Ohio Chatter
Ohio Chatter

Forums

All Threads Serious Business Sports Politics Archive Pick 'ems
Log In Create Account

Senate Bill 5 Targets Collective Bargaining for Elimination!

Home ▸ Archive ▸ Politics ▸ Senate Bill 5 Targets Collective Bargaining for Elimination!
C

Con_Alma

Senior Member

12,198 posts
Feb 23, 2011 10:24 AM
wkfan

The challenge I see is that the people/taxpayers are willing to take less...that in general, the amount they are willing to pay is being provided and the amount and level of service the current funding delivers is what is being purchased.
Feb 23, 2011 10:24am
O-Trap's avatar

O-Trap

Chief Shenanigans Officer

14,994 posts
Feb 23, 2011 10:25 AM
wkfan;688316 wrote:Equal sacrifice......
This is, in essence, the beef many of us have with a unionized public sector. When the economy suffers, all employees should be equally subject to the potential of pay and benefit cuts ... equally subject to the sacrifice that comes when the money just isn't there. With an entity that strongarms districts to such a degree that its constituents get preferential treatment, special exception from feeling the effects of the economy, you're going to find that most people outside that constituency recognize the injustice of it.
Feb 23, 2011 10:25am
ernest_t_bass's avatar

ernest_t_bass

12th Son of the Lama

24,984 posts
Feb 23, 2011 10:25 AM
Con_Alma;688325 wrote:wkfan

The challenge I see is that the people/taxpayers are willing to take less...that in general, the amount they are willing to pay is being provided and the amount and level of service the current funding delivers is what is being purchased.

Tax payers won't be paying less.
Feb 23, 2011 10:25am
C

Con_Alma

Senior Member

12,198 posts
Feb 23, 2011 10:26 AM
ernest_t_bass;688329 wrote:Tax payers won't be paying less.

...nor did I state they would.
Feb 23, 2011 10:26am
ernest_t_bass's avatar

ernest_t_bass

12th Son of the Lama

24,984 posts
Feb 23, 2011 10:27 AM
Con_Alma;688332 wrote:...nor did I state they would.

Tax payers won't be paying less.

:D
Feb 23, 2011 10:27am
C

Con_Alma

Senior Member

12,198 posts
Feb 23, 2011 10:30 AM
Taxpayers want they level of service that they have currently agreed to fund. They do not want to provide more funds.
Feb 23, 2011 10:30am
T

teh awsum juan

Member

84 posts
Feb 23, 2011 10:30 AM
ernest_t_bass;688329 wrote:Tax payers won't be paying less.

not necessarily true - if my pay goes down, i'll be paying less in income tax sending less money to the general fund of whoever i'm paying. also, at a certain point, property values will decrease, i can get my home reassessed lowering the amount i pay in property taxes, lowering the amount school districts will get from a levy on my property. and of course, citizens are less likely to pass any sort of tax or levy increase that is put before them. yet, even if revenues are down, government entities have to pay employees agreed upon amounts, even if it is determined that mandated staffing levels are not necessary
Feb 23, 2011 10:30am
M

Manhattan Buckeye

Senior Member

7,566 posts
Feb 23, 2011 10:30 AM
"Sure, many tens of thousands of people have been laid off and many tens of thousands have had their salaries cut...."

Try millions, and perhaps tens of millions. My father-in-law is an exec at Honeywell, they had a 10% across the board salary cut for division managers initiated in '09, they might get it back this year. No bonuses.

My wife's company is actually doing relatively well and they got rid of the 401(k) match and bonuses were halved this year. Nearly all of my friends that are partners at larger law firms (Baker Botts, McGuire, Hunton, Bradley Arant, Dewey LeBouef, etc.) are receiving less in their draws than they were a couple of years ago. Several of them are actually making LESS now than they were before they were partners. My previous "biglaw" firm initiated 15% reductions in associate salary and managed to keep it under the radar for the most part - I think they may review that soon. The partners I am friendly with have taken a huge hit in comp.

And these are the fortunate ones, they are still drawing a paycheck. One of my closest friends was in-house counsel at Circuit City - everyone there got axed, the company doesn't exist anymore. He still hasn't found full-time work and it is going on two years.

If there is embellishment in jmog's post, it isn't much. In all honesty I do not know anyone in the private sector that has received a raise in the last two years. Probably 3/4 of people have taken pay cuts or lost their jobs.
Feb 23, 2011 10:30am
lhslep134's avatar

lhslep134

why so serious?

9,774 posts
Feb 23, 2011 10:31 AM
fan_from_texas;688279 wrote:I don't know who the best lawyers in the world are, but I do know and work with the best lawyers in the state. They are working pro bono, as required/suggested/mandated by the state bar. If they screw up, they get hit with malpractice claims just as if it were a paying client, so presumably they're doing a good job.

Okay so if your best lawyers and the state and I are both working side by side pro bono because it's mandated by the bar and mandated by my curriculum, you're going to get the same service?

No man, no way.
Feb 23, 2011 10:31am
O-Trap's avatar

O-Trap

Chief Shenanigans Officer

14,994 posts
Feb 23, 2011 10:33 AM
ernest_t_bass;688329 wrote:Tax payers won't be paying less.

Well, technically, they would, because in a down economy, the average employee makes less, and since taxes are on a percentage basis, a lower average income (or fewer tax payers within a district) equals less being paid.
Feb 23, 2011 10:33am
tsst_fballfan's avatar

tsst_fballfan

Senior Member

406 posts
Feb 23, 2011 10:34 AM
wkfan;688227 wrote:You are missing my point. The new regime is making a mandate with SB5 that the budget problems be solved on the backs of public workers.
That is incorrect. They are making a mandate that they should not be forced into financial obligations they can not fulfill due to lower revenue. And that the threat of shutting down the education system (strike) should not be a valid tool in forcing said unsustainable financial demands. Exactly what most unions are infamous for in recent history.

They no longer exist to make sure you are not forced to work too long of a day or to ensure your safety in the work place as they were founded to accomplish. They exist today as a strong-arm bargaining chip, 'give us what we want or we walk out'. When was the last time the major issue for teachers was that the school was forcing them to work 20 hour days? When was the last time the major issue was that the school was forcing teachers to work with hazardous materials with inadequate protection, etc, etc, etc. I would venture a very long time ago. The major issues now a days are more money, more benefits, more pension, aka money issues. When the money is not there something has to give.
wkfan;688227 wrote:I'm saying that the state government make a similar mandate stating that ALL contracts will be cut by 10% effective immediately....the trickle down of this mandated immediate 10% cut (not one negotiated at the end of a contract, etc). will spread the burden to those workers who get paid by taxpayers for those goods and services.
This already happens. Why do you think so many on here have alluded to the cut backs in the private sector? When the market slows companies adjust to survive. If that entails pay cuts then that is what betides.

The company I work for went from 75,000+ employees 8 years ago to approx 35,000 now. I do far far more now than I did then and have not received a pay increase in 3 years.
Feb 23, 2011 10:34am
O-Trap's avatar

O-Trap

Chief Shenanigans Officer

14,994 posts
Feb 23, 2011 10:36 AM
Con_Alma;688336 wrote:Taxpayers want they level of service that they have currently agreed to fund.
Playing fast 'n free with the word "agreed," aren't we?
lhslep134;688341 wrote:Okay so if your best lawyers and the state and I are both working side by side pro bono because it's mandated by the bar and mandated by my curriculum, you're going to get the same service?

No man, no way.

Again, he's comparing those lawyers with pay to those same lawyers without pay. Same person should put forth the same effort, even if pay is decrease (or pro bono if that applies). I think that's his point.
Feb 23, 2011 10:36am
G

Gblock

Feb 23, 2011 10:36 AM
O-Trap;688344 wrote:Well, technically, they would, because in a down economy, the average employee makes less, and since taxes are on a percentage basis, a lower average income (or fewer tax payers within a district) equals less being paid.

school district money is based on property taxes.....not income tax in ohio...not sure if police and fire are in that
Feb 23, 2011 10:36am
ernest_t_bass's avatar

ernest_t_bass

12th Son of the Lama

24,984 posts
Feb 23, 2011 10:38 AM
O-Trap;688344 wrote:Well, technically, they would, because in a down economy, the average employee makes less, and since taxes are on a percentage basis, a lower average income (or fewer tax payers within a district) equals less being paid.

Duh. When you make less money, you will obviously be paying less taxes. All you are doing is twisting it to fit your argument. Based on this new bill, the percentage of taxes that comes out of a taxpayers paycheck (regardless of amount) will not change.


Hurp, durp.
Feb 23, 2011 10:38am
W

wkfan

Senior Member

1,641 posts
Feb 23, 2011 10:38 AM
Manhattan Buckeye;688339 wrote:If there is embellishment in jmog's post, it isn't much. In all honesty I do not know anyone in the private sector that has received a raise in the last two years. Probably 3/4 of people have taken pay cuts or lost their jobs.
A couple of points....

First, I am speaking mostly about what is happening in the State of Ohio. Many (if not all, I'm not sure ;) ) of the examples that you are citing are national. Hence...my 'tens of thousands' comment.

Second, I did get a raise at my current employer after 2 years of no raise. This was mostly die to where I was in the pay grid that my company has for my position. I was being paid below the bottom amount for my job grade & current performance evaluation. I would never have known this had my manager not told me since those pay grids are not shared with employees in my private sector job. Isn't that interesting?
Feb 23, 2011 10:38am
O-Trap's avatar

O-Trap

Chief Shenanigans Officer

14,994 posts
Feb 23, 2011 10:39 AM
Gblock;688349 wrote:school district money is based on property taxes.....not income tax in ohio...not sure if police and fire are in that

Poo. Good call. I don't know where I was coming from.

Even still, with a down economy come problems in the housing market. In my area, at least, the bank seems to own half the property in the neighborhood, and there have been defaults/liens/etc. placed on half of those.
Feb 23, 2011 10:39am
J

jmog

Senior Member

6,567 posts
Feb 23, 2011 10:40 AM
Did I embellish some? Maybe since I said "everyone", but I can honestly say that everyone I know in a non-union public sector job either had pay freezes for the last couple years or pay cuts, OR BOTH (if they are lucky enough to have not been on the lay off list).

The private sector, for the most part, has had zero increases in the last 2 years, and most have gone through pay cuts.
Feb 23, 2011 10:40am
O-Trap's avatar

O-Trap

Chief Shenanigans Officer

14,994 posts
Feb 23, 2011 10:40 AM
ernest_t_bass;688355 wrote:Duh. When you make less money, you will obviously be paying less taxes. All you are doing is twisting it to fit your argument. Based on this new bill, the percentage of taxes that comes out of a taxpayers paycheck (regardless of amount) will not change.


Hurp, durp.
I'm not twisting anything, ETB. I didn't say the percentage would change. I said the AMOUNT would change.

But I was wrong anyway, which Gblock pointed out.
Feb 23, 2011 10:40am
tsst_fballfan's avatar

tsst_fballfan

Senior Member

406 posts
Feb 23, 2011 10:40 AM
Wow this thread is moving fast today.
Feb 23, 2011 10:40am
ernest_t_bass's avatar

ernest_t_bass

12th Son of the Lama

24,984 posts
Feb 23, 2011 10:40 AM
O-Trap;688360 wrote:I'm not twisting anything, ETB. I didn't say the percentage would change. I said the AMOUNT would change.

But I was wrong anyway, which Gblock pointed out.

Hurp, durp.
Feb 23, 2011 10:40am
O-Trap's avatar

O-Trap

Chief Shenanigans Officer

14,994 posts
Feb 23, 2011 10:41 AM
ernest_t_bass;688364 wrote:Hurp, durp.

Slurp, burp.
Feb 23, 2011 10:41am
dwccrew's avatar

dwccrew

Not Banned

7,817 posts
Feb 23, 2011 10:41 AM
ernest_t_bass;688333 wrote:Tax payers won't be paying less.

:D

They won't be paying more though. I'd rather the taxes stay the same then increase. In order for that to happen though, public sector employees will still have to take financial concessions.
Feb 23, 2011 10:41am
W

wkfan

Senior Member

1,641 posts
Feb 23, 2011 10:42 AM
O-Trap;688359 wrote:Even still, with a down economy come problems in the housing market. In my area, at least, the bank seems to own half the property in the neighborhood, and there have been defaults/liens/etc. placed on half of those.
...and yet, the Franklin County auditor appraised the tax basis of my home as having gone up approximately 9% last summer.

Hmmmmm
Feb 23, 2011 10:42am
C

Con_Alma

Senior Member

12,198 posts
Feb 23, 2011 10:42 AM
O-Trap;688348 wrote:Playing fast 'n free with the word "agreed," aren't we?



...
I accept that when we "agree" to abide by taxation through representation combined with taxes levied through majority vote that we as a society are in agreement enough for action to occur based on it. That's all.
Feb 23, 2011 10:42am
O-Trap's avatar

O-Trap

Chief Shenanigans Officer

14,994 posts
Feb 23, 2011 10:42 AM
wkfan;688369 wrote:...and yet, the Franklin County auditor appraised the tax basis of my home as having gone up approximately 9% last summer.

Hmmmmm

Glad Franklin County is looking better than Summit County ... or at least my part of it.
Feb 23, 2011 10:42am