dwccrew;704707 wrote: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.
CenterBHSFan;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.
Gblock;704714 wrote:Thompson stressed that picking compensatory time over overtime would be purely voluntary for the worker. But Frederick Gittes, a Columbus lawyer and former president of the National Employment Lawyers Association, said the bill provides no consequence for an employer who retaliates against a worker who refuses to accept compensatory time.
"If there is no recourse, what employee is going to refuse a request by a small-business owner?" Gittes asked, noting that workers could not sue for back pay or reinstatement if they were fired for refusing to give up overtime.
Thompson said the bill has strong requirements and penalties to prevent employee abuse. But Gittes said those are criminal penalties, and prosecutors almost always consider these issues to be civil matters.
Overtime is paid at time-and-a-half for any hour worked in excess of 40 a week. The bill as originally drafted would have given compensatory time at that rate, but it was changed yesterday to a 1-to-1 ratio. Five hours of overtime work would mean five hours of compensatory time.
Rep. Ted Celeste, D-Grandview Heights, said the proposal should have been left at 1.5 hours of compensatory time for every hour of overtime.
ernest_t_bass;704713 wrote:They are arbitrary. But they are factual numbers, based on percentages. If those percentages were to go through (which they won't) that would be my scenario. I'm not sweating it... yet.
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.
What needs to happen is that the districts need to buy insurance plans that cost about half of what they now offer --- i.e. the cadillac plans need to go; there is no reason to buy a family plan that costs $24,000, when the private sector generally offers family coverage for $12,000. Thus, even if your % contribution were to double, it would actually not change in terms of dollars outlayed because the plan would cost half as much. Yes, you would have some deductibles and co-pays along the way (just like the rest of us), but it more directly puts the users of the plan on the hook for some of these up front costs, just as it should.ernest_t_bass;704713 wrote:They are arbitrary. But they are factual numbers, based on percentages. If those percentages were to go through (which they won't) that would be my scenario. I'm not sweating it... yet.
dwccrew;704707 wrote:
So you speak for all those people? Not every democrat agrees with public sector unions. Not every friend of public union members agree with public unions. Not every spouse does and not every adult child of a public union member does. Hell, I am a private union member and I would vote against a repeal! As I said, it would be voted down. The voters voted in a legislation and governor that hinted towards implementing this, why would they vote for a repeal if it was on the ballot? Keep dreaming though....
Skyhook79;704726 wrote:So pretty much the same people that voted in the 2010 Governor's race?
QuakerOats;704727 wrote:What needs to happen is that the districts need to buy insurance plans that cost about half of what they now offer --- i.e. the cadillac plans need to go; there is no reason to buy a family plan that costs $24,000, when the private sector generally offers family coverage for $12,000. Thus, even if your % contribution were to double, it would actually not change in terms of dollars outlayed because the plan would cost half as much. Yes, you would have some deductibles and co-pays along the way (just like the rest of us), but it more directly puts the users of the plan on the hook for some of these up front costs, just as it should.
If I were the dictator-in-charge, I would offer health plans that cost half as much as is now offered, I would double the employee contribution % which means no increase in their dollars contributed, and I would give them a $2,000 dollar raise to get buy in. All told, the district would save $10,000 per employee on just health care alone. Then we can start to look pensions etc....etc.....
If you didn't Vote then imo you do not have any reason/right to complain.Gblock;704731 wrote:i think some people who voted for kasich didnt see this coming...ie the fireman on the news yesterday in tears cause he voted for kasich...i think others like myself who didnt vote last time will now vote against...others who also didnt vote will vote now to support the bill obviously
sleeper;703755 wrote:This happens all the time in politics. I'm glad they are doing it, anything to get this thing passed.
Gblock;704731 wrote:i think some people who voted for kasich didnt see this coming...ie the fireman on the news yesterday in tears cause he voted for kasich...i think others like myself who didnt vote last time will now vote against...others who also didnt vote will vote now to support the bill obviously
Skyhook79;704739 wrote:If you didn't Vote then imo you do not have any reason/right to complain.
None of that seems unreasonable, except maybe the unmatched 28% into the pension. Not that I think a match is a fundamental right for employees, but given the nature of the teaching profession, I think something comparable to the structure I've had in the past would be reasonable (this is the best I've ever had), in which the BOE would match you dollar-for-dollar for the first 5%, and match 50 cents on the dollar for the next 5%. That would mean a max of you paying 10% and the BOE paying 7.5%. A total of 17.5%, which I really don't think is that unreasonable.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.
exactly no one cared when the economy was strong and every one was making way more than public employees. for years these total compensation packages were deemed extremely fair..now its being painted that union thugs bullied the community GTFO...I have a friend who made 93000 a year from 2000-2006 working for CHASE ...he didnt even graduate High school. now that the bubble is burst they talk about public and private being equal. it has never been equal before. i have no facts for that just my personal experience like those on the other side of the argument like to give as evidence.ernest_t_bass;704752 wrote:I keep hearing, "like the rest of us," which I understand completely. Now, this is said completely tongue/cheek, but when the economy goes down, the public sector should feel the hurt, just "like the rest of us," correct?
Does that mean that, if the economy is booming, and everyone is getting bonuses, that public sector employees should get some of the private sector's bonuses? Or does this method only go one way?
If the money is there, and the performance of the teacher warrants it, I say hell yes. Give them a nice bonus in proportion to the economic upswing.ernest_t_bass;704752 wrote:I keep hearing, "like the rest of us," which I understand completely. Now, this is said completely tongue/cheek, but when the economy goes down, the public sector should feel the hurt, just "like the rest of us," correct?
Does that mean that, if the economy is booming, and everyone is getting bonuses, that public sector employees should get some of the private sector's bonuses? Or does this method only go one way?
O-Trap;704800 wrote:If the money is there, and the performance of the teacher warrants it, I say hell yes. Give them a nice bonus in proportion to the economic upswing.
I would be very surprised to ever see any bonus provisions in a teacher salary grid, schedule or whatever it will be called in the future.O-Trap;704800 wrote:If the money is there, and the performance of the teacher warrants it, I say hell yes. Give them a nice bonus in proportion to the economic upswing.
Gblock;704731 wrote:i think some people who voted for kasich didnt see this coming...ie the fireman on the news yesterday in tears cause he voted for kasich...i think others like myself who didnt vote last time will now vote against...others who also didnt vote will vote now to support the bill obviously
Trust me, if I distributed 100% of any bonus I get evenly to even all the teachers in my district, it would be a surprising letdown ... especially after the nasty taxes that usually gouge a bonus.ernest_t_bass;704811 wrote:No... some of YOUR bonus!
It wouldn't be that difficult if the means of paying for education was structured differently.wkfan;704812 wrote:I would be very surprised to ever see any bonus provisions in a teacher salary grid, schedule or whatever it will be called in the future.
I understand how it could be done....I just sincerely doubt that a bonus will everbe a pazrt of teacher compensation.O-Trap;704829 wrote:It wouldn't be that difficult if the means of paying for education was structured differently.
One could conceive of a portion of bonuses going toward such funding ... meaning the bigger the bonus of any taxed individual, the bigger the bonus amount able to be allocated toward rewarding the best teachers.
However, most of us who have a bonus as even an option are pretty sick of how sizeably it is taxed already.
O-Trap;704793 wrote:Not that I think a match is a fundamental right for employees,