Senate Bill 5 Targets Collective Bargaining for Elimination!

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

dwccrew

Not Banned

7,817 posts
May 5, 2011 12:58 AM
Glory Days;760047 wrote:Thats not what i meant. my point was, who cares about the state budget when the cities arent balanced. i'd rather have a balanced city budget than a balanced state budget. i feel the state should do what it has to do to help cities balance their budgets before it worries about the state, instead of the other way around. basically start from the bottom up. if the cities are balanced, they will eventually be able to repay the state and make the cuts it needs once they've got everything straightened out.

Agreed. And the state is giving the cities the ability to balance their budget through SB5.
May 5, 2011 12:58am
dwccrew's avatar

dwccrew

Not Banned

7,817 posts
May 5, 2011 1:01 AM
Even if SB5 is a bad idea, I believe we must let it work its course to see if it is a bad idea. The status quo is clearly not working. Therefore, we need to make changes. SB5 is a start, if it is not the solution, we can tweak it; but something different must be done because we have been on a horrible path for the last 30 years.
May 5, 2011 1:01am
believer's avatar

believer

Senior Member

8,153 posts
May 5, 2011 4:48 AM
dwccrew;760124 wrote:Even if SB5 is a bad idea, I believe we must let it work its course to see if it is a bad idea. The status quo is clearly not working. Therefore, we need to make changes. SB5 is a start, if it is not the solution, we can tweak it; but something different must be done because we have been on a horrible path for the last 30 years.
That's the reality of SB5. ANYONE with at least a little brain power knew something like SB5 was an inevitability. Whether or not this is a "solution" remains to be seen, but at least it is indeed a start.

The unionists, of course, are scurrying like cockroaches to prevent their power-base from evaporating. Quite frankly they were and are their own worst enemy.
May 5, 2011 4:48am
Glory Days's avatar

Glory Days

Senior Member

7,809 posts
May 5, 2011 7:12 AM
dwccrew;760122 wrote:Agreed. And the state is giving the cities the ability to balance their budget through SB5.
haha thats one of my points. how can public workers be told they will have an opportunity to negotiate for better pay when cities will be forced to cut pay because of the millions in funding Kasich is cutting to cities?
May 5, 2011 7:12am
G

georgemc80

Senior Member

983 posts
May 5, 2011 7:45 AM
I absolutely am against teacher to teacher (or cop to cop, fireman to fireman, etc) negotiations for salary. I am not sure if that is was SB5 wants to do. Could care less if the unions are dismantled, but you have to have a salary schedule.
May 5, 2011 7:45am
dwccrew's avatar

dwccrew

Not Banned

7,817 posts
May 5, 2011 7:54 AM
Glory Days;760173 wrote:haha thats one of my points. how can public workers be told they will have an opportunity to negotiate for better pay when cities will be forced to cut pay because of the millions in funding Kasich is cutting to cities?

I really don't see pay being effected. What is going to be effected is benefits. At least in my city, the city is already planning on making the employees pay higher premiums for health insurance (they pay little to none now) that is more in line with the private sector. They also are planning on having the employees pay the employee share of the pension pick up (currently the city pays the entire employee share). Pay will not be effected. I would say this is reasonable and it will save the city millions of dollars annually without effecting employees wages (less payments to pensions and insurance).

It will take some getting used to for the public employees that have to start paying their own pension pickups instead of the city paying the employees' share, but the old system was one of the reasons that was leading to bankrupting the city and state.
May 5, 2011 7:54am
Q

QuakerOats

Senior Member

8,740 posts
May 5, 2011 8:47 AM
dwccrew;760122 wrote:Agreed. And the state is giving the cities the ability to balance their budget through SB5.

Exactly!

The handcuffing of those who are supposed to be running the entities has to be eliminated. Whether it is fanatical unionism with their ability to strike against We The People, or the completely assinine concept of binding arbitration whereby a union hack from somewhere else can decide what an entity is going to pay with zero regard for the financial situation, CHANGE HAS TO OCCUR ---- THOSE DAYS ARE OVER; and they should have never started in 1983 to begin with. It has only taken about 25 years for this massive union grab to damn near ruin everything ------- reverse it!
May 5, 2011 8:47am
CenterBHSFan's avatar

CenterBHSFan

333 - I'm only half evil

6,115 posts
May 5, 2011 9:52 AM
1983.

What did teachers, firefighters, policement, etc. do before 1983?
How did they ever manage to make it?
May 5, 2011 9:52am
W

WebFire

Go Bucks!

14,779 posts
May 5, 2011 9:58 AM
Glory Days;760047 wrote:Thats not what i meant. my point was, who cares about the state budget when the cities arent balanced. i'd rather have a balanced city budget than a balanced state budget. i feel the state should do what it has to do to help cities balance their budgets before it worries about the state, instead of the other way around. basically start from the bottom up. if the cities are balanced, they will eventually be able to repay the state and make the cuts it needs once they've got everything straightened out.

I think there is a fair balance to this, and your statement is true. But the local governments have to do everything they can to take of themselves first. That doesn't happen now. Not even close. They are too DEPENDENT on the state, and take it for granted.
May 5, 2011 9:58am
B

Bigdogg

Senior Member

1,429 posts
May 5, 2011 10:35 AM
dwccrew;759408 wrote:I didn't know that school treasurers had all the information pertaining to the state budget. Interesting.....:rolleyes:

And it is very obvious that the people responsible for creating the crisis of funding by cutting taxes have no clue how SB 5 will impact individual school budgets. I will take the individual school districts treasures word every time. Read a paper or attend your local school board meeting once in a while and maybe you can "educate" yourself better.
May 5, 2011 10:35am
W

WebFire

Go Bucks!

14,779 posts
May 5, 2011 11:50 AM
SB5 isn't cutting your schools budget.
May 5, 2011 11:50am
dwccrew's avatar

dwccrew

Not Banned

7,817 posts
May 5, 2011 9:00 PM
Bigdogg;760346 wrote:And it is very obvious that the people responsible for creating the crisis of funding by cutting taxes have no clue how SB 5 will impact individual school budgets. I will take the individual school districts treasures word every time. Read a paper or attend your local school board meeting once in a while and maybe you can "educate" yourself better.
Again, this doesn't address one thing that I was talking about. I am stating that the state is not responsible for making sure school districts stay within their budgets. That is the school districts responsibility. SB5 gives the school systems the ability to balance their own budgets without needing state assistance. Not a hard concept to grasp.
WebFire;760440 wrote:SB5 isn't cutting your schools budget.


Bingo!
May 5, 2011 9:00pm
B

Bigdogg

Senior Member

1,429 posts
May 7, 2011 10:15 AM
dwccrew;761025 wrote:Again, this doesn't address one thing that I was talking about. I am stating that the state is not responsible for making sure school districts stay within their budgets. That is the school districts responsibility. SB5 gives the school systems the ability to balance their own budgets without needing state assistance. Not a hard concept to grasp.




Bingo!

There are lots of examples in this state and others of schools doing just fine balancing their budgets without any help from a union busting piece of shit legislation. If Kasick would have just worked on eliminating fringes in the bargaining process and changed the way things work in the arbitration process, there would be no recall now.

Apparently it is a hard concept for you to grasp.
May 7, 2011 10:15am
dwccrew's avatar

dwccrew

Not Banned

7,817 posts
May 7, 2011 10:37 AM
Bigdogg;761811 wrote:There are lots of examples in this state and others of schools doing just fine balancing their budgets without any help from a union busting piece of shit legislation. If Kasick would have just worked on eliminating fringes in the bargaining process and changed the way things work in the arbitration process, there would be no recall now.

Apparently it is a hard concept for you to grasp.

A lot of examples of school systems that balanced their budgets without any help? Is that why over 60 of them had failed levies this past Tuesday? I wonder how they will balance their budget now? I'm guessing either needing a state bailout or laying lots of staff and faculty off.


http://ocess.wordpress.com/2011/05/03/may-3-election-results-for-ohio-schools/

I commend the school systems that can balnce their budgets. I never stated there were systems that couldn't do it. But there are A LOT in the link I posted that can't balance their budgets and have failed multiple times on the ballot because they can't seem to balance their budgets. SB5 will give them the power to help them balance the budget without continually needing to ask for levies and local tax increases to fund their budget.
May 7, 2011 10:37am
Writerbuckeye's avatar

Writerbuckeye

Senior Member

4,745 posts
May 7, 2011 10:45 AM
As expected, the Gestapos of most of the public unions are forcing members to contribute extra money to fight SB 5. The decision was made "delegates" rather than giving everyone a vote on the issue -- which is typical of unions. Don't give everyone a vote, just those who are entrenched in the system and likely make some extra money for it in the process.

If I had already been forced into union membership (like all public employees are these days), I'd be furious over this. No voice, but they once again pick my pocket to wage a PR campaign that is going to end up costing millions of dollars.

http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2011/05/07/teachers-union-oks-54-assessment-to-aid-referendum-on-collective-bargaining-law.html?sid=101
May 7, 2011 10:45am
BRF's avatar

BRF

Senior Member

8,748 posts
May 7, 2011 11:18 AM
Sounds a lot like representative democracy to me.
May 7, 2011 11:18am
CenterBHSFan's avatar

CenterBHSFan

333 - I'm only half evil

6,115 posts
May 7, 2011 11:24 AM
Per Writer's link:

in favor of a one-time $54 dues assessment for active regular members and a one-time $25 assessment for education support-staff member

Does this in any way resemble JJ Huddle's "one time" fee?
I'm guessing YES!!!

Jay McDonald, head of the Ohio Fraternal Order of Police, said his union is not assessing individual members but has asked each of its more than 200 local lodges to pay $50 for each member. That would come out to be about $1 million, he said.
Firefighters union officials have said they will raise a similar amount, McDonald said.

This is the RIGHT way to do it. The teachers union botched this, IMO.

Speaking at the OEA meeting yesterday, U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown urged teachers to rally for the referendum campaign and "make this personal."
"You can talk all the statistics you want, but tell your personal story. Tell people why you're a teacher,"the Ohio Democrat said.

Obviously for the pay schedule and light-in-the-load health insurance. :rolleyes:

What a crock of shit.
May 7, 2011 11:24am
Writerbuckeye's avatar

Writerbuckeye

Senior Member

4,745 posts
May 7, 2011 11:28 AM
BRF;761860 wrote:Sounds a lot like representative democracy to me.

This isn't a government, it's an organization.

Apples to Zebras.

On something like this, a vote of all members would be a better way to go. The best way would be to make the contributions voluntary -- but unions are scared to death of voting they can't control and anything voluntary -- because when they've had to do it that way, they tend to lose.

Thugs don't like to lose (I'm talking the union bosses here).
May 7, 2011 11:28am
A

analogkid

Member

62 posts
May 7, 2011 12:18 PM
dwccrew;761831 wrote:SB5 will give them the power to help them balance the budget without continually needing to ask for levies and local tax increases to fund their budget.

As long as there is inflation and we pay for education using a property tax that does not adjust for inflation, then schools will have to ask for levies every X number of years just to offset inflation. I do not see how SB5 does anything to impact that reality. At best it may give communities flexibility with the time line or flexibility in ways of dealing with failed levies.
May 7, 2011 12:18pm
dwccrew's avatar

dwccrew

Not Banned

7,817 posts
May 7, 2011 12:53 PM
analogkid;761889 wrote:As long as there is inflation and we pay for education using a property tax that does not adjust for inflation, then schools will have to ask for levies every X number of years just to offset inflation.
Obviously. However, perhaps they won't be asking for as large of increases in the taxes. Increasing tax revenues due to inflation would be smaller increases.
analogkid wrote: I do not see how SB5 does anything to impact that reality. At best it may give communities flexibility with the time line or flexibility in ways of dealing with failed levies.
You fail to see how SB5 will give more bargaining power to the administration and even the odds in the bargaining process between administrative officials and union officials?
May 7, 2011 12:53pm
A

analogkid

Member

62 posts
May 7, 2011 2:26 PM
No crew, I fail to see how SB5 will change the need of districts to 'continually need to ask for levies and local tax increases to fund their budget.' Of course, SB5 shifts the balance towards the administrative official's side or we would not be having this discussion.
May 7, 2011 2:26pm
Glory Days's avatar

Glory Days

Senior Member

7,809 posts
May 7, 2011 3:26 PM
Writerbuckeye;761837 wrote:As expected, the Gestapos of most of the public unions are forcing members to contribute extra money to fight SB 5. The decision was made "delegates" rather than giving everyone a vote on the issue -- which is typical of unions. Don't give everyone a vote, just those who are entrenched in the system and likely make some extra money for it in the process.

If I had already been forced into union membership (like all public employees are these days), I'd be furious over this. No voice, but they once again pick my pocket to wage a PR campaign that is going to end up costing millions of dollars.

http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2011/05/07/teachers-union-oks-54-assessment-to-aid-referendum-on-collective-bargaining-law.html?sid=101

You mean like the governor of a state passing a law without any input from the cities it will effect?
May 7, 2011 3:26pm
Writerbuckeye's avatar

Writerbuckeye

Senior Member

4,745 posts
May 7, 2011 4:24 PM
See my post up further. Not the same thing at all. The Governor didn't pass this bill all by himself, now did he? Of course not. It took help from members of the Ohio House of Representatives and members of the Ohio Senate to pass this first, before he signed it.
May 7, 2011 4:24pm
C

Con_Alma

Senior Member

12,198 posts
May 7, 2011 5:12 PM
Glory Days;761960 wrote:You mean like the governor of a state passing a law without any input from the cities it will effect?
The input comes from their citizens elected State Representative.
May 7, 2011 5:12pm
A

Al Bundy

Senior Member

4,180 posts
May 7, 2011 6:06 PM
If elected government officials make a decision, they are representing those that elected them. If union members in an elected positions make a decision, they are the gestapo?
May 7, 2011 6:06pm