Letters to the Editor 1-07-14


Recently, just before Christmas, Chris Ostrander, president of North American Tire Operations at Cooper Tire & Rubber and mastermind of the 2011-2012 lockout, toured the Findlay plant in an effort to meet and greet employees and wish them well during the upcoming holidays. How thoughtful!
While some of the stops went well, others didn’t fare as well. He was reminded about the three-month lockout that caused employees severe financial hardship during the same holiday period of that year: Christmas and New Year’s. Where were all the well wishes then? And wouldn’t it have been more appropriate for the newcomer to tour the plant, meet and greet employees when he first arrived in January 2011, instead of three years later?
He repeated the same nonsense rhetoric that was broadcasted then: the company had to do it as a last option and it was the union’s fault for not agreeing to the terms.
Ostrander was asked about his $9.5 million share of the hefty $64.5 million executives’ compensation package that was secured for them in the merger agreement. No reply!
While Ostrander and co-executives were sidetracked with the merger, they neglected focus on the company’s operations and as a result, the company and the employees suffered financial setbacks during 2013 where tire sales came to near halt, after they told employees that they have solid plans for 2013 and beyond. Production was curtailed throughout 2013 and they made every effort to prevent employees from qualifying for unemployment benefits.
In a recent newsletter circulated to all employees, Ostrander reminded employees about Cooper’s 100-year history since the days of John F. Schaefer and Claude E. Hart in 1914, Ira J. Cooper in 1920 and the present, and said he looks forward to the next 100 years.
It is very selfish for Ostrander and co-executives to place themselves in Cooper’s 100-year history. It is hypocrisy at its best!
While Ostrander just learned a little about Cooper’s history, I am yet to learn about his contributions and sacrifices to the storied history during his very short career!
Jihad (Joe) Shaheen

On Dec. 30, our granddaughter and her husband, who both live out of state, took their 21-month-old daughter to Physicians Plus for treatment of a severe cough and shallow breathing.
After an examination and X-ray, the doctor on duty diagnosed her with pneumonia. He told them their options were to either admit her to the hospital or to get a prescription filled before morning to begin treatment. The baby’s parents decided to treat her at home so an employee of Physicians Plus called in the prescription to Rite-Aid.
By the time the parents left Physicians Plus and went directly to the nearest Rite-Aid it was after 5 p.m. The parents had not been told that the pharmacy was closed, as was every other pharmacy in town.
Conferring by phone, the doctor then called Blanchard Valley Hospital to get the needed prescription. The hospital’s pharmacy would not fill the prescription because it was not written by a doctor in the hospital. Therefore, the family had to drive to the Lima Walgreen, the closest pharmacy open, to get the prescription filled.
It seems incongruous that there is not a pharmacy in this community that is open when a doctor is available to diagnose and write a prescription. The fact that a medical doctor can write a prescription that cannot be filled at the hospital pharmacy seems absurd, as well.
Perhaps the hospital and the many other pharmacies should rotate days to give 24-hour service for medical emergencies.
Marge Kruse

I really appreciated The Courier article (A1, Jan. 4) that explained the emergency ordinance process that is used in local government. The only point that needs a better description is related to referendum and what this lack of opportunity really does to the voter.
The basic principle here is the infringement on voter rights. The voters should have a right to file a referendum on any legislation if it is not a legitimate emergency.
This isn’t really government in its finest hour when an ordinance to purchase a vehicle or approve a contract is passed without the potential period for public comment.
All local governments should adopt a “no emergency legislation policy” unless it is an absolute emergency situation for the community.
Please keep voter rights in mind when you pass your next emergency legislation.
John Rymer

I realize that the invasion of citizens’ personal rights and decisions can be very touchy.
We have many laws that are meant to save lives or prevent serious injury and harm, such as rules involving seatbelts, not smoking in certain places, DUI, texting, etc. We also have very strict and tough laws dealing with child abuse and child endangerment.
Here is my question and thought. I have witnessed on many occasions, and I am sure you have also, a mother or father, at least an adult, driving or a passenger in a vehicle.
In the same vehicle is a child and/or other children, under the age of 18.
The adults in the vehicle, the driver or passengers, are smoking big time. The vehicle is filled up with second-hand smoke.
I have often wondered if this issue should be addressed by the state of Ohio.
My question is, who is stepping forward to “protect” these young people from the hazards that they are facing?
Harold R. Rowe Sr.



About the Author