Didn't realize this. Here people have been arguing it all along.

Is it true that public employers will no longer have to pay into the employee’s pension system?No. State laws that govern how much the employer is required to contribute isn’t even in SB5. The employer (Ohio taxpayers) will still pay a substantial percent of the employees salary into their pension fund, as follows: teachers (14%), state highway patrol employees (26 ½ %), township police officers (19.5 %), city police officers (3/10 mill of property taxes), township firefighters (24%), city firefighters (3/10 mill of property taxes)
SB 5 only repeals the practice of &#8220ension pickups”. This is when the labor agreement requires that the employer pay both the employer share and the employee share. SB 5 requires that the employees pay their own portion, nothing more. RC 145.47, RC 742.31, RC 742.33 , RC 742.34, RC 33 07.27, RC 33 09.47, RC 5503.13, RC 5503.15, RC 5505.15

Writerbuckeye;921502 wrote:Jesus, what are you scared of? Not.That.Difficult.

I appreciate you referring to me as Jesus, who had much compassion for others. . I'm not afraid of merit pay, but I would like people to know that there can't be any "cookie cutter" type to apply to ALL teachers because many jobs are different. It WILL be difficult to come up with a merit pay plan that takes all that into account.

BRF;921993 wrote:I appreciate you referring to me as Jesus, who had much compassion for others. . I'm not afraid of merit pay, but I would like people to know that there can't be any "cookie cutter" type to apply to ALL teachers because many jobs are different. It WILL be difficult to come up with a merit pay plan that takes all that into account.

The teaching profession is no more diverse in terms of varying job responsibilities than any particular business one could name, and they make it work.

queencitybuckeye;922016 wrote:The teaching profession is no more diverse in terms of varying job responsibilities than any particular business one could name, and they make it work.

this

queencitybuckeye;922016 wrote:The teaching profession is no more diverse in terms of varying job responsibilities than any particular business one could name, and they make it work.

And I agree with this. However, I believe (believer), that the public perception of merit pay for teachers is one in which the same criteria applies for everyone. And if that is the case, it will not work.

Writerbuckeye;921502 wrote:Some of you people act like if there isn't something outlined from step A to Z that it isn't feasible. For profit companies, which encompasses tens of millions of people, has been doing this without too many issues for decades.

As I said: let each individual entity (school board, city, county, whatever) come up with its own set of goals and standards to be used by supervisors, and then as each budget period allows, figure out who should be given a merit increase.

Not.
That.
Difficult.

FIFY

sleeper;921564 wrote:There doesn't need to be a plan.

So when cities continue to have budget issues if SB5 passes because teachers earn their merit pay, what then?

Writerbuckeye;921502 wrote:Jesus, what are you scared of? Merit pay is simply an amount based on what the budget can afford and linked to a performance review by a supervisor. Have you never had a performance review? It isn't hard to come up with a system for rewarding those who meet certain goals and then do so as the budget allows.

sounds like something that has nothing to do with SB5 and more to do with the people who are elected into power.

Glory Days;922156 wrote:So when cities continue to have budget issues if SB5 passes because teachers earn their merit pay, what then?

Again, this is part of a larger puzzle. This doesn't make every city or school district's budget balance. :rolleyes:

WebFire;922161 wrote:Again, this is part of a larger puzzle. This doesn't make every city or school district's budget balance. :rolleyes:

of course not and most intelligent people realize that....however that isnt how they are promoting it.

Glory Days;922168 wrote:of course not and most intelligent people realize that....however that isnt how they are promoting it.

I have yet to see an ad that says passing SB 5 will cure all economic ills that local government has. I HAVE seen ads that say it gives power back to taxpayers in developing budgets -- which is true.

I have also not seen ads that blame public employee for all economic ills everywhere, even though the anti-SB 5 ads have been running that lie since day one.

It's not hard to tell which group is lying from the ads, so it's not hard to tell which way you should vote; assuming you care about whether or not one side has to lie to try and win at the ballot.

If you want more local control over your school district or fire department et.al. and want taxpayers to have a seat at the table, then vote for Issue 2; if you want union hierarchy in some far off place to continue to dictate what happens to your school district and protect the status quo, without creating one ounce of value, then vote against it. It is really pretty simple, but it is 30 years overdue.

Writerbuckeye;922203 wrote:I have yet to see an ad that says passing SB 5 will cure all economic ills that local government has. I HAVE seen ads that say it gives power back to taxpayers in developing budgets -- which is true.

I have also not seen ads that blame public employee for all economic ills everywhere, even though the anti-SB 5 ads have been running that lie since day one.

It's not hard to tell which group is lying from the ads, so it's not hard to tell which way you should vote; assuming you care about whether or not one side has to lie to try and win at the ballot.

The reason the anti-SB5 folks are lying in their ads is because they know their cover has been blown and they're fearful that their gravy train is about to derail.

its like beating a dead horse....we have covered merit pay on this thread and the merit pay thread...what it boils down to is that you want to pay less taxes...you dont care about education, you dont care about anything but paying less taxes. as a taxpayer i get that but please stop using all the bogus rhetoric and just say you want to pay less taxes.

I have no problem paying taxes. It's not about that at all.

And my taxes won't go down by voting for SB5.

QuakerOats;922248 wrote:If you want more local control over your school district or fire department et.al. and want taxpayers to have a seat at the table, then vote for Issue 2;

they have a seat. or do we simply forget we elect people that have our views to run the local government?

Glory Days;922498 wrote:they have a seat. or do we simply forget we elect people that have our views to run the local government?

They don't have a seat because the union can grind the situation to an impasse and force an 'arbitrator' (term used very loosely - generally a former union hack) to come in from some far off place and compel a city to pay whatever he says --- fair or not; affordable or not. It is a farce, and it is high time that practice is outlawed.

And as for the actual 'elected' officials, more ofthen than not they are puppets of the union and won campaigns paid for with our tax dollars paid to public employees then siphoned off to union leaders (as dues) who handpick candidates that will be sympathetic to union demands at the bargaining table. But, you knew that already, because we have been round and round and round on that issue on here for months.

WebFire;922470 wrote:I have no problem paying taxes. It's not about that at all.

I agree completely.

WebFire;922470 wrote:And my taxes won't go down by voting for SB5.

That's not why I plan on supporting this legislation at all either.

QuakerOats;922507 wrote:They don't have a seat because the union can grind the situation to an impasse and force an 'arbitrator' (term used very loosely - generally a former union hack) to come in from some far off place and compel a city to pay whatever he says --- fair or not; affordable or not. It is a farce, and it is high time that practice is outlawed.

And as for the actual 'elected' officials, more ofthen than not they are puppets of the union and won campaigns paid for with our tax dollars paid to public employees then siphoned off to union leaders (as dues) who handpick candidates that will be sympathetic to union demands at the bargaining table. But, you knew that already, because we have been round and round and round on that issue on here for months.

so why dont u elect someone else? even with sb5 is that situation going to change? there is a lot of politics within districts as well. the administrators you want to give power to for merit pay are former teachers/union members, you are trading one problem for another. it is funny that people think they have no power now without sb5. you have exactly the same power right now to do the things you want but most are too lazy to get involved or elect someone who is willing to fight for the taxpayer.

Con_Alma;922515 wrote:I agree completely.



That's not why I plan on supporting this legislation at all either.

then why?

SB5 is bad legislation that needs thrown out so some real changes can be made, not some piece of crap rammed through by one controlling, uncompromising party.

Abe Vigoda;922525 wrote:SB5 is bad legislation that needs thrown out so some real changes can be made, not some piece of crap rammed through by one controlling, uncompromising party.

And those changes are?

Con_Alma;922515 wrote:I agree completely.



That's not why I plan on supporting this legislation at all either.

It's about HOW my tax money is spent. It needs to be done wisely and proper. Same with the federal tax. I don't mind paying tax at all. But I do mind the tax being pissed into the wind.

Gblock;922519 wrote:then why?

I agree that there are no two public employees alike. I agree that they should be addressed as the individuals that they are and compensated as such.

I agree that greater flexibility by eliminating contracted employees is a good thing for public service departments.