O-Trap;963168 wrote:If the private entity is to negotiate with the official being elected, then it would also be collusion, and thus, should be disallowed.

It's not the large donation quantities that I personally find problematic. It's when those large donations go toward a candidate that is intended to work from the other side of the bargaining table. That's textbook collusion. As such, I don't really care if it's a union or a private entity. Collusion is collusion.

O-Trap;963586 wrote:Can someone else answer this? I'm genuinely curious.

Devils Advocate;963742 wrote:Issue 3 will actually be brought forward by the federal government.

Issue 2 is a little more sticky. Issue 2 opponents are waiting for this issue to fail. If it does not, they are willing ride the coat tails of the wisconsin lawsuits. They are trying to form some wierd nexis to the interstate business act that would involve someone in West Virgina or Kentucky that work in Ohio.

Mr. 300;964013 wrote:I voted yes.

ernest_t_bass;964020 wrote:So did I.

Glory Days;963635 wrote:public workers are also citizens AND tax payers.

Here's what Senate Bill 5 does:

• Reduces the collective bargaining power of about 360,000 public workers in Ohio. The current collective-bargaining law gives workers the right to negotiate on a broad scope of topics including wages, hours, working conditions and any provision from an expiring contract that an employer wants to change. Under SB 5, workers no longer have the right to bargain changes from a previous contract. Certain topics that have been central to negotiations, such as health care benefits, can’t be bargained anymore. Several other topics can be bargained only if management agrees. These topics, known as “management rights,” include the right to decide employee qualifications, starting and quitting times, work assignments, promotion rules and other topics.
• Bans public-worker strikes.
• Eliminates binding arbitration, a process allowing a third party to impose a settlement when a union and management reach an impasse, and replaces it with a process that gives a governing body, such as a city council, the final say on a union contract.
• Eliminates “fair-share fees” - required payments to unions from workers who choose not to join their union. Fair share fees currently can be included in a collective-bargaining agreement as a term of employment.
• Places caps on paid personal days (three), paid holidays (12) and the amount of unused sick and vacation time a worker can cash in upon retirement.
• Eliminates automatic pay raises based on seniority and establishes a performance-based pay system.
• Prohibits seniority from being the sole factor considered when workers are laid off.
• Requires public workers to pay at least 15 percent of their health care costs and to contribute at least 10 percent of their salary toward their pension.

O-Trap;964094 wrote:Per here: http://www.cleveland.com/politics/index.ssf/2011/11/issue_2_early_ohio_election_re.html


[/LIST]

I actually have one beef with it. I believe workers should be able to individually negotiate PTO, paid holidays, etc. I don't like a mandated cap.

Other than that, however, I don't see anything problematic.

What's the objection?

Mr. 300;964075 wrote:tk......very valid point. The left/unions said you had to vote no on issue 2 to save jobs. Well guess what, you gonna lose jobs to help balance budgets to offset the decision.

fish82;964097 wrote:Children will burn to death if it passes.

QuakerOats;964042 wrote:And a protected class, apparently. When they decertify their unions and get realistic they will be welcomed 'home' with open arms.

thePITman;963583 wrote:I voted YES on Issues 2 & 3.

Pariah;963719 wrote:Proudly voted "yes" on Issue 2 but turn out was light in my overwhelmingly conservative, and presumably anti-union, precinct. Not good for the prospects for proponents of SB 5.

Mr. 300;964013 wrote:I voted yes.

ernest_t_bass;964020 wrote:So did I.

thePITman;964132 wrote:Where can we find the results?