into effect, said Mark Wayda, a Guard spokesman.

"It helps our members. We're very appreciative."

jeb.phillips@dispatch.com