Manhattan Buckeye;680942 wrote:What money did they set aside?

coach_bob1;680902 wrote: I'm sure that the people at Borders are upset, but that is the fault of corporate management and is not a result of collective bargaining.

coach_bob1;680733 wrote:It's good to know that you hope for the passage of a bill that does ill will on my family. My wife is one of the state employees affected by this bill. She is not part of the union, but does pay what is known as "fair share". Her job does not exist in the private sector and her job is not funded by state taxes. If this bill passes, our healthcare costs would quadruple while my wife would receive a 20% paycut and lose sick time and vacation time and her pension. My wife has been at her job for 10 years and still makes less than I do (I am a server, so I don't make that much.) Those of you who think this is a black and white issue about unions are forgetting the people that will be affected.

coach_bob1;680953 wrote:Last time I checked, part of the money my wife earns goes into her PERS account. That is money that she has earned and set aside for the future. And she is a state employee whose agency is funded by the SSA, so the state has no claim on any of her pension funds.

coach_bob1;680890 wrote:Elimination of collective bargaining allows public employees to be hired or fired at will. It makes essentially every position an appointed position that can be lost when there is an administration change.

Manhattan Buckeye;680892 wrote:You mean how like the rest of us work? How do you think the folks at Borders that are going to lose their jobs with their restructuring feel about their situation?

coach_bob1;680970 wrote:Quaker,

One of the factors for Borders lack of sales was an inability to develop an e-reader until 4 years after Amazon had released Kindle. This is due to a lack of research by Borders an an inability to adapt to market trends, both of which are the responsibility of management.

QuakerOats;680987 wrote:Sometimes there are no funds for R&D, or marketing, or re-investment etc....etc... depending on a multitude of other factors ,,,,, such as wage/benefit promises.

Once most people look at reality ---- that just about everywhere unions have been involved in an entity, corporation, organization or government - the result has been carnage, disaster, bankruptcy, failure ----- with the common theme among all of them being unionization, which severely crimps management's ability to deal most issues in a quick and effective fashion.

Wanna why no one will invest in Ohio ---- it is not just high taxes, costly workers comp, out-of-control plaintiff's lawyers, but mainly the threat of potential unionization, and the disasters that await resulting therefrom. THAT IS A FACT.

Bigdogg;681009 wrote:A fact according to you? Provide supporting documentation.

Bigdogg;681009 wrote:A fact according to you? Provide supporting documentation.

Ty Webb;681025 wrote:Now Dog....you know that Quaker won't/doesn't like to do that

He simply likes to rail againist and everything President Obama/Democratic

Bigdogg;681009 wrote:A fact according to you? Provide supporting documentation.

sleeper;681087 wrote:I find it hilarious that documentation is always asked for which their is no rational rebuttal. I'd like to see documentation about all your posts please, otherwise your entire argument is invalid.

In short, I agree with Quaker because he is 100% right, although he's probably underestimating the high taxes portion.

Bigdogg;681091 wrote:Yes I know. I would not put it past the Republican party to be employing some of the people that post on this board their outrageous propaganda. It wouldn't be the first time this has happened. Both parties are a sham at this point in our history.

Which ones you want? I gladly back them up.

Ty Webb;681025 wrote:Now Dog....you know that Quaker won't/doesn't like to do that

He simply likes to rail againist and everything President Obama/Democratic

Bigdogg;681091 wrote:Yes I know. I would not put it past the Republican party to be employing some of the people that post on this board their outrageous propaganda. It wouldn't be the first time this has happened. Both parties are a sham at this point in our history.

sleeper;681098 wrote:You can start with this one.

Bigdogg;680981 wrote:No, not at all. If it were the same then you would be subject to losing your job just because your boss's political party changed.

O-Trap;681129 wrote:Technically, private employees are no less exposed to this.

However, why would an employer know your political party?

Bigdogg;681130 wrote:Do you know the party of the people you work closely with? You can get a list at the board of election office.

O-Trap;681138 wrote:I don't, no.

I can get a list of the people I work with, and their political affiliations at the BoE?

Bigdogg;681110 wrote:Easy one. Jon Keeling was paid $11,000 in campaign consultant fees by the Ohio Republican Party while claiming to be nothing more than a political blogger. Now it's your turn. Also, since LJ has not reminded many of you, I will take the liberty of posting his so called rules again.

http://www.plunderbund.com/2011/01/31/exclusive-jon-keeling-was-a-paid-11000-in-campaign-consultant-fees-by-the-ohio-republican-party-while-claiming-to-be-nothing-more-than-a-political-blogger/

Politics Forum Rules

1. No personal attacks (including name calling) on other posters.
2. If you are starting a topic about a news item you must include the link, as well as your own opinion on the issue at hand.
3. If you make a claim that a study supports your view, you must link to the study.
4. Please do not make vague 1 line threads. They not be approved and/or deleted.
5. All new threads must be approved by moderator before they appear in the forum. Please only submit threads once.