WebFire;777012 wrote:It's their right. But an uneducated vote.

Don't forget to add "IMO" to a statement like that.

BRF;777007 wrote: "Laughing your ass off" about thousands of public employees getting pink slips? It's really that funny? You have just done a lot of damage to your side with that statement, but thanks for making your stance so clear. Yes, we shall see in November.

Sleeper said that... and just remember, it's sleeper

Writerbuckeye;776375 wrote:http://biggovernment.com/libertychick/2010/04/08/union-thuggery-and-theatrics-when-is-enough-enough-already/

http://biggovernment.com/jjmnolte/2011/03/17/20-days-of-left-wing-thuggery-in-wisconsin-when-will-obama-democrats-and-msm-call-for-civility/

http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2011/05/19/judge-tells-staff-to-quit-fop-after-it-backs-sb-5-repeal.html?sid=101

BRF;777007 wrote:And that's their right to vote that way.

"Laughing your ass off" about thousands of public employees getting pink slips? It's really that funny? You have just done a lot of damage to your side with that statement, but thanks for making your stance so clear. Yes, we shall see in November.

Laughing my ass off at the irony of this being about protecting Ohio's middle class families by repealing the bill, only to find out that 1000s of jobs are destroyed because the bill failed.

BRF;777022 wrote:Don't forget to add "IMO" to a statement like that.

No need. If someone votes based on what a biased friends says without researching the topic themselves, that is an uneducated vote.

sleeper;777101 wrote:Laughing my ass off at the irony of this being about protecting Ohio's middle class families by repealing the bill, only to find out that 1000s of jobs are destroyed because the bill failed.

Sorry, I doubt that happens. Else it would have already.

BRF;777007 wrote:"Laughing your ass off" about thousands of public employees getting pink slips? It's really that funny? You have just done a lot of damage to your side with that statement, but thanks for making your stance so clear. Yes, we shall see in November.

I won't be laughing but I do reserve the right to say, "I told you so" when local gubmints and municipalities are forced to make the tough choices of handing out pink slips because they have to address economic realities.

SB5 might fail this November but it's naive to think its failure will save jobs. Quite the opposite.

believer;777296 wrote:I won't be laughing but I do reserve the right to say, "I told you so" when local gubmints and municipalities are forced to make the tough choices of handing out pink slips because they have to address economic realities.

SB5 might fail this November but it's naive to think its failure will save jobs. Quite the opposite.

There might be a continued trend of cuts and staff layoffs. But I don't think it will be like sleeper portrays, where massive layoffs in the 1,000s take place because SB5 fails.

The layoffs won't happen right away at the school level.

I do find it odd though, that my district (which is not big) has cut 20 teachers/staff in the last 3 years or so due to budgeting. Yet all the teachers are against SB5 to save their jobs.

believer;777296 wrote:I won't be laughing but I do reserve the right to say, "I told you so" when local gubmints and municipalities are forced to make the tough choices of handing out pink slips because they have to address economic realities.

SB5 might fail this November but it's naive to think its failure will save jobs. Quite the opposite.

Even if SB5 passes, jobs will be lost. SB5 isnt going to save jobs, i think i even remember seeing that Jones herself said it wouldnt save jobs.

We're already so far down the road economically in this unsustainable system that even something as potentially strong as SB5 isn't enough to prevent continuing layoffs.

I've seen in some local stories where boards have gone forward and renewed contracts for at least one year, under the "old" system, to offset any effects SB5 might have at this point. I find those actions a bit perplexing and also disturbing, because it reinforces my view that many administrators like having the union pushing salaries higher, because their salaries end up higher also.

Again, one of the major reasons public unions aren't a good idea, because there isn't a truly adversarial relationship in the bargaining.

I suspect if SB5 does get voted down at the polls, the numbers of layoffs will be significantly higher...but it will happen more gradually as people are bumped according to the union procedures.

WebFire;777386 wrote:I do find it odd though, that my district (which is not big) has cut 20 teachers/staff in the last 3 years or so due to budgeting. Yet all the teachers are against SB5 to save their jobs.

Exactly. Killing SB5 will not save jobs. The jobs cuts are a reality SB5 or otherwise.

For once I agree with you, Writerbuckeye, on the administrators liking what the union does for their salaries.

believer;777761 wrote:Exactly. Killing SB5 will not save jobs. The jobs cuts are a reality SB5 or otherwise.

But defeating SB5 might help stop the bleeding, from a union perspective.

BRF;777780 wrote:But defeating SB5 might help stop the bleeding, from a union perspective.

Only for their wallets. Don't kid yourself, unions don't care about anything except their own bottom line.

OK, I won't kid myself about our union thug bosses.

You joke, but I don't see any of THEM bumping one another off to keep a job.

And don't kid yourself into believing they give one good damn about your job, either...except for whatever dues it might yield.

BRF;777780 wrote:But defeating SB5 might help stop the bleeding, from a union perspective.

Don't delude yourself into believing that the defeat of SB5 is some sort of triumph for the unions. It might be a political victory of sorts, but it will not prevent job losses.

SB5 has at least put a spot light on the inevitable.

I think I have an idea what will happen when the average voter, who contributes 23% toward their health insurance and a hefty number toward retirement, has a chance to vote on those who contibute 9% to health insurance and, in many cases, zero toward retirement. The jig is up.

I can't wait for the TV ads, both pro and con. Too bad I won't get bombarded by them way out here.

QuakerOats;778639 wrote:I think I have an idea what will happen when the average voter, who contributes 23% toward their health insurance and a hefty number toward retirement, has a chance to vote on those who contibute 9% to health insurance and, in many cases, zero toward retirement. The jig is up.

Naw...Most will simply say, "Holy shit, where do I sign-up?"

QuakerOats;778639 wrote:I think I have an idea what will happen when the average voter, who contributes 23% toward their health insurance and a hefty number toward retirement, has a chance to vote on those who contibute 9% to health insurance and, in many cases, zero toward retirement. The jig is up.

In its simplest form, isn't this just class warfare? I mean, you describe the classic example of someone who is jealous of what someone else has and uses that to take it away from them.

When it's all said and done, does the winner sit back and boast that he/she knocked them down a peg or two? Where does it all end?

stlouiedipalma;779902 wrote:In its simplest form, isn't this just class warfare? I mean, you describe the classic example of someone who is jealous of what someone else has and uses that to take it away from them.

When it's all said and done, does the winner sit back and boast that he/she knocked them down a peg or two? Where does it all end?

Yes, it IS just class warfare. I mentioned something similar to this a few (quite a few) pages back. When the "private" sector is boasting huge salaries, etc., no one lining up to say "here's a bonus" to the public sector. However, when things are being taken away from the private sector, it only makes sense to take from the public.

Now, it makes sense in my eyes that the public sector MUST take some hits too. I won't say that they mustn't. However, this whole debate is lined with hypocrisy on both sides. Yes, people will say, "If there is money, I see no problem with a teacher getting a raise." The catch, though, is that these same people aren't going to spearhead a movement or "get behind" a movement, to get public workers more pay. However, we see these people "getting behind" this movement.

It is what it is, but both sides must admit their hypocrisy.

stlouiedipalma;779902 wrote:In its simplest form, isn't this just class warfare? I mean, you describe the classic example of someone who is jealous of what someone else has and uses that to take it away from them.

When it's all said and done, does the winner sit back and boast that he/she knocked them down a peg or two? Where does it all end?

Goes beyond jealousy when one is paying for the other.