When Ohio’s state Senate voted 17-16 Wednesday to approve S.B.
5, Frank LaRose became a target in the latest battle over
government-employee unions. Not that LaRose is a stranger to
battles — the 31-year-old is a former Army sergeant and decorated
Iraq War veteran. But the fight over S.B. 5, which would limit the
power of public-sector unions in Ohio, gave the freshman Republican
state senator a baptism by fire into the world of political combat.
After he voted in favor of the bill, once of the fiercest salvos
was fired in a message posted Wednesday on LaRose’s Facebook
page.
“Funny
thing about cops, they hold a grudge,” said the message from
Mike Piotrowski. That caught the eye of a group of College
Republicans from the University of Akron who had supported LaRose
in last year’s election, which the GOP candidate won by a decisive
57%-43% margin. The students quickly discovered that Piotrowski is
a lawyer for the Ohio Fraternal Order of Police, and complained
that his message could be seen as a threat toward LaRose.
Piotrowski denied intending to threaten the senator, but in a reply
to one of the students, the lawyer snarled: “You don’t know what
you are talking about. When Republicans talk about ‘Union Thugs’
they may as well be calling people the n-word.”
This was the latest provocation in the increasingly bitter
confrontation between public-sector unions and Republican state
officials. While the battle in Ohio hasn’t gotten as much attention
as the massive union-led protests in Wisconsin against
Gov. Scott Walker, the same dynamic is at work. And
conservatives, who in January were accused of fostering a “climate
of hate” that led to the shooting of Arizona Rep. Gabrielle
Giffords, are tired of “civility” lectures from liberals who don’t
seem to notice the uncivil outbursts of their labor-union
allies.
“In the last few weeks, example after example of
incivility and even outright violence have been ignored, minimized,
and diminished by the press,” conservative blogger
Melissa Clouthier wrote in reaction to Piotrowski’s comments.
“So, here’s another example, recorded as evidence that demonstrates
that the true violent rhetoric and climate of hate is being
fostered and encouraged by the left.”
Be that as it may, the seeming threat from the Ohio police
union lawyer highlights a key difference between the GOP’s battles
with public-section unions in Wisconsin and Ohio. The legislation
that would limit collective-bargaining rights of government
employees in Wisconsin exempts police, firefighters and other
emergency personnel, whereas the
bill that passed the Ohio Senate this week does not.
Taking on police unions presents a particularly troubling
dilemma for conservatives, who naturally support police as
upholders of the law and certainly don’t think of themselves as
“anti-cop.” Indeed, many conservatives of a certain age will recall
a time when it seemed police were the only institution in society
that could prevent America from descending into anarchy.
During the 1960s and early '70s, campuses erupted in
anti-war protests, cities were burning in riots of the “long hot
summers,” street crime was rapidly escalating, and daily newspaper
headlines told of violent terrorism perpetrated by radical groups
like the Weather Underground, the Black Panthers, and the
Symbionese Liberation Army. It was during that stormy era that the
John Birch Society promoted a bumper sticker with a simple
four-word slogan: “Support Your Local Police.”
If you couldn’t trust anyone else to resist the subversive
tide, the Bircher slogan suggested, at least you could trust the
cops.
The recent struggle over public-sector unions threatens to
undermine that trust. Fraternal Order of Police has never been part
of the AFL-CIO and indeed, from its inception, the FOP has tried to
avoid the “union” label. Yet FOP acts as a collective bargaining
agent between police and the communities that employ them, and
that’s what brought the FOP into the controversy over Ohio’s S.B.
5.
Like many other labor groups in Ohio, the FOP clearly felt
betrayed by LaRose’s support for the legislation. Last year, the
Republican’s campaign
website boasted that LaRose had “been endorsed by the Ohio and
Vicinity Regional Council of Carpenters; the International
Longshoremen’s Association; the International Union of Operating
Engineers, Local 18; United Food & Commercial Workers, Local
880; and the Fraternal Order of Police of Ohio.”
In a
statement Thursday, LaRose said he “agonized over this
decision” to vote for S.B. 5 and explained: “The people of our
community sent me to Columbus to stand up for them and make tough
decisions based on what’s in the best interest of all Ohioans.…
I am duty bound to do what’s best for Ohio, even when it may
be unpopular.”
And in what was obviously a response to harsh remarks from
Piotrowski and others, LaRose added: “I sincerely value and respect
the position of those who oppose my vote.It is however
intolerable and unproductive to resort to mean-spirited personal
attacks and senseless threats. Those who engage in such behavior
degrade the necessary public discourse and demean their own cause
as well. The citizens of our state deserve
better.”
