Thanks for posting. I've been trying to tell people this for as long as I remember, but I'm always looked at as some crazy conspiracy theory loon. The numbers are out there, and they aren't on some fringe website, they are just hidden in federal documents.
Was not attacking at all. I asked a question based on your response to sleepers statement about the Union bosses paychecks, which is what they really want to protect not the masses.coach_bob1;703190 wrote:As I read it, he is refering to the situation if the referndum fails. I am not a public employee anymore. My wife is. I am secure enough in my wife's work quality and work ethic to know her job should not be in danger. She has received numerous federal accomidations for fraud busting in regard to people who are receiving disability payments and is viewed as a reference in her agency in regards to the mindset of people living with disabilities. So before you attack with your one-liners, you should understand that I see both sides of this situation.
Sobering indeed. But did you know........?
Oh, I'm aware. I'm just saying a better case could be made that way.LJ;703206 wrote:The state's constitution can still be changed though. That isn't a problem. We did it with Gambling. The problem would arise if it were a Federal court ruling, but obviously it is not.
Typically, the state will default to a group rate for that very reason. It's why companies do it, essentially. They make it good enough to be a competitive employer, but they do it by group to ensure they maximize the amount they save on a per-employee basis.coach_bob1;703209 wrote:O-Trap,
I think we may be on the same idea with minor differences. I favor merit-based pay as long as an objective standard is set. Part of the problem with the bill is that it just says "a wage or salary may be paid based upon merit" while it does not elaborate further. I am aware that elaborating further would turn this 475 page bill into thounds of pages. I also think public employees should be allowed to bargain as a group for insurance puposes due to the amount of money group rates actually save the state.
Footwedge;703445 wrote:Sobering indeed. But did you know........?
1. China has the second biggest annual military expense per annum behind the US.
2. China has 1.34 billion people to protect....the US has 1/4th that number to protect.
3. China's defense expendtiture totalled 260 billion last year...the US...over one trillion when complimentary departments are factored in.
4. That per capita expence is 16 times greater in the US....vs...China.
5. The US has 700 military bases outside of our borders.....China has none outside of her borders..
6. The US is actively engaged in war encompassing 3 countries....China is engaging in none.
If the US would reduce spending to the levl of the Chinese....then the national debt would read Zero...in 20 years.
Footwedge;703445 wrote:...
If the US would reduce spending to the levl of the Chinese....then the national debt would read Zero...in 20 years.
Footwedge;703445 wrote:Sobering indeed. But did you know........?
1. China has the second biggest annual military expense per annum behind the US.
2. China has 1.34 billion people to protect....the US has 1/4th that number to protect.
3. China's defense expendtiture totalled 260 billion last year...the US...over one trillion when complimentary departments are factored in.
4. That per capita expence is 16 times greater in the US....vs...China.
5. The US has 700 military bases outside of our borders.....China has none outside of her borders..
6. The US is actively engaged in war encompassing 3 countries....China is engaging in none.
If the US would reduce spending to the levl of the Chinese....then the national debt would read Zero...in 20 years.
You missed the part of my post citing the "complimentary" defense expenditures which are not listed as "defense" items. When these are included (Homeland security et al), then your total expenditure exceeds 1 trillion. There is no sugar coating this figure. Yes, I agree that defense spending is a Constitutional item. But nowhere in our Constitution does it speak of setting up shop in 141 other countries around the globe under the guise of peaceful missions. There is no boast of "empire" nor "hegemony" in our Constitution either.QuakerOats;703478 wrote:Actually the 2010 defense spending will be $719 billion out of $3.720 trillion, which is 19.3% of total spending. And this 19.3% of total spending compares with the average over the last 40 years of 23.2%; thus we spend less of our budget now on defense than we have averaged over the last 40 years. Also, defense spending as a percent of GDP will be 4.83% which is in line with the 40 year average of 4.9%. Given that defending the nation, and The People, is the one primary constitutional charge of the federal government, I find no problem with our current expenditures. That is not to say we cannot do a better job in that area, but let's be frank; avoiding the other 80% of the budget and hoping our problems go away is certainly not reasonable at all.
O-Trap;703452 wrote:Oh, I'm aware. I'm just saying a better case could be made that way.
Typically, the state will default to a group rate for that very reason. It's why companies do it, essentially. They make it good enough to be a competitive employer, but they do it by group to ensure they maximize the amount they save on a per-employee basis.
The problem with hard-line metrics in ANY company or industry is that the responsibilities, metrics, etc. are too varied to use a single evaluational base. Moreover, there are jobs which are quite necessary, but whose performance cannot be evaluated by clearly defined metrics (sales tiers, etc.).
It really can, and does, work without that though I completely understand the reservation. The bottom line, however, is that any employing entity today runs too great a risk of high turnover if they don't offer competitive compensation, ESPECIALLY to well-trained, educated professionals if they skimp too much on the compensation, even without a metric.
I do agree that there does need to be a metric, but I think the metric needs to be in place to evaluate the districts. If they are employing competent teachers, and these metrics are met, then they've done their job. At that point, the district is then under pressure to ensure good teachers are teaching, and that turnover is low, and in order for them to get good, long-term teachers, they'll need to be paying a fair wage.
http://www.plunderbund.com/2011/03/08/breaking-gop-replaces-member-of-commerce-and-labor-committee-to-ensure-sb5-passage/According to a house source, Republicans have on the first day of hearings replaced a member of the Commerce and Labor Committee in order to ensure passage of SB5. The makeup of the committee is 9-6 Republican. There are two freshman on the committee and what they are apparently doing is letting one freshman vote no to avoid electoral fallout, but they can’t let two people vote no or SB5 will not make it out.
Ross W. McGregor (OH-72) is being replaced by William P. Coley, II (OH-55). They’ve actually already updated the committee website to include Coley and omit McGregor.
This is now the third committee that the GOP has had to rig in order to get SB5 to pass. This is wholly unprecedented to have to jury rig 3 committees to save a bill – especially given a sizable majority!
sleeper;703755 wrote:This happens all the time in politics. I'm glad they are doing it, anything to get this thing passed.
QuakerOats;703789 wrote:Simply reversing the Dick Celeste union-machine tactics employed in 1983, which started all this nonsense to begin with, and has not only broken us financially but nearly ruined education. We can do SO MUCH BETTER; get on with it.
coach_bob1;703091 wrote:The court has the right to overrule itself. The legislature does not have the right to overrule the court.
Writerbuckeye;703831 wrote: It is my belief that if all that information is put before Ohio's populace, public unions will become a thing of the past in Ohio.
ernest_t_bass;703054 wrote:The numbers that I have given (previously... somewhere on here) are a worst case scenario, and it is based on 100% factual numbers. Based on percentages that have been stated by the STRS, Govt., etc., that would be my worst case scenario... $700 per month.
Now, there are a TON of different things that could be different. Cost of health care, percentage BOE's are allowed to pay towards HC, percentage BOE's are allowed to pay toward pension, etc.
One thing, however, is that pension will be tricky. The private sector pays a into SS at 7.2%, and their employers match it. Apparently, under Ohio law, teachers HAVE to pay into STRS, and can't choose an alternative. (Don't quote me, heard it from another teacher who has been paying closer attention to this stuff) So, with STRS changes, 28% of salary MUST be paid into retirement. Teachers would have paid 14% and BOE's pay 14%. If BOE's are no longer allowed, then apparently by law, teachers would HAVE to pay 28% towards pension. To me, that is just wrong. Especially the fact that public employers don't have to match their private employer counterparts by contributing 7.2%. It also bothers me that, apparently under law, I won't be able to withdrawal my money and invest it how I see fit.
Can anyone honestly tell me that doing so would be "right?" (Us HAVING to pay 28% towards pension, no ifs, ands, or buts)
ernest_t_bass;703088 wrote:It is WORST CASE SCENARIO! I don't even know if it is even possible to get to that.
Put it on the ballot, it will get pulverized. Yeah, 350,000 union (I'm assuming overall private and public) members against millions of Ohio voters.coach_bob1;703140 wrote:Never said they weren't. I said I believe the issue is important enough and effects enough citizens that it should be decided by the general public. And with an estimated 350,000 union members affected and only 232,000 signatures needed to put it on the ballot, it is very possible that it will be.
coach_bob1;703168 wrote:So a significant number of people exercising their political power by following the rules that have been set forth and submitting a petition causing a law to be voted on by the general public is "usurping power" but a smaller group of people crfeating a law that will affect every citizen in the State of Ohio except themselves are completely correct?
ccrunner609;704205 wrote:Here is what is going on with the numerous school districts that I have heard about this past month, 3 districts in our area have negotiated a 3 year contract with 0% pay increase over 3 years, a increase of up to 5% on insurance and with the STRS changing their employee contributionsup to 13% over the next few years, all these teachers are losing10% of their paycheck.
Now all these districts are negotiating this type of contract with the pay freezes because districts arent gonna pay out all the new money cause if SB 5 passes they are gonna screw alot of hard working highly educated middle clas workers.
I'm looking at it right now. Here's the quick summary:Gblock;704656 wrote:looks like its not taking long for kasich to come after private sector as well...HB 61 check it out...
dwccrew;704217 wrote:Again, where are these WORST CASE scenarios coming from? Please provide a credible link and not what another teacher told you.
dwccrew;704217 wrote: Put it on the ballot, it will get pulverized. Yeah, 350,000 union (I'm assuming overall private and public) members against millions of Ohio voters.
Sounds great to meCenterBHSFan;704668 wrote:I'm looking at it right now. Here's the quick summary:
Laws, Acts, and Legislation
- Permits some private employers to award compensatory time off in lieu of monetary overtime compensation to their employees, subject to the consent of the employee and other specified conditions.
- Prohibits private employers from: (1) interfering with the employee's rights to request or not request compensatory time off in lieu of monetary payment for overtime and (2) requiring their employees to accept compensatory time off in lieu of monetary payment for overtime.
- Establishes civil and criminal penalties for violations of the bill's provisions.
I'm not confused, I am asking you to provide proof of your claims. You say that it was in the original bill, but the original bill was not passed. It has been revised and re-written. So your claims, while possibly being true, look like arbitrary numbers to me at the moment.ernest_t_bass;704679 wrote:It's based on percentages.
Health Care:
I currently pay 10% ($110 per month). Could go up to 20% of total cost ($220 per month).
Pension:
Now - I pay 10%, BOE pays 14% (of salary)
Next Year - I pay 14%, BOE pays 14%
Could (possibly) be - I pay 28%
That is what the bill originally stated. Those numbers can be different, and scenarios could be WAY different. But that is the worst that they wanted to do, so the is my worst case scenario. I didn't think I was explaining something that was that confusing to understand. I apologize.
coach_bob1;704683 wrote:Actually, that 350,000 is Public union members only. Don't forget about their spouses, voting-age children, friends, pivate union members, and almost every democrat in the state. Depending on when it would go to a vote (Nov 2011 or Nov 2012), it could be repealed.