Senate Bill 5 Targets Collective Bargaining for Elimination!

Home ▸ Archive ▸ Politics ▸ Senate Bill 5 Targets Collective Bargaining for Elimination!
BRF's avatar

BRF

Senior Member

8,748 posts
Apr 14, 2011 6:25 PM
derek bomar;741571 wrote:well it won't be appealed while he's in office...so...might be a while.

How's that?

Good evening, everyone. I thought I'd drop by and get torched some more for saying that SB5 is a piece of crap legislation. Let's see, reflecting back, I was called "worthless", made fun of for typing a comment in a colloquial manner, told that saying it's union busting and yanking the carpet out was ridiculous and I should not listen to the union spewing but make my own decisions.

Question: Why is it so hard to understand the balking and dragging of heels by people in my profession? If the private sector "intellects" posting on this thread went into their profession with the hopes of a great retirement plan and then had it all changed when they were nearing it, would they not gripe about it?

BTW; I found the Wenzel survey results quite interesting.
Apr 14, 2011 6:25pm
G

Gblock

Apr 14, 2011 6:30 PM
BRF;741596 wrote:How's that?

Good evening, everyone. I thought I'd drop by and get torched some more for saying that SB5 is a piece of crap legislation. Let's see, reflecting back, I was called "worthless", made fun of for typing a comment in a colloquial manner, told that saying it's union busting and yanking the carpet out was ridiculous and I should not listen to the union spewing but make my own decisions.

Question: Why is it so hard to understand the balking and dragging of heels by people in my profession? If the private sector "intellects" posting on this thread went into their profession with the hopes of a great retirement plan and then had it all changed when they were nearing it, would they not gripe about it?

BTW; I found the Wenzel survey results quite interesting.
i think that that might be true..i remember reading something about because certain items are attached to the budget, it wouldnt be able to be voted on for like 4 years...just spitballing there but i think i have heard people saying that before.

btw we are voting on a two year contract today...i didnt hear anything about the details nor did i go to the meeting at 430 but we could have a contract very soon. ill post when i hear
Apr 14, 2011 6:30pm
W

WebFire

Go Bucks!

14,779 posts
Apr 14, 2011 6:45 PM
BRF;741596 wrote:How's that?

Good evening, everyone. I thought I'd drop by and get torched some more for saying that SB5 is a piece of crap legislation. Let's see, reflecting back, I was called "worthless", made fun of for typing a comment in a colloquial manner, told that saying it's union busting and yanking the carpet out was ridiculous and I should not listen to the union spewing but make my own decisions.

Question: Why is it so hard to understand the balking and dragging of heels by people in my profession? If the private sector "intellects" posting on this thread went into their profession with the hopes of a great retirement plan and then had it all changed when they were nearing it, would they not gripe about it?

BTW; I found the Wenzel survey results quite interesting.
First of all, I think we determined your retirement wasn't changing, correct? And that even for newcomers, their retirement is far better than the private sector's options.

Second, just because you joined it that way, doesn't mean it was right and should stay that way. Should we continue making our schools poor or keep raising taxes so you can have a cushy retirement plan? WE DON"T HAVE THE MONEY! Why is that hard to understand?
Apr 14, 2011 6:45pm
BRF's avatar

BRF

Senior Member

8,748 posts
Apr 14, 2011 7:07 PM
And....here we go! Is it all right with you if I protest the change? Or do you and your ilk just want me to shut my mouth and take it?
Apr 14, 2011 7:07pm
Writerbuckeye's avatar

Writerbuckeye

Senior Member

4,745 posts
Apr 14, 2011 8:33 PM
Protest all you like -- but ignoring the economics that brought about this legislation and claiming union busting (while ignoring a system that can't be sustained) comes across as disingenuous, just so you know. :)

If there weren't egregious examples all over the place as to how public unions have created a huge economic strain on local and state governments (not just Ohio, but elsewhere), you might have more credibility when you say this was only about destroying the union, and not about providing governments with tools to survive.

I have yet to have one discussion with any anti-SB5 person who can refute the economics of public employee unions and the strain they've put on our system...and the clear examples that it is an economic system that could not be sustained for much longer without very dramatic changes, much like we're seeing with SB5.

All I've heard from those folks is the angst about personal hardships the bill will cause, and foolish rhetoric about how the bill is an attack on the middle class (classic Alinsky rhetoric, by the way) when, in fact, it's the middle class that has to foot most of the bill for a system that is unsustainable. While some of the personal stories are compelling on their own level, they are not compelling arguments to keep a system that has all but brought some government entities to bankruptcy.

But please, protest away.
Apr 14, 2011 8:33pm
dwccrew's avatar

dwccrew

Not Banned

7,817 posts
Apr 14, 2011 8:35 PM
BRF;741628 wrote:And....here we go! Is it all right with you if I protest the change? Or do you and your ilk just want me to shut my mouth and take it?

Shut your mouth and take it!








Just kidding. You have every right to protest, but don't be so sensitive when others don't agree with you on this situation. You come off as extremely sensitive. Whining about how someone called you worthless, said your claims of the carpet being pulled out were ridiculous, correcting your grammar (which I think was in a joking manner). It's a hot button issue and people are passionate on both sides. Protest all you want, but don't be so freaking sensitive. This is an internet message board.
Apr 14, 2011 8:35pm
derek bomar's avatar

derek bomar

Senior Member

3,722 posts
Apr 14, 2011 8:53 PM
i mean repealed, whoops
Apr 14, 2011 8:53pm
BRF's avatar

BRF

Senior Member

8,748 posts
Apr 14, 2011 9:11 PM
dwccrew;741670 wrote:Shut your mouth and take it!








Just kidding. You have every right to protest, but don't be so sensitive when others don't agree with you on this situation. You come off as extremely sensitive. Whining about how someone called you worthless, said your claims of the carpet being pulled out were ridiculous, correcting your grammar (which I think was in a joking manner). It's a hot button issue and people are passionate on both sides. Protest all you want, but don't be so freaking sensitive. This is an internet message board.

Thank you for the lecture. It's rich.
Apr 14, 2011 9:11pm
ernest_t_bass's avatar

ernest_t_bass

12th Son of the Lama

24,984 posts
Apr 15, 2011 8:48 AM
Writerbuckeye;741667 wrote:Protest all you like -- but ignoring the economics that brought about this legislation and claiming union busting (while ignoring a system that can't be sustained) comes across as disingenuous, just so you know. :)

If there weren't egregious examples all over the place as to how public unions have created a huge economic strain on local and state governments (not just Ohio, but elsewhere), you might have more credibility when you say this was only about destroying the union, and not about providing governments with tools to survive.

I have yet to have one discussion with any anti-SB5 person who can refute the economics of public employee unions and the strain they've put on our system...and the clear examples that it is an economic system that could not be sustained for much longer without very dramatic changes, much like we're seeing with SB5.

All I've heard from those folks is the angst about personal hardships the bill will cause, and foolish rhetoric about how the bill is an attack on the middle class (classic Alinsky rhetoric, by the way) when, in fact, it's the middle class that has to foot most of the bill for a system that is unsustainable. While some of the personal stories are compelling on their own level, they are not compelling arguments to keep a system that has all but brought some government entities to bankruptcy.

But please, protest away.

Each localized union is at fault, and should be accountable to their own district. That being said, the school boards and supers should be held accountable for agreeing to the terms. My district has run a surplus since fiscal year 2007 (constant, never falling below previous year). We do things right, and here is our current contract:

- Family insurance: Employee pays 10% of it
- Single insurance: Board picks up 100%
- Pension: Board 14%, Employee 10% (will now be AT LEAST 12%/12% split)

We run a surplus. My union is not to blame. We work well with our BOE and super.

Edit:

We are roughly (close to) $5,000,000 in the black.
Apr 15, 2011 8:48am
CenterBHSFan's avatar

CenterBHSFan

333 - I'm only half evil

6,115 posts
Apr 15, 2011 8:49 AM
BRF;741691 wrote:Thank you for the lecture. It's rich.

I thought it was a very middle class lecture lol! (bad joke, yes)
Apr 15, 2011 8:49am
O-Trap's avatar

O-Trap

Chief Shenanigans Officer

14,994 posts
Apr 15, 2011 9:29 AM
BRF;741596 wrote:If the private sector "intellects" posting on this thread went into their profession with the hopes of a great retirement plan and then had it all changed when they were nearing it, would they not gripe about it?
Guess what? That has happened to a LOT of people over the last several years. Did the grumble and complain? Of course.

However, most of them understood that it was just a result of being in a market that couldn't support it.

We all complain about things when they don't go our way, but that doesn't mean we think we deserve to be treated unequally when compared to anyone else.
BRF;741628 wrote:And....here we go! Is it all right with you if I protest the change? Or do you and your ilk just want me to shut my mouth and take it?
I'll side-step the "TWSS" comment there. ;)

I like you, BRF. Being a product of Wayne County, I feel a certain camaraderie, so please don't take offense if I disagree with you. My wife is a teacher, and there WOULD be elements of her job that would become more difficult if this was to stand (there would be elements that would be easier, too). However, it puts her occupation on a more level playing field with the rest of the working public. As such, I can't help but support the abolition of collective bargaining, in particular.
dwccrew;741670 wrote:Shut your mouth and take it!
TWSS!

Sorry. Couldn't pass it up twice. :D
CenterBHSFan;741859 wrote:I thought it was a very middle class lecture lol! (bad joke, yes)
I call class warfare!!!!!!
Apr 15, 2011 9:29am
ernest_t_bass's avatar

ernest_t_bass

12th Son of the Lama

24,984 posts
Apr 15, 2011 9:39 AM
O-Trap;741881 wrote:However, it puts her occupation on a more level playing field with the rest of the working public.

Again... The "general public" only wants a level playing field RIGHT NOW, when we are in the dumps. And I'm OK with that, and I agree with that. The hypocrisy will come when the economy is booming... no one (in the private sector) will truly want public sector employees to have a level playing field. No one (in the private sector) will fight for a level playing field, like they are now. They might say, "OK, that's fine," when public employees are the ones fighting, but no one will actually go out of their way (in the private sector) to give public sector employees more money. To disagree with this is absurd.

Human nature brings us to pull everyone down to our level, but we never want to lift people up to our level. It's sad, but it is also true.
Apr 15, 2011 9:39am
ernest_t_bass's avatar

ernest_t_bass

12th Son of the Lama

24,984 posts
Apr 15, 2011 9:45 AM
O-Trap;741881 wrote:However, it puts her occupation on a more level playing field with the rest of the working public.

Again... The "general public" only wants a level playing field RIGHT NOW, when we are in the dumps. And I'm OK with that, and I agree with that. The hypocrisy will come when the economy is booming... no one (in the private sector) will truly want public sector employees to have a level playing field. No one (in the private sector) will fight for a level playing field, like they are now. They might say, "OK, that's fine," when public employees are the ones fighting, but no one will actually go out of their way (in the private sector) to give public sector employees more money. To disagree with this is absurd.

Human nature brings us to pull everyone down to our level, but we never want to lift people up to our level. It's sad, but it is also true.
Apr 15, 2011 9:45am
C

Con_Alma

Senior Member

12,198 posts
Apr 15, 2011 10:00 AM
It doesn't matter to me what the public or private sector employees ever want. What matters is what the collective taxpayers want. They are they ultimate employer and customer of public services.
Apr 15, 2011 10:00am
O-Trap's avatar

O-Trap

Chief Shenanigans Officer

14,994 posts
Apr 15, 2011 10:05 AM
Con_Alma;741902 wrote:It doesn't matter to me what the public or private sector employees ever want. What matters is what the collective taxpayers are want. They are they ultimate employer and customer of public services.
Truth do you speak.
Apr 15, 2011 10:05am
ernest_t_bass's avatar

ernest_t_bass

12th Son of the Lama

24,984 posts
Apr 15, 2011 10:40 AM
Con_Alma;741902 wrote:It doesn't matter to me what the public or private sector employees ever want. What matters is what the collective taxpayers want. They are they ultimate employer and customer of public services.

OK, insert "taxpayers" where I have "Private sector." It doesn't change anything. Tax payers want to bring the public employees down to their level, and that's understandable. But the taxpayers will never want to bring the public employees up to the private sector levels in good times. And by "want," I mean fight for it. They will fight to bring it down, but they won't start a fight to bring it up. The situation is really no different than I originally explained.
Apr 15, 2011 10:40am
C

Con_Alma

Senior Member

12,198 posts
Apr 15, 2011 10:44 AM
ernest_t_bass;741922 wrote:OK, insert "taxpayers" where I have "Private sector." It doesn't change anything. ....
It changes everything. This is not a private versus public sector. This is a taxpayer versus employee issue. There's a big difference. Public sector employees are part of the collective tax base.

Secondly, I don't want to "bring anybody down". I want to pay them what we as a collective taxpayer base, you and me, are able to. It's a very different mindset than a private versus public / bring them down to our level mindset.
Apr 15, 2011 10:44am
ernest_t_bass's avatar

ernest_t_bass

12th Son of the Lama

24,984 posts
Apr 15, 2011 10:48 AM
Con_Alma;741926 wrote:It changes everything. This is not a private versus public sector. This is a taxpayer versus employee issue. There's a big difference. Public sector employees are part of the collective tax base.

Secondly, I don't want to "bring anybody down". I want to pay them what we as a collective taxpayer base, you and me, are able to. It's a very different mindset than a private versus public / bring them down to our level mindset.

Con, we could go on and on. Basically, I agree with you.

But... There are many on here that are trying to use the argument, "equal to the private sector," are they not? Your argument is valid, given the context, as well as mine is. When we compare them, they are different, but each valid in-and-of themselves.
Apr 15, 2011 10:48am
O-Trap's avatar

O-Trap

Chief Shenanigans Officer

14,994 posts
Apr 15, 2011 10:50 AM
And for what it's worth, I'll say it again. There WOULD be communities that, in good times, would DEFINITELY value the educational process to the degree that they'd be willing to pay teachers more in that district in an attempt to bring in quality educators. Levies do pass more frequently in good times which, in the eye of Joe McTaxpayer, is pitched as giving to schools for the bettering of education.
Apr 15, 2011 10:50am
ernest_t_bass's avatar

ernest_t_bass

12th Son of the Lama

24,984 posts
Apr 15, 2011 11:00 AM
O-Trap;741935 wrote:And for what it's worth, I'll say it again. There WOULD be communities that, in good times, would DEFINITELY value the educational process to the degree that they'd be willing to pay teachers more in that district in an attempt to bring in quality educators. Levies do pass more frequently in good times which, in the eye of Joe McTaxpayer, is pitched as giving to schools for the bettering of education.

Trap, you're missing my argument. There are public sector people who are adamantly fighting for the "playing field to be leveled." They're starting the process/argument, whatever you want to call it.

Yes, in GOOD times, people would agree to paying public employees more, or they wouldn't disagree with BOE's accepting said agreements. However, you would not have people in the private sector starting fights for public workers to make more. Does that make sense?
Apr 15, 2011 11:00am
C

Con_Alma

Senior Member

12,198 posts
Apr 15, 2011 11:00 AM
ernest_t_bass;741932 wrote:Con, we could go on and on. Basically, I agree with you.

But... There are many on here that are trying to use the argument, "equal to the private sector," are they not? Your argument is valid, given the context, as well as mine is. When we compare them, they are different, but each valid in-and-of themselves.

I am sorry but we do not disagree. I can't speak for others but only myself. I do not think your position is valid regarding the desire to bring public sector employees "down".

Isn't going on and on the reason a bulletin board exist? Aren't people already going on and on? Yes, we could go on and on and I hope to do so if their continues to be a reason to do so.
Apr 15, 2011 11:00am
Writerbuckeye's avatar

Writerbuckeye

Senior Member

4,745 posts
Apr 15, 2011 11:02 AM
We are, by nature, a pretty competitive society (when liberals aren't trying to give trophies to everyone :) ) Because of that, I do believe that many school districts will compete for the best teachers, and the bragging rights that will come with having the best teaching staff around. Universities do it now by poaching good teachers from one another. I can see similar poaching by schools with the means and reputation for academic excellence.

Will there will be schools that simply don't give a damn and go the barest minimum route possible? Yep. It's how our world works, and it's their choice. But I'd be willing to wager a majority of districts are going to want the best teachers they can afford, because it will be community names and superintendent reputations on the line, otherwise.

As a result, I think you'll see many BETTER opportunities for the best in the profession -- assuming they're willing to relocate and take up the challenge that comes with being sought after.

And I also don't believe districts will hold out on teachers when times are flush. I think they'll be more generous than before, but always having to keep an eye on the fact that economies go up and down, so some type of "rainy day" fund will have to be in place to avoid too many tax levies.

All in all, this will be a good thing for most teacher economically. For the ones who aren't good at their profession (or lazy, complacent, etc.) it will be their loss -- as it should be.
Apr 15, 2011 11:02am
ernest_t_bass's avatar

ernest_t_bass

12th Son of the Lama

24,984 posts
Apr 15, 2011 11:04 AM
Con_Alma;741948 wrote:I am sorry but we do not disagree. I can't speak for others but only myself. I do not think your position is valid regarding the desire to bring public sector employees "down".

Isn't going on and on the reason a bulletin board exist? Aren't people already going on and on? Yes, we could go on and on and I hope to do so if their continues to be a reason to do so.

LOL, so philosophical. If you disagree with my position of "bringing public employees down," then why are there people on this very thread who say that? I didn't say the general population. I said "some people." That could be 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 1,000.
Apr 15, 2011 11:04am
FatHobbit's avatar

FatHobbit

Senior Member

8,651 posts
Apr 15, 2011 11:05 AM
ernest_t_bass;741947 wrote: However, you would not have people in the private sector starting fights for public workers to make more. Does that make sense?

I think I get what you're saying. Wouldn't the local parents push for more money when things are going better?
Apr 15, 2011 11:05am
C

Con_Alma

Senior Member

12,198 posts
Apr 15, 2011 11:05 AM
ernest_t_bass;741947 wrote:
Yes, in GOOD times, people would agree to paying public employees more, or they wouldn't disagree with BOE's accepting said agreements. However, you would not have people in the private sector starting fights for public workers to make more. Does that make sense?
Again, I disagree. The way you would see people "fight" in good times for the public sector employees to "make more" is through their demands to the board to hire more quality and qualified staff thus forcing an means of attracting such through total compensation.

I will be bluntly honest with you. I don't care if you as a teach make minim wage or $300,000. What I care about is how much have the taxpayers agreed to fund and what does it take to attract the level of applicants that I desire. If it's minimum wage, great. If it's $100,000 per year then I will be disappointed because as a small part of the collective tax base I would be in the minority regarding wanting to fund such a system willing to attract that caliber of employee.
Apr 15, 2011 11:05am