To jmog and writerbuckeye: I agree with what you had to say about me saying a bottom line of $100,000 for a yearly salary. I should have said something like $150,000+.

Vote no on Issue 2.

BRF;948630 wrote:To jmog and writerbuckeye: I agree with what you had to say about me saying a bottom line of $100,000 for a yearly salary. I should have said something like $150,000+.

Vote no on Issue 2.

Oh good lord...run my math but actually throw in a few credit cards and more charitable giving and you are still wrong, $150k with a family is NOT rich. Maybe single and 150k is...but not with a family

imex99;948405 wrote:Actually I'm republican and sb5/issue 2 is only issue that I don't agree with... Voted for Kasich and sb5 is only regret.
I'm a state employee and our agency has given back for 3 of my 6 years of employment.

I've had 3 raises in my 6 years...

2 years of cost savings days, insurance and retirement costs have Increased for our agency. Freeze on personal days and our union is already weak/take forever to even try to get a grievance even reviewed. Have agreement with state to only review 1 a month.

Sent from my PG86100 using Tapatalk

Cry me a flippin river.

For 6 out of 7 years, I ranked in the top 92 percentile for gross sales with a contract sales company, paid almost exclusively on commission. This contract employed over 1200 nationwide in pharmaceutical sales. Every year, the bottom 30% got shidcanned.

I, like hundreds of thousands of other private sector people, eventually fell victim to the economy, and was let go. (the entire contract went down).

Public employees, especially teachers, have nary a clue what it's like to truly bust tail, exceed the performance of 90% of their colleagues, and STILL be thrown out to pasture.

And you complain about only getting a raise every 2 years?

The private sector by far and away have taken the brunt of lost wages, fear of unemployment, experiencing unemployment, and having to undertake FAR MORE STRESS than the public sector.

I'm sick and tired listening to these teachers, who, get 3 months off every year, cannot get fired unless they boink a student, and are never graded on true job performance...which keeps about half the private sector workers awake at night.

I'm voting yes on issue 2....because I don't think the private, middle class people should be fugged any harder than the public middle class people are being fugged.

jmog;948716 wrote:Oh good lord...run my math but actually throw in a few credit cards and more charitable giving and you are still wrong, $150k with a family is NOT rich. Maybe single and 150k is...but not with a family

The median income for a family in the US is less than 50K. So I would say you are wrong. Secondly there are people making 75K a year and circumvent their tax iabilities by having momma pop out 4 or 5 kids. Sound familiar?

One of the reasons that conservatives love to play the (I'm the 53% crowd, meaning they actually pay federal taxes}, is that people with a lot of kids are the biggest gravy train riders out there.

Yet, I never here you bitch about that. Gee, I wonder why that is?

Footwedge;948788 wrote:One of the reasons that conservatives love to play the (I'm the 53% crowd, meaning they actually pay federal taxes}, is that people with a lot of kids are the biggest gravy train riders out there.

Yet, I never here you bitch about that. Gee, I wonder why that is?

I bitch. I like tax plans that eliminate all that bullshit. One of the reasons I am on board with the 9-9-9 plan. But you rail against it because it makes many of those on that gravy train actually pay some taxes.

jmog;948716 wrote:Oh good lord...run my math but actually throw in a few credit cards and more charitable giving and you are still wrong, $150k with a family is NOT rich. Maybe single and 150k is...but not with a family

Once we get the idea out that a teacher making 30K a year should have his salary cut so that someone making 150K can spend more on credit cards, we shouldn't have any problem passing issue 2 :rolleyes:

QuakerOats;948462 wrote:It can be boiled down to this: I am sick and tired of having my money absconded with by fat cat union lawyers and union 'leaders' in the form of union dues taken out of taxpayer paid union salaries so that these union lawyers and union fat cats can turn around and use that money to negotiate and campaign to steal even more of my money in a never-ending, biased charade rife with corruption and unaccountability. IT'S OVER!

That's BS and you know it. It comes back to petty jealousy and class warfare. You need a scapegoat and public sector employees fit your particular bill. Stop with the pretense and be honest. Your leaders have had 25 years to change things and they SAT ON THEIR HANDS! Now you want to demonize these folks. Shame on you!

Footwedge;948788 wrote:The median income for a family in the US is less than 50K. So I would say you are wrong. Secondly there are people making 75K a year and circumvent their tax iabilities by having momma pop out 4 or 5 kids. Sound familiar?

One of the reasons that conservatives love to play the (I'm the 53% crowd, meaning they actually pay federal taxes}, is that people with a lot of kids are the biggest gravy train riders out there.

Yet, I never here you bitch about that. Gee, I wonder why that is?

1. Even with kids I still actually pay taxes, so yes I am in the 53%.
2. What you call circumvent most normal people call perfectly legal tax deductions.
3. I have said that I would be ok with dependent tax deductions to go away, I like the 9-9-9 plan which has no child deductions.
4. I have 3 kids and that number would not be higher or lower if tax laws were different 10 years ago, your point holds no merit.

$150k with a family is upper middle class, yes, but that is NOT rich.

Al Bundy;948823 wrote:Once we get the idea out that a teacher making 30K a year should have his salary cut so that someone making 150K can spend more on credit cards, we shouldn't have any problem passing issue 2 :rolleyes:

Average teacher in Ohio makes much more than $30k it has been posted on here many times.
There are some teachers in ohio making over $100k.
Eliminating public unions will not necessarily lower a teachers pay. They may have to take benefit reductions in the short term but over time the good teachers will actually make more under merit pay than they do now. Good teachers should LOVE this, but their union has convinced everyone the sky would fall just like they tried in Wisconsin. Guess what, teachers in general are as good or better off in Wisconsin now than before.

sleeper;948486 wrote:Wah wah wah. People are losing their jobs like crazy and you're complaining about pay raises. I hope you vote no on sb5, and then 5 months later they come to you and say "We can't afford your benefits/salary because SB5 didn't pass, here's your pink slip". I hope you don't have family, because they'll be eating ramen for the rest of their life since no one is going to want a lazy worker from the public sector.

I bust my ass every day out in the cold, 8-10 hours depending on the work load.

People are losing there jobs but it's not because of the average employee. It's the fat cats, union and non union who are the ones who aren't putting in there fair share and get double/triple our salary.

The lawmakers and others give the average Joe cuts, raise insurance, raise retirement but don't do the same to there paychecks, why is that?

They don't want to affect there own paychecks but the guy who gets 1/4 the pay and life benefits for working the 4-8 year term.

Sent from my PG86100 using Tapatalk

Writerbuckeye;948547 wrote:Geeze, with all you've had to "give back" how can you possibly afford to put food on the table? I mean, only 3 raises in six years (and probably about 4 percent each, I'm guessing). This is the kind of story that must makes you want to weep tears of blood for the poor, downtrodden state employee. :rolleyes:

It was 3,3, 3 for my first 3 years of service. Only get raises first five years of service then year 10. After that it's just cost of living and the occasional contract every three years.

Sent from my PG86100 using Tapatalk

Footwedge;948776 wrote:Cry me a flippin river.

For 6 out of 7 years, I ranked in the top 92 percentile for gross sales with a contract sales company, paid almost exclusively on commission. This contract employed over 1200 nationwide in pharmaceutical sales. Every year, the bottom 30% got shidcanned.

I, like hundreds of thousands of other private sector people, eventually fell victim to the economy, and was let go. (the entire contract went down).

Public employees, especially teachers, have nary a clue what it's like to truly bust tail, exceed the performance of 90% of their colleagues, and STILL be thrown out to pasture.

And you complain about only getting a raise every 2 years?

The private sector by far and away have taken the brunt of lost wages, fear of unemployment, experiencing unemployment, and having to undertake FAR MORE STRESS than the public sector.

I'm sick and tired listening to these teachers, who, get 3 months off every year, cannot get fired unless they boink a student, and are never graded on true job performance...which keeps about half the private sector workers awake at night.

I'm voting yes on issue 2....because I don't think the private, middle class people should be fugged any harder than the public middle class people are being fugged.

Public employees in ohio are getting let go everyday.... I know 20 more coworkers going to lose there jobs in February because they are taking them out of the Union and replacing them with automated systems.

Sent from my PG86100 using Tapatalk

imex99;949051 wrote:I bust my ass every day out in the cold, 8-10 hours depending on the work load.

People are losing there jobs but it's not because of the average employee. It's the fat cats, union and non union who are the ones who aren't putting in there fair share and get double/triple our salary.

The lawmakers and others give the average Joe cuts, raise insurance, raise retirement but don't do the same to there paychecks, why is that?

They don't want to affect there own paychecks but the guy who gets 1/4 the pay and life benefits for working the 4-8 year term.

Sent from my PG86100 using Tapatalk

You win for most rhetoric filed post of the day with no truth to it. Congratulations.

Footwedge;948788 wrote:
Yet, I never here you bitch about that. Gee, I wonder why that is?

Too busy working to earn every dime he makes? Unlike people who suck at life who can be identified by throwing out terms like "gravy train".

jmog;949048 wrote:Eliminating public unions will not necessarily lower a teachers pay. They may have to take benefit reductions in the short term but over time the good teachers will actually make more under merit pay than they do now.

i dont believe good teachers will make more than now. to do that, they would have to take more money from the average to bad teachers. at first that sounds great, until the bad teachers start leaving, hopefully replaced by good teachers. then what? those new good teachers will be paid whatever the bad teachers before were paid. then you will end up losing good teachers because a lack of money to pay them what they deserve.

Average teacher in Ohio makes much more than $30k it has been posted on here many times.

its also been posted on here many times that there are several non union states that are in much worse condition that ohio and that some of the better school districs in the country are union states.

Footwedge;948776 wrote:Cry me a flippin river.

For 6 out of 7 years, I ranked in the top 92 percentile for gross sales with a contract sales company, paid almost exclusively on commission. This contract employed over 1200 nationwide in pharmaceutical sales. Every year, the bottom 30% got shidcanned.

sounds like you are crying a big enough river for everyone. you dont like the way your job pays or whatever, get a new one.

Glory Days;949065 wrote:i dont believe good teachers will make more than now. to do that, they would have to take more money from the average to bad teachers. at first that sounds great, until the bad teachers start leaving, hopefully replaced by good teachers. then what? those new good teachers will be paid whatever the bad teachers before were paid. then you will end up losing good teachers because a lack of money to pay them what they deserve.

Either that or when the schools are filled with good teachers, people will recognize that and fund the schools accordingly.

Glory Days;949068 wrote:sounds like you are crying a big enough river for everyone. you dont like the way your job pays or whatever, get a new one.

Oh, you mean like teachers should if they don't like their pay?

Glory Days;947955 wrote:layoffs could/will happen if SB5 is approved too. whats your point?

The state budget is already in place based on SB5. Why would there be layoffs?

Best campaign sign today....No on Issue 2..."Our safety and your life depend on it." Classic. :rolleyes:

Glory Days;949065 wrote:i dont believe good teachers will make more than now. to do that, they would have to take more money from the average to bad teachers. at first that sounds great, until the bad teachers start leaving, hopefully replaced by good teachers. then what? those new good teachers will be paid whatever the bad teachers before were paid. then you will end up losing good teachers because a lack of money to pay them what they deserve.



its also been posted on here many times that there are several non union states that are in much worse condition that ohio and that some of the better school districs in the country are union states.

I don't believe the sky will be blue tomorrow, I don't believe the sun will shine. However, just because I don't believe something in the future will happen, doesn't mean that it won't happen.

queencitybuckeye;949069 wrote:Either that or when the schools are filled with good teachers, people will recognize that and fund the schools accordingly.

that works fine out in the suburbs where school levies pretty much always pass.

WebFire;949122 wrote:Oh, you mean like teachers should if they don't like their pay?

you mean like the private sector who instead of trying to better their pay, will just bitch and moan about the public sector pay?

fish82;949190 wrote:The state budget is already in place based on SB5. Why would there be layoffs?

because cities will still be in fiscal trouble even with the passing of SB5. that and no one really knows what cities will do if/when its passed and in place for a few years. remember, Kasich cut a shit ton of state funding to cities. and like i said, many states without public unions are in much worse shape than us. why would ohio be different?

http://www.plunderbund.com/2011/03/07/dispatchs-missed-sunday-headline-sb-5-does-a-horrible-job-in-saving-local-governments-money/

Glory Days;950518 wrote: you mean like the private sector who instead of trying to better their pay, will just bitch and moan about the public sector pay?

Grasping for straws on that one. :rolleyes:

WebFire;950582 wrote:Grasping for straws on that one. :rolleyes:

if i grab the short straw, i will just go occupy something! that will show them!

http://www.cleveland.com/obrien/index.ssf/2011/10/yes_to_all_three_questions_on.html

Excellent points!

"They're arguing, essentially, that they've done the taxpayers a favor by accepting a little less.
They've got it backwards. They have what they have through a combination of strong-arm tactics, weak elected leaders and taxpayer generosity in good times.
Well, the good times are up."