We are a "take, take, take" society. There are VERY few "give, give, give" people out there. It just isn't our human nature.

WebFire;779931 wrote:Goes beyond jealousy when one is paying for the other.

we also pay taxes and and we also spend our money in the private sector which in turn pays for your salary(granted sometimes this is voluntary but not always)

Gblock;779940 wrote:we also pay taxes and and we also spend our money in the private sector which in turn pays for your salary(granted sometimes this is voluntary but not always)

Voluntary would be your only difference. The private sector is subject to voluntary exchange, free market, free enterprise, whatever. Public sector is not subject to that on the forefront, but will feel the pain of it eventually.

Public sector exists for a reason, though. Free market cannot exist in a pure form and still have public goods/services. But I don't want to get into a basic economic discussion b/c I feel that it would be condescending.

The loudest voice screaming things related to class warfare in this battle have been those against SB 5. It was the unions who have rallied the troops behind their cry that SB 5 is an "attack against the middle class".

That's pure bullshit, of course. But it sounds nice.

Fact of the matter is this: it is the middle class being put through a meat grinder in all this. Ultimately, it is the middle class that faces the brunt of these local tax increases necessary to keep a system in place that reason and logic tell us cannot be sustained long-term. It just can't. You can't keep going back to taxpayers for more and more money to support pensions and health care plans that are out of touch with reality, on top of (some) salaries that are not in-line with what is the median income for their area.

Unions want you to believe that if these folks have to pay more for their health care or pensions that this will somehow destroy the economies of these smaller communities. What they don't tell you is this: any community whose "wealth" is built mainly on dollars generated by government is built on a house of cards and will ultimately fail.

I don't expect the class warfare chants to do anything but get a lot louder as we get close to November, though. The unions have gone all in on this strategy, and I don't see them changing it.

Sadly, there are probably too many people out there who won't look at the big picture economically and will only see their brother, father or friend who is paid from tax money, and they'll want them to be paid well...not understanding that if everyone takes that same stance, we are back to a system that cannot survive long-term.

Gblock;779940 wrote:we also pay taxes and and we also spend our money in the private sector which in turn pays for your salary(granted sometimes this is voluntary but not always)

Yep. And when you don't have the money to spend with us, we lose jobs, take salary and benefit cuts, etc. See how this works?

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?

I can understand how some would view it that way. In this instance though, it is about what is reasonable, it is about what taxpayers ought to pay for government services, and mostly it is about how to manage expenditures and what tools those managers can be armed with in order to manage government more efficiently in doing the will of the people.

It was not a majority of the taxpayers/voters who wanted this thing on the ballot, but it is them who are now faced with having to make the decision. Once they become fully educated on what has been transpiring in the 28 years since public sector collective bargaining was rammed down the throats of Ohio taxpayers by democrat-union-machine fiat, then I believe they will make a good decision.

WebFire;779963 wrote:Yep. And when you don't have the money to spend with us, we lose jobs, take salary and benefit cuts, etc. See how this works?

i do we're all in this together is my point...further why dont we just find a better way to fund schools than property tax instead of battling each other?

Gblock;779965 wrote: why dont we just find a better way to fund schools than property tax instead of battling each other?

Amen to that!

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.

Don't let the facts get in the way of a good rant......

It is currently state mandated that the employee pay 10% of their sallary into STRS while the district pays 14%. My sources tell me that this will move to 12% / 12% when the budget bill goes into effect. Also, I would not be surprised to see it go to 14% employee contribuition and 10% district either with this budget, ro the next one.

As for health insurance, the call is for all employees to contribute 15% toweard their premiums.....the district I live in is currently at 14%.

It was not a rant, and your examples appear to be about only one group of public employees. There are a number of municipalities, for instance, that not only pay about 19% into a firemen's retirement, but also 'pick up' another 10% that the firemen are supposed to contribute. It is ridiculous to think that an 'employer' (public, no less) should contribute nearly 30% toward a pension plan in the first place, and one that permits full retirement after say just 20 years or so. And on top of it all, if the municipal employer wants to address that problem, the case can then go to binding arbitration where a former union hack gets to make the decision with ZERO regard for the actual finances of the municipality. IT IS OUTRAGEOUS, AND IT HAS TO STOP!

QuakerOats;779989 wrote:It was not a rant, and your examples appear to be about only one group of public employees. There are a number of municipalities, for instance, that not only pay about 19% into a firemen's retirement, but also 'pick up' another 10% that the firemen are supposed to contribute. It is ridiculous to think that an 'employer' (public, no less) should contribute nearly 30% toward a pension plan in the first place, and one that permits full retirement after say just 20 years or so. And on top of it all, if the municipal employer wants to address that problem, the case can then go to binding arbitration where a former union hack gets to make the decision with ZERO regard for the actual finances of the municipality. IT IS OUTRAGEOUS, AND IT HAS TO STOP!

Link?...and also you dont need senate bill 5 to fix that...also what happened to allowing communities to pay what they want as some say will happen with senate bill 5? what if the community if in fact your statement is true wants to pay that much? I have said from the beginning that SB5 will lower everyones pay and benefits and many on here have said that isnt true so which is it? if the community doesnt want to pay that much then they should get a better deal from their local govt administrators.

Gblock;779965 wrote:i do we're all in this together is my point...further why dont we just find a better way to fund schools than property tax instead of battling each other?

I'm not opposed. But I'm not sure where that would be that is not a tax of some kind.

Gblock;779998 wrote:Link?...and also you dont need senate bill 5 to fix that...also what happened to allowing communities to pay what they want as some say will happen with senate bill 5? what if the community if in fact your statement is true wants to pay that much? I have said from the beginning that SB5 will lower everyones pay and benefits and many on here have said that isnt true so which is it? if the community doesnt want to pay that much then they should get a better deal from their local govt administrators.

If anything, SB 5 gives communities more flexibility to pay what they want. It removes/weakens the union component, which allows those who make the pay decisions more latitude on how/what they want to pay. It doesn't mandate they put in salary steps that award nearly 4 percent each year just for being there.

In the end, the community can decide if it wants to spend less, the same or more. And that's a much better scenario than we currently have, where the union has so much influence in what is paid and the type of benefits that are given.

You won't find one person on here who supports SB 5 that doesn't also support a local entity (school board, city, county) having the ability to pay employees what they want. In the end, that community has to decide if it's okay and if they can afford it.

This country is better and stronger when we have government stronger (more people involved) at the local level, and more decisions being made locally than at the state or federal level.

Writerbuckeye;780084 wrote:If anything, SB 5 gives communities more flexibility to pay what they want. It removes/weakens the union component, which allows those who make the pay decisions more latitude on how/what they want to pay. It doesn't mandate they put in salary steps that award nearly 4 percent each year just for being there.

In the end, the community can decide if it wants to spend less, the same or more. And that's a much better scenario than we currently have, where the union has so much influence in what is paid and the type of benefits that are given.

You won't find one person on here who supports SB 5 that doesn't also support a local entity (school board, city, county) having the ability to pay employees what they want. In the end, that community has to decide if it's okay and if they can afford it.

This country is better and stronger when we have government stronger (more people involved) at the local level, and more decisions being made locally than at the state or federal level.

communities have that same ability now weather you want to admit it or not

Gblock;780094 wrote:communities have that same ability now weather you want to admit it or not

Incorrect.

Gblock;780094 wrote:communities have that same ability now weather you want to admit it or not

Whether

ernest_t_bass;780207 wrote:Whether

woops

QuakerOats;780201 wrote:Incorrect.

i forgot thug unions dont allow teachers to be fired and write and sign their own contracts. they bully cities and small towns and have bankrupted taxpayers. smh

To ignore the very obvious pressures unions bring to bear in negotiations is simply being disingenuous, to say the least.

Unions have the right to strike. That means they have the ability to bring tremendous pressure on those whose responsibility it is to keep schools open and operating. That pressure plays into how negotiations play out -- to say otherwise is simply denying reality.

Writerbuckeye;780306 wrote:To ignore the very obvious pressures unions bring to bear in negotiations is simply being disingenuous, to say the least.

Unions have the right to strike. That means they have the ability to bring tremendous pressure on those whose responsibility it is to keep schools open and operating. That pressure plays into how negotiations play out -- to say otherwise is simply denying reality.

i think ur exaggerating the pressure...if you miss school time due to a teacher strike. the community would hate the teachers, not the board of educatoin that you elected to represent the taxpayers. the union at least the ones ive been a part of actually dread the thought of a strike. the nfl owners dont have senate bill 5 and they are doing pretty well at bluffing at least...they need the players as much as you need the teachers, probably more. you dont need senate bill 5 is my point. elect a board that will get the community the contract you want and elect them. if the community rallies behind the board the teachers wouldnt have a choice.


also when unions were fighting for more its because times were good and they were trying to get the best deal possible, but likewise why do you think they cant recognize when things are bad and make concessions...at least the union i have had experience with. you might have a diff opinion based on ones that you have seen

Gblock;780227 wrote:i forgot thug unions dont allow teachers to be fired and write and sign their own contracts. they bully cities and small towns and have bankrupted taxpayers. smh

As confirmed by the carnage left behind in all the bastions of democrat union-machine control: Youngstown, Detroit, Cleveland, Chicago, Gary, Buffalo, and on and on and on ...............

QuakerOats;780405 wrote:As confirmed by the carnage left behind in all the bastions of democrat union-machine control: Youngstown, Detroit, Cleveland, Chicago, Gary, Buffalo, and on and on and on ...............

........and Philadelphia, Allentown, Milwaukee, Toledo, St. Louis, and on and on............

Ouch. That should leave a mark -- but it won't.

Some people don't want to acknowledge the damage that's been done to those communities, all of which have one thing in common: primarily controlled by Democrats for decades, and strongly beholding to various unions both public and private.

QuakerOats;780405 wrote:As confirmed by the carnage left behind in all the bastions of democrat union-machine control: Youngstown, Detroit, Cleveland, Chicago, Gary, Buffalo, and on and on and on ...............

all because of teacher unions?...smh

Now, Gblock, you need to know that it has been stated on this thread that you are NOT supposed to compare a private sector union situation to the public sector!