City ballot issue threatens economy of Youngstown

Red flags should be flying outside every voting place in Youngstown to warn people about a ballot issue being pushed by an individual from Grand Rapids, Mich.

Indeed, the reason for Bob Goodrich’s targeting Youngstown is so cynical that residents should send him packing with a resounding “no” vote.

The issue is a proposed amendment to the Youngstown Home Rule Charter that would require employers to give part-time workers increased rights such as health-care benefits and equal hourly wages as full-timers.

Here’s a main reason why Goodrich, executive director of Part-Timers Rights, gave for targeting Youngstown: He wants to encourage women, especially those who are unmarried and are in the lower- to middle-income strata, to vote in the Nov. 8 general election.

Another reason Goodrich came to the city is just as unacceptable: The number of valid signatures required to place the issue on the ballot wasn’t a major challenge.

It is noteworthy that he initially wanted to place the issue on the ballot in his hometown of Grand Rapids, but the state of Michigan only allows such issues to be on the statewide ballot. In other words, Michigan believes that public policy initiatives that have far-reaching economic consequences should be formulated on a statewide basis.

We strongly agree and urge Ohio’s state lawmakers to take up this important issue.

The city of Youngstown, which is struggling to recover from the Great Recession, cannot afford to have companies laying off part-time workers because of the new requirements.

Our opposition to the ballot issue – Charter Amendment No. 5 – is not prompted by a philosophical bent when it comes to part-time workers. Rather, we believe that such important public policy matters should be pursued in the open with full-blown public hearings.

Goodrich’s sleight-of-hand and political agenda are reasons enough for voters to reject the charter amendment.

But, we also are concerned about how businesses that depend on part-time workers to keep their doors open will be affected.

Goodrich’s proposal would require part-timers to receive the same benefits, such as paid personal days and vacation time, as full-time workers in the same job classification – but in proportion to the number of hours they work.

It would also require employers to publicly post part-timers’ shift schedules two weeks in advance if requested.

Youngstown Mayor John A. McNally is right in saying the amendment is “unnecessary.”

In fact, it could prove to be counterproductive because businesses that are operating on the edge will be forced to slash their payrolls. Workers who are not easily employable could end up on the losing end of this ill-advised, ill-conceived public policy initiative.

If Goodrich had wanted to spur female voter turnout in Youngstown, he could have launched a get-out-the-vote campaign similar to what numerous groups are now doing.

ANTI-FRACKING ISSUE COMPARISON

Instead, his self-aggrandizing effort is no different from the sixth attempt by self-appointed protectors of the environment to push through an anti-fracking Community Bill of Rights in Youngstown.

Again, the disregard for the possible economic fallout speaks volumes about the Youngstown Community Bill of Rights committee and Frackfree Mahoning Valley.

This is an attack on the oil and gas industry, but there is no fracking occurring in Youngstown – and none is anticipated.

Why then is the issue being kept alive after city voters rejected it twice in 2013, twice in 2014 and last November? The most obvious answer is ego. Individuals such as Ray and Susie Beiersdorfer, the leaders of the anti-fracking movement, have convinced themselves that they’re right and everybody else, including city government officials and the business community, are wrong.

Voters need to understand that the issue isn’t just about banning the use of fracking to extract oil and gas in Youngstown. If passed, the charter amendment would make it illegal for any government or corporation to engage in “depositing, disposal, storage and transportation of water or chemicals to be used in the extraction of oil and gas, and the disposal or processing of waste products from the extraction of oil and gas.”

City voters should ask themselves whether the proponents of the part-time workers and anti-fracking amendments care about the community’s best interest? The answer is a resounding no.