OHIO HOUSE Local lawmakers oppose injury bill

The bill's sponsor says the local legislators don't understand the proposal.
By DAVID SKOLNICK
VINDICATOR POLITICS WRITER
LORDSTOWN -- Three state legislators from Mahoning County object to an Ohio House bill that would require employees to prove, in some cases, that they were not drunk or taking illegal drugs if they get injured on the job.
The bill was to be considered today by the Ohio House. State Rep. Bob Gibbs of Lakeville, R-97th, the bill's sponsor, said it will be approved.
The three local legislators -- state Reps. John Boccieri of New Middletown, D-61st; Sylvester D. Patton Jr. of Youngstown, D-60th, and Kenneth A. Carano of Austintown, D-59th -- say they will vote against it, but the bill will pass, probably straight along political party lines.
The three held a press conference Monday with officials of United Auto Workers Locals 1714 and 1112, who work at the Lordstown General Motors complex, to discuss the legislation.
The reason
The bill's stated goal is to "establish a rebuttable presumption that the employee's injury was caused by the use of alcohol or an unprescribed controlled substance."
The UAW officials aren't pleased with the legislation either.
Jim Kaster, UAW Local 1714 president, said the workers police their own, and if someone shows signs of abusing alcohol and/or drugs, employees inform their superiors and the problem is addressed.
Gibbs said the three Valley legislators are blowing the bill out of proportion.
"The bill requires probable cause and specifies what is probable cause," he said. "They're not putting out correct information. It's typical of them."
The bill has to also be approved by the state Senate, and will probably be challenged in the Ohio Supreme Court, the local legislators said.
"This bill sets the burden of proof on the employee," Boccieri said. "They're turning the presumption of fault on the employee."
The bill describes several scenarios as "reasonable cause" for requiring an employee injured on the job to take a test to prove he was not drunk or on drugs when the accident occurred.
The local legislators say the scenarios are very vague and could subject anyone to be required to take the test. If a person refuses to take the test or was drunk or on drugs when the accident happened -- even if being drunk or on drugs didn't cause the accident -- that person would be denied workers compensation benefits under this proposal.
Among the reasonable causes are an employee's employer suspects he is drunk or high, or has a "pattern of abnormal conduct, erratic or aberrant behavior, or deteriorating work performance," the bill reads.
"You're guilty until proven innocent under this bill," said Michael Aurilio, UAW Local 1112 recording secretary.
"This is about reducing employees' rights," Boccieri added. "The burden of proof comes on you instead of your accuser."
Defends it
Gibbs said this bill protects workers who could be in danger by working with people who are drunk or on drugs.
"We're saying to people who are drunk or on drugs that you're on notice and there will be consequences," Gibbs said.
"It's a chipping away of the workers rights in order to reduce workers' compensation claims," Kaster said.
Something as minor as a cut finger could require a worker to prove he wasn't on drugs or drunk when the accident occurred, Patton said.
skolnick@vindy.com