Con_Alma;922515 wrote:I agree completely.



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

Yep, me either. If a local entity can show me they truly need more money and have been spending it wisely, I will be very likely to support them.

Gblock;922519 wrote:then why?

Public unions are simply wrong. FDR was right (on this, anyway). It creates and funds a system of cronyism that festers and eventually becomes unsustainable -- as we've seen already.

And before you say: elect other people, there's nothing that says we shouldn't do both to ensure the system's integrity and fiscal stability. This argument doesn't even address what I see as a flawed system that rewards people basically for breathing. I want good employees paid better than poor ones, and I don't want poor ones kept on the job because the union rules say they have to be kept, or the system has become so cumbersome it's impossible to get rid of them.

Writerbuckeye;922542 wrote:Public unions are simply wrong. FDR was right (on this, anyway). It creates and funds a system of cronyism that festers and eventually becomes unsustainable -- as we've seen already.

And before you say: elect other people, there's nothing that says we shouldn't do both to ensure the system's integrity and fiscal stability. This argument doesn't even address what I see as a flawed system that rewards people basically for breathing. I want good employees paid better than poor ones, and I don't want poor ones kept on the job because the union rules say they have to be kept, or the system has become so cumbersome it's impossible to get rid of them.

i agree but sb5 isnt going to do that

Gblock;922544 wrote:i agree but sb5 isnt going to do that

It's a big step in the right direction on several of those, including bringing sanity back to the process, and creating merit pay where none now exists. Also, if the union has less power, there's a pretty good chance the rules can eventually be changed to get rid of poor performers.

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 where the hell were you in 1983 when one party -- the democrats led by Tricky Dick Celeste, and controlled by public sector unions --- rammed through the biggest piece of crap legislation in history allowing public sector collective bargaining! In just 25 short years that legislation has essentially bankrupted the state, the cities, and the school districts.

Talk to me about one party ramming through "crap" legislation.

QuakerOats;922572 wrote:And where the hell were you in 1983 when one party -- the democrats led by Tricky **** Celeste, and controlled by public sector unions --- rammed through the biggest piece of crap legislation in history allowing public sector collective bargaining! In just 25 short years that legislation has essentially bankrupted the state, the cities, and the school districts.

Talk to me about one party ramming through "crap" legislation.

That argument is only viable when it's Republicans doing the "ramming". Dems can ram all kinds of trash through (see ObamaKare) and it doesn't count.

QuakerOats;922572 wrote:In just 25 short years that legislation has essentially bankrupted the state, the cities, and the school districts.

Going a little overboard on the blame here, don't you think?

You really think that allowing public workers to unionize has led to all this?

Allowing people who have no business buying homes out of their price range didn't contribute?

Hundreds of billions spent on a public buyout of private industries didn't contribute?

Millions upon millions of illegal aliens sucking dry our welfare system didn't contribute?

Our government printing dollars by the billions, thereby devaluing all the rest of them didn't contribute?

I think you need to dial it back a bit there, sparky.

QuakerOats;922572 wrote:And where the hell were you in 1983 when one party -- the democrats led by Tricky **** Celeste, and controlled by public sector unions --- rammed through the biggest piece of crap legislation in history allowing public sector collective bargaining! In just 25 short years that legislation has essentially bankrupted the state, the cities, and the school districts.

Talk to me about one party ramming through "crap" legislation.

i was 11...and i disagree that you can blame public workers for our current situation. SB5 is only as good as the people who will apply it. the same people who you claim are inept at their jobs now. there is nothing in the bill that you cant accomplish now with current leadership. contrary to popular belief you can fire a union worker with cause. do you have to do a little extra work? yes but it can be done. and guess what you can negotiate with a union to get the deal you want, does it take the right type of leaders and extra work? sure but you could do it if you wanted. quit acting so helpless like the unions run the whole world and have jedi powers

Gblock;922636 wrote:... contrary to popular belief you can fire a union worker with cause.

This is very good to know. Can you do so in the middle of a contract should city or local revenue receipts change?

Gblock;922636 wrote:...and guess what you can negotiate with a union to get the deal you want, ...

Can this be done on an individual basis based on that person's merits and value?

If the voters of Ohio want to live in a State without public service employee unions should they be able to?

Con_Alma;922643 wrote:This is very good to know. Can you do so in the middle of a contract should city or local revenue receipts change?



Can this be done on an individual basis based on that person's merits and value?

If the voters of Ohio want to live in a State without public service employee unions should they be able to?

to say that one's pay should change because of revenue doesnt make sense. thats like if i call the electric company and tell them that im having a bad month so i would like to pay less for my electricity. obviously the way we fund schools specifically needs to change since it was found unconstitutional many years ago. as far as other public industries i cant really speak on... i understand the the price of everything is going up including the services we get. the 99 cent bag of chips i got from bp the other day is now 1.09...that sux but its probably going to be 1.25 in a year or two.

as to your second question imo as far as schools go they really dont want merit pay because you are getting a significant number of your workforce at a reduced rate. many of the teachers in their first five years make less than or around 40,000...many teachers quit in the first 5 years so you do have turnover...if they were paid on merit you would see many of them have a pay increase and the district costs would rise.

to your third question i think they should if that is what the people want

Gblock;922655 wrote:to say that one's pay should change because of revenue doesnt make sense. ...

I personally never said one's pay should change at all. I asked if you could currently fire someone in the middle of a contract if revenue changed significantly. I asked it as a followup your comment of being able to fire someone with cause.

Gblock;922655 wrote:...as to your second question imo as far as schools go they really dont want merit pay because you are getting a significant number of your workforce at a reduced rate. many of the teachers in their first five years make less than or around 40,000...many teachers quit in the first 5 years so you do have turnover...if they were paid on merit you would see many of them have a pay increase and the district costs would rise.

Again, that doesn't answer the question. Can you negotiate on an individual basis currently?

On a separate note, I personally have no problem with costs rising if merit pay were put into place. I say pay those those who deserve it based on the level of total revenue made available by the community in question.

Gblock;922655 wrote:...to your third question i think they should if that is what the people want

I do too. I am glad we are letting the voters decide.

Con_Alma;922660 wrote:I personally never said one's pay should change at all. I asked if you could currently fire someone in the middle of a contract if revenue changed significantly. I asked it as a followup your comment of being able to fire someone with cause.



Again, that doesn't answer the question. Can you negotiate on an individual basis currently?

On a separate note, I personally have no problem with costs rising if merit pay were put into place. I say pay those those who deserve it based on the level of total revenue made available by the community in question.



I do too. I am glad we are letting the voters decide.

in my district all are paid on a pay matrix..your first 3 years it stays the same and then you get about 1400 dollar raise each year until you reach your 15th year and then it stays the same until your 26th year. then you get 1000 dollars more until your 30th year or something like that. im currently in my 16th year so if i stay teaching which i probably wont be for much longer as i am moving to admin, i wouldnt get a raise for 10 years.
also who would take a job that you could be fired for no other reason than lack of funds by the employer?? i know some here probably do this but im sure you would find a teacher shortage very soon as many would choose other careers in college.

Gblock;922669 wrote:...in my district all are paid on a pay matrix ...

My question related to these parameters being created on an individual basis as opposed to "all".

Gblock;922669 wrote:...
also who would take a job that you could be fired for no other reason than lack of funds by the employer?? i know some here probably do this but im sure you would find a teacher shortage very soon as many would choose other careers in college.

Ohio is an at will employment state. Anyone in the private sector can be let go for any reason so long as it's not covered and/or addressed in the existing anti -discrimination laws. I would bet most people employed in this state have taken a job whereby they can be fired if the employers revenue declines.

Con_Alma;922687 wrote:My question related to these parameters being created on an individual basis as opposed to "all".



Ohio is an at will employment state. Anyone in the private sector can be let go for any reason so long as it's not covered and/or addressed in the existing anti -discrimination laws. I would bet most people employed in this state have taken a job whereby they can be fired if the employers revenue declines.

i was attempting to answer your question maybe i wasnt clear. teachers arent paid on an individual basis in my district.

one of the reasons i decided to work in public sector was for this reason. however along with this security i accepted lower pay than most of my peers w similar levels of education. i probably have a better retirement. so i guess i dont mind if taxpayers want to change these parameters, but i will expect a raise if i lose my job security and my good retirement.

wkfan;922626 wrote:Going a little overboard on the blame here, don't you think?

You really think that allowing public workers to unionize has led to all this?

Allowing people who have no business buying homes out of their price range didn't contribute?

Hundreds of billions spent on a public buyout of private industries didn't contribute?

Millions upon millions of illegal aliens sucking dry our welfare system didn't contribute?

Our government printing dollars by the billions, thereby devaluing all the rest of them didn't contribute?

I think you need to dial it back a bit there, sparky.

It appears you have taken national/federal issues and tried to tie them to my observation; I am not sure why. Those issues have little to do with what I was talking about except to exacerbate a stressed financial situation wherein public sector union stranglehold allows for no management flexibility in dealing with budget issues.

Gblock;922636 wrote:i was 11...and i disagree that you can blame public workers for our current situation. SB5 is only as good as the people who will apply it. the same people who you claim are inept at their jobs now.

I am not blaming public workers, that is a cop-out claim. Nor did I ever say anyone was "inept", although some probably are as they are in any organization. What I have said is that the public sector union control over municipalities and school districts is to blame. There is a difference, and I know many on the other side like to make it out as though Issue 2 supporters are "against the workers" and "against the teachers" in an attempt to somehow 'personalize' the situation ......... and that is simply a sham. Many of us are related to teachers and public sector workers and it is not about us vs. them, it is about the system and about the public sector education monopoly being controlled by a militant union whose only interest is money and power, not education.

Gblock;922693 wrote:i was attempting to answer your question maybe i wasnt clear. teachers arent paid on an individual basis in my district. ...

Thank you for the clarification. It seems as if there is not the ability to set those parameters on an individual basis currently.

Gblock;922693 wrote:...one of the reasons i decided to work in public sector was for this reason. however along with this security i accepted lower pay than most of my peers w similar levels of education. i probably have a better retirement. so i guess i dont mind if taxpayers want to change these parameters, but i will expect a raise if i lose my job security and my good retirement.

I understand and respect that. Those are good reason to join the public sector. You may wish to reevaluate that if/should they change.

I personally wouldn't "expect" a raise. Maybe you can negotiate one.

Con_Alma;922709 wrote:Thank you for the clarification. It seems as if there is not the ability to set those parameters on an individual basis currently.





I understand and respect that. Those are good reason to join the public sector. You may wish to reevaluate that if/should they change.

I personally wouldn't "expect" a raise. Maybe you can negotiate one.

Your retirement doesn't change with SB5, and your security shouldn't either if you are doing a good job. So no raise should be expected.

That's where the if/should they change came into play in my statement.

it would be a challenge for sure...im not sure if we currently have the administrative manpower to do it currently. administrators can barely find time for current evaluations which happen every other year.

i wonder..if we trust administrators to evaluate teachers, why dont we trust the teachers to evaluate students? certainly the teachers could tell which students are proficient or not. by eliminating state testing this would save millions in time and money.

as far as merit pay i believe that it should be based upon what you "put in"(training, videotape lessons, summer hours, college classes, portfolios etx) not what comes out(test scores). this way all would have the opportunity to prove their worth no matter what subject/schoo/class they teach.

As a teach I am sure you should have an opinion on what the merit based evaluation is. Right now I am just hoping that we can agree that one can exist and is beneficial to the process.

I currently trust administrators to evaluate teacher. I also trust teachers to evaluate students.

QuakerOats;922700 wrote:It appears you have taken national/federal issues and tried to tie them to my observation; I am not sure why. Those issues have little to do with what I was talking about except to exacerbate a stressed financial situation wherein public sector union stranglehold allows for no management flexibility in dealing with budget issues.

Your statement that I quoted said that public sector unions were the sole reason for the current financial plight being suffered by states, counties, school districts, etc. I am simply pointing out that there are other factors, many that I did not list, that are contributing to this problem and that public employees are not the only evil doer.....and to think otherwise is simply short-sighted and patently unfair.

wkfan;922737 wrote:Your statement that I quoted said that public sector unions were the sole reason for the current financial plight being suffered by states, counties, school districts, etc. I am simply pointing out that there are other factors, many that I did not list, that are contributing to this problem and that public employees are not the only evil doer.....and to think otherwise is simply short-sighted and patently unfair.

Once again, neither I nor the many on here think that public employees are "evil doers". I wish we could have a frank discussion without the comments that insinuate that we think public employees themselves are the problem.

We do, or at least I do, think the current system: public sector collective bargaining, bloated compensation packages complete with profound unfunded liabiltities, and the lack of management flexibility to deal with budget issues are to blame. We want the system fixed, we want accountability, we want transparency, we want efficiency, and we want flexibility.

Gblock;922693 wrote:i was attempting to answer your question maybe i wasnt clear. teachers arent paid on an individual basis in my district.

one of the reasons i decided to work in public sector was for this reason. however along with this security i accepted lower pay than most of my peers w similar levels of education. i probably have a better retirement. so i guess i dont mind if taxpayers want to change these parameters, but i will expect a raise if i lose my job security and my good retirement.

Your "security" has only happened because you've stayed with the district for a long time. If you were a newer teacher, and revenues fell sharply, layoffs would happen and you would be among the first out the door. It happens all the time under union contracts, and has been happening more the last couple years because so many schools have seen revenues decline.

If your school district were forced to eliminate teachers, and the district offered to keep everyone if everyone would accept a 5 percent pay cut, it wouldn't happen because the union would stop it. They'd prefer people lose their jobs instead of giving in to such a request. I've seen it happen in my own county.

A complicating factor is that the "newer" teachers will be the first out the door, even if they are better at their jobs than those who have seniority.

It's a flawed system and the union only cares that the longer tenured people keep their jobs. Is that because they pay more in dues (higher pay, higher dues?) In any event, it's the wrong way to conduct business of any kind, public or private.

Every other worker (not union) in the country has to earn their place, and be among the best to keep it.

I see no reason public employees shouldn't fall under those same guidelines. While SB 5 won't do all those things, it is a step in the right direction.

Writerbuckeye;922770 wrote:Your "security" has only happened because you've stayed with the district for a long time. If you were a newer teacher, and revenues fell sharply, layoffs would happen and you would be among the first out the door. It happens all the time under union contracts, and has been happening more the last couple years because so many schools have seen revenues decline.

If your school district were forced to eliminate teachers, and the district offered to keep everyone if everyone would accept a 5 percent pay cut, it wouldn't happen because the union would stop it. They'd prefer people lose their jobs instead of giving in to such a request. I've seen it happen in my own county.

A complicating factor is that the "newer" teachers will be the first out the door, even if they are better at their jobs than those who have seniority.

It's a flawed system and the union only cares that the longer tenured people keep their jobs. Is that because they pay more in dues (higher pay, higher dues?) In any event, it's the wrong way to conduct business of any kind, public or private.

Every other worker (not union) in the country has to earn their place, and be among the best to keep it.

I see no reason public employees shouldn't fall under those same guidelines. While SB 5 won't do all those things, it is a step in the right direction.

somewhat true but not exactly..we will always have the number of teachers needed based on the number of students...low revenue or not. i do agree but in my 15 years ive only seen it happen in two different years and most if not all got hired back. i do understand how you feel and have had those feelings as well but its something that the older teachers also went thru.