http://www.dispatchpolitics.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2011/03/06/copy/taxpayer-benefit.html?adsec=politics&sid=101

Central Ohio's largest government entities would have spent about $74 million less on employees' health-care and pension benefits last year if Senate Bill 5 had been in effect.

Paying the cost instead of taxpayers would have been workers for central Ohio's seven county governments, their county seats and the region's seven largest school districts. In 2010, those 21 employers had about 37,400 workers.

Nice article by the Dispatch. One of the few I've seen where they actually talk about the effects of the bill. I hope they continue with this kind of coverage.

And what exactly is Ohio going to do with all that money they plan to save? Has anyone come out and said specifically what will be done?

stlouiedipalma;701647 wrote:And what exactly is Ohio going to do with all that money they plan to save? Has anyone come out and said specifically what will be done?

Hopefully lower taxes. Didn't Kasich say during his campaign he wanted to eliminate the state income tax?

There you go again. Let's cut the budget and lower the revenue coming in. Then in a few more years, as you still can't balance the budget, you cut even more. I suppose eventually there won't be any government services available in Ohio. Good luck with that.

Let me predict right here that the only taxes that will be lowered in Ohio will be corporate taxes.

dwccrew;701651 wrote:Hopefully lower taxes. Didn't Kasich say during his campaign he wanted to eliminate the state income tax?

they certainly arent going to lower your taxes ........EVER.

stlouiedipalma;702094 wrote:There you go again. Let's cut the budget and lower the revenue coming in. Then in a few more years, as you still can't balance the budget, you cut even more. I suppose eventually there won't be any government services available in Ohio. Good luck with that.

Let me predict right here that the only taxes that will be lowered in Ohio will be corporate taxes.

1. States need to outsource a ton of services to the private sector. So, yeah, cut the state.
2. Lower taxes only for companies than invest in actual heavy infrastructure and services to the state. Reward a company for bringing in that extra plant or office building with a lower tax rate. But, if not, keep the tax rates the same.

ptown_trojans_1;702126 wrote:1. States need to outsource a ton of services to the private sector. So, yeah, cut the state.
2. Lower taxes only for companies than invest in actual heavy infrastructure and services to the state. Reward a company for bringing in that extra plant or office building with a lower tax rate. But, if not, keep the tax rates the same.

Agreed. Our incentive package is not that great. I live on the Indiana border, and we've been passed up quite a few times by companies, and they go to Indiana b/c of their better incentive package. We had a home town guy, had a business in our town, that chose to build a new plant in Indiana b/c of better incentive packages and tax structure. Economy went to poop, so they closed their Ohio plant and moved to Indiana. We've had quite a few factories move out of our town to go to other states where they have other plants. Sucks.

ccrunner609;700078 wrote:So this is your experience......not most people. i am sure that when you are talking about your job with others you quote your total package huh?

From an employee's perspective, the only day-to-day monetary aspect they see is the salary.

From the perspective of the person who pays the employees (in the case of a public employee, read "taxpayers"), total compensation is what they're paying for, so like I said, the total compensation package is what matters to them, because it's the all-inclusive metric for which they're paying.

I'd be willing to bet that everyone here actually thinks of the total compensation package as being of great importance, and that salary is not all that matters. Otherwise, offering compensation that was exclusively salary would be a more popular idea.

But if I'm paying for an employee, I'm not just paying his salary. I'm paying into his 401k (so long as he's also contributing), I'm covering at least a couple kinds of insurance, I'm potentially paying for training, I'm eating the cost of integrating him into the infrastructure (as many employees are not fully competent or up to speed their first day), and I'm paying for other perks as well (Ohio teachers, for example, can get discounts on their cell phone bills with some providers ... paid for through the respective governing entity ... by the public).

So when you're not the employee, but you're contributing a percentage of the compensation TO the employee, you don't care as much about their salary as you do the overall cost to employ them ... most of which is included in the total compensation package, which is why it's much more relevant in this discussion that just a salary.

O-Trap;702293 wrote:From an employee's perspective, the only day-to-day monetary aspect they see is the salary.

From the perspective of the person who pays the employees (in the case of a public employee, read "taxpayers"), total compensation is what they're paying for, so like I said, the total compensation package is what matters to them, because it's the all-inclusive metric for which they're paying.

I'd be willing to bet that everyone here actually thinks of the total compensation package as being of great importance, and that salary is not all that matters. Otherwise, offering compensation that was exclusively salary would be a more popular idea.

Which, I believe, this thread started out comparing...until it didn't fit someone's argument and then it was changed to 'total compensation'

O-Trap;702293 wrote:But if I'm paying for an employee, I'm not just paying his salary. I'm paying into his 401k (so long as he's also contributing), I'm covering at least a couple kinds of insurance, I'm potentially paying for training, I'm eating the cost of integrating him into the infrastructure (as many employees are not fully competent or up to speed their first day.....

How is this different than a private sector employee?? Don't you think that the cost of a GM employee's salary, bonus, 401(K) match, insurance, training and 'integrating him into the infrastructure' are not covered within the price of your GM car??

O-Trap;702293 wrote:....and I'm paying for other perks as well (Ohio teachers, for example, can get discounts on their cell phone bills with some providers ... paid for through the respective governing entity ... by the public.

Really??? then you have absolutely no concept of marketing. Companies such as Verizon offer my company an 'employee discount' on a cell phone package...and you think my company pays for that?? Really???

No, Verizon does in order to attract customers. Period.

It works the same way with public sector entities.

LJ;700993 wrote:http://www.dispatchpolitics.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2011/03/06/copy/taxpayer-benefit.html?adsec=politics&sid=101

Neither Columbus State or The Ohio State University is expected to save any, any, not one penny, in savings in these areas under SB 5! In fact, only four out of the twenty-one government entities surveyed is projected to see savings at or above 1% of the total budget under these two provisions. And buried in the Dispatch’s article is an acknowledgment that many of these “savings” under SB 5 are entirely illusory:

Even if Senate Bill 5 took effect, the city might not see the pension savings because unions would seek higher pay to offset losing the benefit, said Jim Gilbert, president of the city’s police union. The city agreed to pay employees’ share of pensions instead of raising pay in past years, he said, so it’s only fair that the city offer more pay if state law strips away officers’ pension benefit.

In South-Western schools, the district picks up the pension contributions for about 100 administrators, worth a total of about $1million. The perk is something that administrators have negotiated little by little for the past 15 years, mostly instead of larger pay raises, said Treasurer Hugh Garside.

What the district will do with any pension savings as a result of Senate Bill 5 hasn’t been discussed, Garside said.

"That’s a decision the district will have to make," he said, but returning some of the money to salaries "would be an option."

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

wkfan;702302 wrote:Which, I believe, this thread started out comparing...until it didn't fit someone's argument and then it was changed to 'total compensation'



How is this different than a private sector employee?? Don't you think that the cost of a GM employee's salary, bonus, 401(K) match, insurance, training and 'integrating him into the infrastructure' are not covered within the price of your GM car??



Really??? then you have absolutely no concept of marketing. Companies such as Verizon offer my company an 'employee discount' on a cell phone package...and you think my company pays for that?? Really???

No, Verizon does in order to attract customers. Period.

It works the same way with public sector entities.

i get a discount with sprint but its just like any large group they want to attract your business because of your numbers. they can give you a lower price because you have strength in numbers.
same with the insurance the reason they pay less than private sector is because they get a better deal by bargaining together. that coupled with the fact that they are in general healthier overall than the general public from an insurance standpoint(ie less smokers)gets them a better deal than other private sector companies with fewer employees. the taxpayers have nothing to do with a discount on a cellphone bill. in fact anyone can call up and get the discount really. it isnt like they check.

wkfan;702302 wrote:Which, I believe, this thread started out comparing...until it didn't fit someone's argument and then it was changed to 'total compensation'

That may be. Make no mistake, if the total compensation package is too expensive, the salary is looked at, but otherwise, it's not an issue.

I think that's why salary has been addressed here, though maybe not by all.

wkfan;702302 wrote:How is this different than a private sector employee?? Don't you think that the cost of a GM employee's salary, bonus, 401(K) match, insurance, training and 'integrating him into the infrastructure' are not covered within the price of your GM car??

Oh it functions very much in the same way. The big difference between the public and private? I'm not forced to buy from GM if I think those costs are extravagant.

wkfan;702302 wrote:Really??? then you have absolutely no concept of marketing.

Eh, suppose I'm wrong. Doesn't that seem quite a logical leap? I'm not suggesting a company wouldn't do it (though you certainly seem to be assuming I am). I've worked plenty in the Cost-Per-Acquisition space, which typically pays out on the front end greater than it grosses on that front end (sometimes many times over). I'm familiar with the strategy, and I know that companies do it because they know how to monetize their backend well enough to net out in the long run.

As such, I'm not suggesting a cellular provider doesn't cover it because they would lose money by covering it. I'm saying that when I worked in the cellular industry, the corporations (at least the ones whose agreements I observed) contributed in the cases I remember (admittedly just a couple from 2007 or so).

If not all of them do, then I beg your pardon for giving an example of one who does in a discussion regarding one who doesn't. I was in error saying that, if that's the case.

However, to suggest that I know nothing about marketing (despite the fact that my day job is a marketing position, and my self-owned business is a successful marketing business) based on that is ... a bit of a stretch, wouldn't you say?

wkfan;702302 wrote:Companies such as Verizon offer my company an 'employee discount' on a cell phone package...and you think my company pays for that?? Really???

No, Verizon does in order to attract customers. Period.

It works the same way with public sector entities.

If Verizon does that with some employers, that's fantastic, and it's not hard to see how it would be profitable. I'm not going to harp on this point. If you're right, then you're right. Doesn't really change the point, though. The employer still views an employee's compensation as a complete compensation, which is why using it in this sense is less a partisan or convenience issue than it's being made out to be by some.

Companies evaluate, based on projected income and evaluating their fixed, base, and ancillary costs, what they can afford to pay for each employee, not as a salary, but as a total compensation package. If the would-be employee demands more than the company can afford, they don't stay an employee there.

If the company is forced to bend to the whims of the employees, even past the point of covering their costs and netting zero, then you end up in debt. If you don't make up those losses, but instead you continue into debt, you end up having to file for bankruptcy, or at the very least, you end up having to shrink your business in an attempt for your gross profits to gain ground on your expenses.

An employing institution should not, however, be forced to pay employees past the point of netting zero, though. Would you not agree?

Gblock;702326 wrote:it isnt like they check.

Actually, if you go in to sign up, I believe you need a paystub at the very least. If you do it via the web, I believe you need a corporate email address, which can only be used once per account I believe.

They don't continue to monitor, though, so if you leave your job, you can usually continue with the discount.

O-Trap;702331 wrote:Actually, if you go in to sign up, I believe you need a paystub at the very least. If you do it via the web, I believe you need a corporate email address, which can only be used once per account I believe.

They don't continue to monitor, though, so if you leave your job, you can usually continue with the discount.

last time i called i told them like 5 different jobs to see the better discount i bet you could get a discount with your current/job business just for asking and wording your job correctly

Gblock;702334 wrote:last time i called i told them like 5 different jobs to see the better discount i bet you could get a discount with your current/job business just for asking and wording your job correctly

Huh! Interesting to say the least. Didn't used to be able to even sign up over the phone.

Maybe I'm further behind on practices there than I think.

O-Trap;702338 wrote:Huh! Interesting to say the least. Didn't used to be able to even sign up over the phone.

Maybe I'm further behind on practices there than I think.

not sign up for new service but just call your company and ask what employee discounts they have that you may have not been aware of

Gblock;702371 wrote:not sign up for new service but just call your company and ask what employee discounts they have that you may have not been aware of

I might have to. I have the current discount for my level, but I'm going to have to do that.

ccrunner609;702402 wrote:Right now I stand to lose 10% of my income the next 3 years.......more into the state retirement and alot more for insurance. Does that make all of you happy?

Of course not. Nobody wants to lose money, and those of us who already have know what that feels like.

What makes people happy and what is reality are not always congruous though. If someone advocates for nobody to be sheltered from a down-turned economy, that doesn't mean they are cackling maniacally and rubbing their hands together when someone sees the misfortune of our times. They can sympathize rather often. If they cannot, it's because of something along the way being able to maintain in a down market, but that places the responsibility on the company, the department, the team, the individual, etc. It's not, and should not, be done as a result of those who have felt that burden being forced to maintain their contributions (as flat amounts).

If a whole district, on average, sees a 10% loss in wage from one year to the next (which is pretty common right now), the percentage they were paying isn't going to work out to be the same amount. However, in order for the tax-paid staff to maintain the same wage, it would have to be. Thus, when the economy goes down, the average income is going to go down with it, and the money to maintain someone's tax-paid wage isn't going to be there. At that point, even a pay freeze doesn't help.

I feel your pain, CC. I took quite a hit just a few weeks into my new job (more than 10% to my salary). It's awful, and I don't like to see anyone go through it.

But I also know that I can make it through it, and that others can as well. As such, I don't think anyone has a justification for getting a freebie, no matter what their occupation and no matter who is lobbying for them.

I hope you find ways to adjust, CC. Things will get better, but in the meantime, weathering the financial winter can be tough.

I have changed my major as a result of this bill

This bill is a massive trainwreck and will do NOTHING but make this worse in the state of Ohio

Then you didn't want to be a teacher in the first place.

I've always wanted to be a teacher...it's the only thing I ever considered majoring in

But with this and my local school district cutting teachers to spend the money on sports,it makes no sense to become a teacher

I'm happy with my new major

ccrunner609;702402 wrote:Right now I stand to lose 10% of my income the next 3 years.......more into the state retirement and alot more for insurance. Does that make all of you happy?

Be happy you still have a job as I would think gym teachers aren't exactly high on the priority list.

And normally, I would feel your pain and give you sympathy for your situation, but after seeing the amount of ignorance and arrogance being spewed from the pro-Union crowd, I'd be lying if I wasn't a tab bit happy about it.

Ty Webb;702460 wrote:I've always wanted to be a teacher...it's the only thing I ever considered majoring in

But with this and my local school district cutting teachers to spend the money on sports,it makes no sense to become a teacher

I'm happy with my new major

I really doubt that a school cut teachers to specifically allocate that money for sports. Feel free to prove me wrong.

What I meant was, if a change in the way pay is allocated in a career field (that will not necessarily mean you'd be paid less) is enough to make you abandon it forever then perhaps you weren't all that fond of the career in the first place.

ccrunner609;702603 wrote:Let me remind you that taking over a $6,000 a year loss and paying $1200 to renew my liscense by taking college classes dont sit well. If you devalue my job then dont make me take more classes

Negotiate it and see how far it goes while others will continue to pay and renew their licenses.