Gblock;730672 wrote:where did i say that?

companies dont need incentive to want to pay lower wages..they obviously want to pay the lowest wage possible? wtf? lowering qualifications required for a job=lower pay. when the prisons go private do you think the workers there will make more or less?

Again...YOUR words: "i think kasich is also going to go after private sector jobs and lower the amount you can make there as well as replacing them with inferior workers."

Do you not read what you write or do you just blather on and hit post? That's the second time you've questioned me about challenging something YOU'VE said.

You seriously have no idea how the real (not government supported) world works if you believe half the stuff I've seen you post on here.

Writerbuckeye;730460 wrote:I've watched all the news reports on this process and haven't been too impressed with how the opposition has carried themselves throughout. They've been loud, rude and obnoxious, and I can't imagine this is going to help them with their ballot initiative. If I'm the Governor, I would have had crews taking lots of footage of the most obnoxious protesters, and I would be using that in ads against any ballot measure trying to repeal it.

Ohio has a choice here: to keep doing the same old thing, the same old way and see its economy continue to wither and die; and its best and brightest children pick and move after they graduate from college...

Or be bold and change the culture of corruption and stagnation that the union mentality brings with it; find new ways to make government more efficient and less intrusive; and create an inviting and vibrant atmosphere in which companies want to stay and expand, or re-locate here, and our best want to stay and build their own lives with families.

Loud, rude and obnoxious. Kinda like those Town Meetings over Health Care reform where the Teabaggers were loud, rude and obnoxious (not to mention packing heat). As for having crews record this behavior, I would have to say that if that's all you've got to argue against repeal, you're in a heap of trouble. You can't have it both ways.

well educate me...i dont hear real reasons how this bill will help that couldnt be done in other ways.....your posts all say the same thing..unions are lazy and we cant pay more taxes....i agree we need major reforms but just because i dont agree with this bill and the way its being put in place doesnt mean i dont understand the real world. there are other effects/consequences that could replace current problems with new ones. Im not scared to get fired, i dont care if you make it easier to fire teachers..but there are so many quality workers who are in public unions and you are so disrespectful to it especially to teachers. im sure that it makes you sleep better to tell yourself that its the unions or lazy and you sound cool at parties but in the end you really just want your taxes lowered just like everyone else including me..id rather have that conversation.

stlouiedipalma;730801 wrote:Loud, rude and obnoxious. Kinda like those Town Meetings over Health Care reform where the Teabaggers were loud, rude and obnoxious (not to mention packing heat). As for having crews record this behavior, I would have to say that if that's all you've got to argue against repeal, you're in a heap of trouble. You can't have it both ways.

Who said that's all that could be used to support passing the bill? I sure as hell didn't. There are lots of good reasons for passing the bill, all of which have been outlined over and over again here and elsewhere.

I'd use the footage of the protesters in the background with all the LIES that were thrown out there about this bill -- and debunk them. Chief one being that this is an attack on the middle class. It's exactly the opposite, since it's the middle class that has to keep paying for a system that is NOT sustainable.

And from the looks of things, it will eventually be the middle class who will decide whether this bill lives or dies.

Gblock;730848 wrote:well educate me...i dont hear real reasons how this bill will help that couldnt be done in other ways.....your posts all say the same thing..unions are lazy and we cant pay more taxes....i agree we need major reforms but just because i dont agree with this bill and the way its being put in place doesnt mean i dont understand the real world. there are other effects/consequences that could replace current problems with new ones. Im not scared to get fired, i dont care if you make it easier to fire teachers..but there are so many quality workers who are in public unions and you are so disrespectful to it especially to teachers. im sure that it makes you sleep better to tell yourself that its the unions or lazy and you sound cool at parties but in the end you really just want your taxes lowered just like everyone else including me..id rather have that conversation.

By your own words, you are a lost cause. All the arguments that could be said have been said here and in other things you've probably read. You simply don't want to hear it. You've made up your mind.

And don't accuse me of saying things that haven't been said. I never said unions are lazy...although they certainly promote stagnation. It's a mentality of entitlement that surrounds public unions that I'm against. It's the idea that simply by breathing, you deserve at least some kind of raise each year beyond the cost of living (step increases) and then you're supposed to get raises again (contract increases) on top of that -- everyone the same, even when everyone is clearly NOT the same.

Even more than that, I object to there being no real adversarial relationship taking place during negotiations; one that limits the raises and benefits paid at taxpayer expense. Oh sure, there APPEARS to be such a person, but in reality that individual representing the school board or the city, county or state has likely been influenced in some way by union money.

FDR was right all those years ago. There is no place in government for unions. And if the strongest liberal ever elected as president of this country cautioned against it as being a bad thing...I think it's reasonable to accept what he said as truth.

Writerbuckeye;730893 wrote:By your own words, you are a lost cause. All the arguments that could be said have been said here and in other things you've probably read. You simply don't want to hear it. You've made up your mind.

And don't accuse me of saying things that haven't been said. I never said unions are lazy...although they certainly promote stagnation. It's a mentality of entitlement that surrounds public unions that I'm against. It's the idea that simply by breathing, you deserve at least some kind of raise each year beyond the cost of living (step increases) and then you're supposed to get raises again (contract increases) on top of that -- everyone the same, even when everyone is clearly NOT the same.

Even more than that, I object to there being no real adversarial relationship taking place during negotiations; one that limits the raises and benefits paid at taxpayer expense. Oh sure, there APPEARS to be such a person, but in reality that individual representing the school board or the city, county or state has likely been influenced in some way by union money.

FDR was right all those years ago. There is no place in government for unions. And if the strongest liberal ever elected as president of this country cautioned against it as being a bad thing...I think it's reasonable to accept what he said as truth.

Writer, you lost me with that passage. Are you saying that your elected officials have been bought off by the union?

I understand exactly what he's saying. Whoever is supposed to be representing the state taxpayers against union demands are elected officials that may well be receiving union money in their campaigns. He said "influenced" he didn't say bought, although given the current scandals in Cuyahoga county I imagine that could well be possible also.

stlouiedipalma;730900 wrote:Writer, you lost me with that passage. Are you saying that your elected officials have been bought off by the union?

You're too smart for this kind of comment. Hits understood perfectly what I was saying -- and I'm sure you did, too. You just don't want to acknowledge that a true adversarial relationship doesn't exist during public union negotiations, so there is not really anyone representing the folks who are footing the bill. Everyone involved on both sides is being paid by the same folks, either directly or indirectly.

I'm proud to say I have committed to signing the petition that will start the process of repealing this "law"

^^^This is what scares me...ballot initiatives being used to circumvent the constitutional republic's normal operating procedures....Turning fiscal issues into a public vote. Budgets and public spending should be done under thoughtful consideration by representives of the people who will then be held accountable for their actions in elections, not by popular vote ballot intiatives.

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over lousy fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average of the world’s great civilizations before they decline has been 200 years. These nations have progressed in this sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; from faith to great courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance to selfishness; from selfishness to Complacency; from complacency to apathy; from apathy to dependency; from dependency back again to bondage. »Alexander Fraser Tyler, Cycle of Democracy (1770)

Overturning the law with a ballot issue is precisely the death knell that Tyler predicted. ... and candidates that try to restore fiscal integrity will be be defeated.
This really may be our last chance to fix things...if they are indeed fixable anymore at all. There are a lot of people that think it is going to be necessary for state governments to fail under the weight of their obligations, such that the unsustainable contracts and financial committments can be erased in entirety, and then we can go back and start from scratch.

Ty Webb;730988 wrote:I'm proud to say I have committed to signing the petition that will start the process of repealing this "law"

Nothing says this law is the right way to go more than this endorsement.

Oh and I'm not sure why you put law in " " since it went through the process every law is required to go through before being signed into law by the governor.

As for a ballot initiative: have at it. If the unions spend their war chests trying to overturn this law, it will just mean far less $$ for them to spend in the presidential election the following year.

Writerbuckeye;730929 wrote:You're too smart for this kind of comment. Hits understood perfectly what I was saying -- and I'm sure you did, too. You just don't want to acknowledge that a true adversarial relationship doesn't exist during public union negotiations, so there is not really anyone representing the folks who are footing the bill. Everyone involved on both sides is being paid by the same folks, either directly or indirectly.

In a large city, yes, I can buy into your argument. In the small-town boards of education and councils I think you might be wrong. I've seen small school districts nearly go into "strike mode" and it couldn't be clearer that there were adversarial relationships between the two sides, to the point of the BOE preparing to bring in replacement teachers and staff. In many small districts the BOE, the village and city councils are made up of small business leaders and professionals from the community. While they may have experience in dealing with unions, I highly doubt that they are not representing their neighbors.

Writerbuckeye;731035 wrote:Nothing says this law is the right way to go more than this endorsement.

Oh and I'm not sure why you put law in " " since it went through the process every law is required to go through before being signed into law by the governor.

As for a ballot initiative: have at it. If the unions spend their war chests trying to overturn this law, it will just mean far less $$ for them to spend in the presidential election the following year.

I, too, do not understand the quotation marks around the word. This law was passed according to procedures outlined by the Ohio Constitution and signed by the Governor. It was done legally and therefore should not be questioned as to its validity.

As for a ballot initiative, it is the voters' prerogative to decide whether to repeal this. Unfortunately, much money will be spent on both sides to advertise their positions.

Louie: I'll grant you there is less likelihood of shenanigans at the local level (like a BOE) than higher offices, but the fact remains that all sides are still being paid by the taxpayer. And honestly, when you get into some of these larger city districts, I'm not so sure collusion isn't a way of life between board members and administrators of the school district. I've seen very little disagreements over much of anything in Columbus -- and that's another district where they keep coming back for more money and the results don't justify the spending.

If the BOE was truly representing the taxpayers, there would be more accountability to the BOE by the superintendent and administrators. I don't see it in Columbus. Not ever. It's all very chummy.

Writerbuckeye;731091 wrote:Louie: I'll grant you there is less likelihood of shenanigans at the local level (like a BOE) than higher offices, but the fact remains that all sides are still being paid by the taxpayer. And honestly, when you get into some of these larger city districts, I'm not so sure collusion isn't a way of life between board members and administrators of the school district. I've seen very little disagreements over much of anything in Columbus -- and that's another district where they keep coming back for more money and the results don't justify the spending.

If the BOE was truly representing the taxpayers, there would be more accountability to the BOE by the superintendent and administrators. I don't see it in Columbus. Not ever. It's all very chummy.

Columbus actually has made their levies last longer than most districts imo...i think they have came up in 1996, either 04 or 05, and in 2008( thats a guess i didnt look it up). not too bad compared to most district especially when you compare them to districts of similar size. they have made cuts as promised and closed buildings as well as layoff staff, and privitize the food service as well as bus drivers. their grad rate has risen from 51 percent in 2001 to 73.4 percent last year. hopefully will hit 80 percent this year and a goal of 90 percent for 2012. the reason its been chummy is because our salaries that have hit arbitration about every three years usually have been flat(not including the step) or 1% raise.

If you are still getting step increases plus 1 percent -- your salaries are NOT flat.

Glad to hear the grad rate has increased, but I swear I recently read the district's test scores were not that great. I could be wrong since I don't have kids in the district and am not paying as close attention as I would be if I did.

Writerbuckeye;732382 wrote:If you are still getting step increases plus 1 percent -- your salaries are NOT flat.

Glad to hear the grad rate has increased, but I swear I recently read the district's test scores were not that great. I could be wrong since I don't have kids in the district and am not paying as close attention as I would be if I did.

did you see the part where i said not including step?...also remember you dont get the step after year 15 it tops out.

As the district had predicted, Columbus City Schools' overall 2010 graduation rate is up to 77.6 percent from 72.7 percent the year before. The state standard is 90 percent.

http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2011/03/03/high-school-graduation-rates-jump.html

and privitize the food service as well as bus drivers.

* District Size: 220 sq. miles
* Buses in Daily Service: 543
* Number of contracted: 267
* Diesel/Electric Hybrid Buses: 6
* Number of Educational Facilities Served (including Charter and Non-Public Schools): 244
* Total Students Enrolled: 52,961 (2009-10 SY)
* Total Students Transported (twice daily): 32,140
* Students Transported: 58.9%
* Annual Mileage: 8.1 million
* Fuel Used 1.1 million gallons of diesel fuel (buses only)

http://www.columbus.k12.oh.us/applications/transweb.nsf/%28ccs_pages%29/Transportation_Mission?opendocument

Thanks for the information, Prescott.

So I'm supposed to keep approving levies every four years or so (adding hundreds of dollars a year more to my taxes) for a district that has a graduation rate 18 percent lower than the state average?

At what point am I supposed to say, "Enough" and start demanding that the district do its job AT LEAST IN AN AVERAGE MANNER before I okay another red cent? I'd say that time has passed.

This is why I want to see parents have vouchers and the ability to withdraw their kids and put them into districts that are doing the job. If not enough kids are attending a certain district (percentage of kids living there) then the district simply is closed down for being ineffective.

Perhaps if a few market-type pressures were brought to bear on these failing districts, they'd start performing at least in an AVERAGE manner.

Writerbuckeye;732492 wrote:Thanks for the information, Prescott.

So I'm supposed to keep approving levies every four years or so (adding hundreds of dollars a year more to my taxes) for a district that has a graduation rate 18 percent lower than the state average?

At what point am I supposed to say, "Enough" and start demanding that the district do its job AT LEAST IN AN AVERAGE MANNER before I okay another red cent? I'd say that time has passed.

This is why I want to see parents have vouchers and the ability to withdraw their kids and put them into districts that are doing the job. If not enough kids are attending a certain district (percentage of kids living there) then the district simply is closed down for being ineffective.

Perhaps if a few market-type pressures were brought to bear on these failing districts, they'd start performing at least in an AVERAGE manner.

While I agree with many of your premises here.....how much time have you spent in a classroom or in a school building with teachers and students recently....or ever?

wkfan;732498 wrote:While I agree with many of your premises here.....how much time have you spent in a classroom or in a school building with teachers and students recently....or ever?

I'm curious where you are going with this, and I want to hear it out. Would you mind explaining the rationale behind the question? I really have appreciated your willingness to hash out subjects like these lately, so I appreciate your perspective and would like to hear it on the question you asked.

wkfan;732498 wrote:While I agree with many of your premises here.....how much time have you spent in a classroom or in a school building with teachers and students recently....or ever?

I have a degree in education, although I never taught. I did do a couple student internships.

I answered your question, but I find it insulting and condescending in tone. If I'm wrong, correct me. It appeared as if you were saying to me: you haven't spent any time in a classroom so you have no idea what you're talking about.

I've been a step parent who attended teacher-student conferences and other similar activities during that time, so I've been involved in a child's student life. I also have two nieces and a nephew I'm close to, and have long discussions about with their mother on issues related to their education.

Not that I have to justify ANYTHING to you.

Writerbuckeye;732492 wrote:Thanks for the information, Prescott.

So I'm supposed to keep approving levies every four years or so (adding hundreds of dollars a year more to my taxes) for a district that has a graduation rate 18 percent lower than the state average?

At what point am I supposed to say, "Enough" and start demanding that the district do its job AT LEAST IN AN AVERAGE MANNER before I okay another red cent? I'd say that time has passed.

This is why I want to see parents have vouchers and the ability to withdraw their kids and put them into districts that are doing the job. If not enough kids are attending a certain district (percentage of kids living there) then the district simply is closed down for being ineffective.

Perhaps if a few market-type pressures were brought to bear on these failing districts, they'd start performing at least in an AVERAGE manner.

90-77.6....is not 18 percent and w/52,000 students including special ed, esl ...homeless shelters, juvinile correction fascilities all within one of ohio's largest district that really is not surprising and i think your being a little harsh. certainly dublin, new albany dont have some of the challenges that columbus has to deal with. we have the students that sometimes simply dont want to graduate and we are doing our best. this bill isnt going to change the community. honestly all the students who try to graduate, graduate...i get exactly what wkfn is inferring

Of course you get what he's inferring. I wouldn't expect you to think otherwise.