Interesting article regarding SB5 and Issue 2:

http://www.thisweeknews.com/content/stories/dublin/news/2011/09/14/professor-analyzes-issue-2-options.html

Some key excerpts:

"From a management perspective, Hills said, two issues are of paramount importance in the workplace: cost and flexibility.Labor’s two most significant issues are compensation and “voice” or influence"

"Hills cited a briefing paper published in February by Rutgers University faculty member Jeffrey Keefe of the Economic Policy Institute that compared wages between the public and private sector.

“Considering both the cost of employer-provided benefits and direct wages, public-sector workers in Ohio receive compensation that is slightly less than what they would receive in the private sector,” according to Keefe’s study.

“Now that runs contrary to what some of us believe,” Hills said.

Government employees receive about 26 percent of their compensation in the form of benefits, compared with between 19 and 23 percent in the private sector, the study showed, and a larger share of their wages goes to pension and benefits.

“If anything, the public-sector workers are less well paid,”[\B] Hills commented."

"S. B. 5 “severely limits negotiations,” in Hills’ view. Lower public-sector costs are unlikely to result from the measure being upheld, but it would provide greater flexibility and influence to people in management positions in the public sector, including school principals and the chiefs of police and fire departments, he said."

Very interesting analysis.

wkfan;905601 wrote:Interesting article regarding SB5 and Issue 2:

http://www.thisweeknews.com/content/stories/dublin/news/2011/09/14/professor-analyzes-issue-2-options.html

Some key excerpts:

"From a management perspective, Hills said, two issues are of paramount importance in the workplace: cost and flexibility.Labor’s two most significant issues are compensation and “voice” or influence"

"Hills cited a briefing paper published in February by Rutgers University faculty member Jeffrey Keefe of the Economic Policy Institute that compared wages between the public and private sector.

“Considering both the cost of employer-provided benefits and direct wages, public-sector workers in Ohio receive compensation that is slightly less than what they would receive in the private sector,” according to Keefe’s study.

“Now that runs contrary to what some of us believe,” Hills said.

Government employees receive about 26 percent of their compensation in the form of benefits, compared with between 19 and 23 percent in the private sector, the study showed, and a larger share of their wages goes to pension and benefits.

“If anything, the public-sector workers are less well paid,”[\B] Hills commented."

"S. B. 5 “severely limits negotiations,” in Hills’ view. Lower public-sector costs are unlikely to result from the measure being upheld, but it would provide greater flexibility and influence to people in management positions in the public sector, including school principals and the chiefs of police and fire departments, he said."

Very interesting analysis.

The biggest thing everyone is missing. My biggest problem with public unionization is the conflict of interest.

The union donates money to certain canditates (all unions do, and public unions are no different).
The union then negotiates directly with the elected officials for workers compensation.

So the unions help get the elected officials their jobs and then negotiate wages for the union members.

So clearly a conflict of interest that is a wonder that it is even legal.

No where in the private sector does someone (unionized or non-union) get to negotiate with a "boss" that they themselves put in that position.

jmog;905681 wrote:The biggest thing everyone is missing. My biggest problem with public unionization is the conflict of interest.

The union donates money to certain canditates (all unions do, and public unions are no different).
The union then negotiates directly with the elected officials for workers compensation.

So the unions help get the elected officials their jobs and then negotiate wages for the union members.

So clearly a conflict of interest that is a wonder that it is even legal.

No where in the private sector does someone (unionized or non-union) get to negotiate with a "boss" that they themselves put in that position.

Is there no conflict of interest with 'private' unions?

I'll answer the question for you...yes, there is.

The UAW endorses a particular candidate and contributes to his or her campaign. Said candidate is elected and, lo and behld, the local UAW shop gets a lucrative governmental contract.

Solution - no political backing in the form of endorsements or dollars for any Union.

Trust me, I am not a union supporter of any kind. I think that they have run their useful course. However, to pin all that is bad in the world on public worker unions is just plain misguided.

wkfan;905688 wrote:Is there no conflict of interest with 'private' unions?

I'll answer the question for you...yes, there is.

The UAW endorses a particular candidate and contributes to his or her campaign. Said candidate is elected and, lo and behld, the local UAW shop gets a lucrative governmental contract.

Solution - no political backing in the form of endorsements or dollars for any Union.

Trust me, I am not a union supporter of any kind. I think that they have run their useful course. However, to pin all that is bad in the world on public worker unions is just plain misguided.

Oh trust me, there is some bit of conflict of interest there as well, but it is really indirect at best. In private unions it is a direct conflict of interest.

Heck, it would be exactly like if I handed my boss $5000 with the understanding he would give me a huge raise at the end of the year.

I think that piece contradicts itself. If it gives greater flexibility to those who handle personnel, that flexibility has to come from someplace.

In this case, it comes from having more money based on negotiations getting workers to carry more of their own benefit costs, if nothing else. That extra funding allows schools and other public entities to keep more workers employed as opposed to laying them off.

If forced to choose: unions prefer fewer workers making more money and having better benefits to more workers being employed who make less money and/or have to kick in more toward their benefits.

It seems to me that here is a similar conflict of interest with the political contributions of corporations. It may not be quite as directly related to salary but it certainly influences legislation that would be beneficial to the bottom line of the company. It also seems that the political speech of the union serves as a foil to the huge sums of money that corporations can and do spend on advocacy of their positions. I just wish I had more say when they use my money for free speech, especially when I don't agree with their position.

The community has recourse when public unions/politicians abuse their trust. They can vote to remove the politicians who are responsible for contracts that are irresponsible. In many cases they can also vote to withhold funding, as is the case in school levies. All of this requires transparency in the area of compensation. Since public salaries are public records and we have resources such as Buckeye Institute, the information is available. So hold them accountable.

Thanks a lot, LJ!

BRF;906025 wrote:Thanks a lot, LJ!

LOL. I wouldn't have opened up this thread for that piece of crap (and unverified) e-mail, but then I don't have super powers like the mods do. :laugh:

Writerbuckeye;906074 wrote:LOL. I wouldn't have opened up this thread for that piece of crap (and unverified) e-mail, but then I don't have super powers like the mods do. :laugh:

I actually asked him and Justin to open it up b/c of the upcoming elections. He had no idea about the email.

Writerbuckeye: Here's the strange thing for me to digest. I pretty much agree with everything you think and post...except for this one subject!

I get it, I think. Are you benefiting from the system w/o SB 5? If you are, and I have lots of friends who are, they pretty much disagree with me, too.

My hatred of public unions is well earned. I had to fight their stupidity when I was a member of AFSCME and had to face it even more when I was promoted to a supervisory position, where they worked tirelessly to make sure the most inept, least qualified people kept their jobs.

The union never did anything for me but take my money, and I wanted nothing to do with them.

I suppose if I had been a union member up until the time I left state service, my feelings about them would be different. It's possible.

Honestly, if I felt the unions were even being half reasonable about some of the changes SB 5 is proposing, I'd likely be less outspoken against them. But they aren't being reasonable, in my view.

One of the clinchers for me is reading in a local newspaper how the union was fighting efforts by a board of education to get teachers to pay more for their own retirements and health care, to help get the budget healthier. The union fought it, even though it would have meant zero layoffs.

That "take all you can get even if it costs people their jobs" strategy was a real turn off to me, on top of all the negatives I already had experienced.

jmog;905418 wrote:I can not dispute much of that "email", but the one bold faced lie he stated was that private companies have the same retirement benefit/contributions that the teachers have.

He stated that teachers pay 10% to their retirement and the schools put in 14%. He compared this to the private companies with matching 401k's.

Most private companies 401k's match as little as 0% and as much as high as 6%. I have yet to see a private company that matches more than 6% in a 401k.

So the teachers are getting a total of 24% in their retirement, 14% of which is being put in by the government.

Most people in the private world is lucky to get 6% put in by the company and the person is still typically putting in around 10% max.

So, while he has some very valid points, that one is a "bold faced lie" using his own term.

Eh, the private company I work for contributes 8% into my 401k.

WebFire;905496 wrote:I guess what I meant is, are they required to pay into SSN? Is the school required to pay into SSN? Or do they get exemptions because of PERS?

Ok, I had to chime in. SSN is short for social security number, is it not? You don't pay into SSN (social security number), you pay into SS (social security). /rant

dwccrew;906355 wrote: Ok, I had to chime in. SSN is short for social security number, is it not? You don't pay into SSN (social security number), you pay into SS (social security). /rant

I read it as "social security network."

dwccrew;906355 wrote:Eh, the private company I work for contributes 8% into my 401k.



Ok, I had to chime in. SSN is short for social security number, is it not? You don't pay into SSN (social security number), you pay into SS (social security). /rant

You must be angry to rant about that.

And, you are rather fortunate to have an 8% match.

WebFire;906385 wrote:You must be angry to rant about that.

And, you are rather fortunate to have an 8% match.

Definitely fortunate to have the 8%. No company I have worked for has ever been over 6% other than this one. Angry....not really.

dwccrew;906576 wrote:Definitely fortunate to have the 8%. No company I have worked for has ever been over 6% other than this one. Angry....not really.

you should be forced to give up 2%. damn you for being successful!

Illinois Does not have an SB5 Equivalent ....... obviously


Newsmax
[h=1]Chicago Union Leaders Get Huge Pensions [/h]Thursday, September 22, 2011 05:03 AM
By: Greg McDonald
Nearly two dozen retired union officials from Chicago are set to collect tens of millions of dollars from two of the city’s ailing pension funds because of small changes made to the Illinois pension code 20 years ago, according to a Chicago Tribune/WGN-TV investigation.

The Tribune reported Wednesday 23 former union leaders would draw a collective $56 million over the course of their retirements.

Because the pension draws are based on their union leader salaries at the time of their retirements, the newspaper said their monthly payouts would be about three times “what the typical retired city worker receives.”

The joint newspaper and television investigation did not uncover how the change in the law was made or who made it. But it was apparently carried out in secret, according to the Tribune, with no public debate among state legislators and — more importantly — no cost analysis.

“No one from either the state Legislature or city government will take credit for the law, which passed in 1991, and the process of drafting pension legislation in Springfield is so shrouded in secrecy that there's no way of knowing exactly whom to hold responsible,” the paper said.

The Tribune quoted a statement from Democratic Senate President John Cullerton denying any involvement in the changes, even though he was one of 10 lawmakers on the committee that inserted them into a larger bill.

Cullerton said the law should be corrected to restore the retirement system’s “fiscal and public integrity.”

That won’t be easy, the paper noted, because the state constitution says pension benefits “cannot be diminished once they are earned.”


And for further reading: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-pensions-gannon-20110922,0,913026.story

QuakerOats;906914 wrote:Illinois Does not have an SB5 Equivalent ....... obviously


Newsmax
Chicago Union Leaders Get Huge Pensions

Thursday, September 22, 2011 05:03 AM
By: Greg McDonald
Nearly two dozen retired union officials from Chicago are set to collect tens of millions of dollars from two of the city’s ailing pension funds because of small changes made to the Illinois pension code 20 years ago, according to a Chicago Tribune/WGN-TV investigation.

The Tribune reported Wednesday 23 former union leaders would draw a collective $56 million over the course of their retirements.

Because the pension draws are based on their union leader salaries at the time of their retirements, the newspaper said their monthly payouts would be about three times “what the typical retired city worker receives.”

The joint newspaper and television investigation did not uncover how the change in the law was made or who made it. But it was apparently carried out in secret, according to the Tribune, with no public debate among state legislators and — more importantly — no cost analysis.

“No one from either the state Legislature or city government will take credit for the law, which passed in 1991, and the process of drafting pension legislation in Springfield is so shrouded in secrecy that there's no way of knowing exactly whom to hold responsible,” the paper said.

The Tribune quoted a statement from Democratic Senate President John Cullerton denying any involvement in the changes, even though he was one of 10 lawmakers on the committee that inserted them into a larger bill.

Cullerton said the law should be corrected to restore the retirement system’s “fiscal and public integrity.”

That won’t be easy, the paper noted, because the state constitution says pension benefits “cannot be diminished once they are earned.”


And for further reading: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-pensions-gannon-20110922,0,913026.story

Sounds like some corrupt and inept politicians. Surprising for Illinois Democrats.

Also sounds like a 'SB5 equilivant' in Illinois wouldn't make any difference so I'm not sure of your point in tieing this issue with a 'SB5'.

It will certainly make a difference; the taxpayers will have a seat at the negotiating table, and unaffordable benefits will not be exchanged for votes and kickbacks.

QuakerOats;906931 wrote:It will certainly make a difference; the taxpayers will have a seat at the negotiating table, and unaffordable benefits will not be exchanged for votes and kickbacks.

While reprehensible, the Illinois deal is most likely already done, according to what is written.

QuakerOats;906931 wrote:It will certainly make a difference; the taxpayers will have a seat at the negotiating table, and unaffordable benefits will not be exchanged for votes and kickbacks.

This is the essence of SB5. Short and spot-on.

It's about time the folks get a seat at the table.

wkfan;906936 wrote:While reprehensible, the Illinois deal is most likely already done, according to what is written.

To borrow a famous line about the Cubs from Harry Caray: "Crooks win...crooks win....crooks win..."

Union leaders screwing their taxpaying membership, and everyone else, yet again.


Change we can believe in .........

QuakerOats;907023 wrote:Union leaders screwing their taxpaying membership, and everyone else, yet again.


Change we can believe in .........

As I said, this is reprehensible, but why are you blaming anyone other than the corrupt, inept senators who passed this legislation?

That is where the anger and venom should be directed.

wkfan;907053 wrote:As I said, this is reprehensible, but why are you blaming anyone other than the corrupt, inept senators who passed this legislation?

That is where the anger and venom should be directed.

And whom helped get the corrupt senators and public serv....excuse me HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH...ants elected? Could it possibly be union contributions? Having the ability to influence who sits across the negotiating table is also corruption.