QuakerOats;922753 wrote:Once again, neither I nor the many on here think that public employees are "evil doers". I wish we could have a frank discussion without the comments that insinuate that we think public employees themselves are the problem.

We do, or at least I do, think the current system: public sector collective bargaining, bloated compensation packages complete with profound unfunded liabiltities, and the lack of management flexibility to deal with budget issues are to blame. We want the system fixed, we want accountability, we want transparency, we want efficiency, and we want flexibility.

WebFire;922532 wrote:And those changes are?

Gblock;922693 wrote:i was attempting to answer your question maybe i wasnt clear. teachers arent paid on an individual basis in my district.

one of the reasons i decided to work in public sector was for this reason. however along with this security i accepted lower pay than most of my peers w similar levels of education. i probably have a better retirement. so i guess i dont mind if taxpayers want to change these parameters, but i will expect a raise if i lose my job security and my good retirement.

Writerbuckeye;922770 wrote:Your "security" has only happened because you've stayed with the district for a long time. If you were a newer teacher, and revenues fell sharply, layoffs would happen and you would be among the first out the door. It happens all the time under union contracts, and has been happening more the last couple years because so many schools have seen revenues decline.

If your school district were forced to eliminate teachers, and the district offered to keep everyone if everyone would accept a 5 percent pay cut, it wouldn't happen because the union would stop it. They'd prefer people lose their jobs instead of giving in to such a request. I've seen it happen in my own county.

A complicating factor is that the "newer" teachers will be the first out the door, even if they are better at their jobs than those who have seniority.

It's a flawed system and the union only cares that the longer tenured people keep their jobs. Is that because they pay more in dues (higher pay, higher dues?) In any event, it's the wrong way to conduct business of any kind, public or private.

Every other worker (not union) in the country has to earn their place, and be among the best to keep it.

I see no reason public employees shouldn't fall under those same guidelines. While SB 5 won't do all those things, it is a step in the right direction.

analogkid;922999 wrote:This has always been a frustration of mine throughout my teaching tenure. At my old school a building teacher of the year was let go due to the RIFing process. More senior teachers fear that if it is done any other way, then the senior teacher would be let go instead due to their larger salaries. The current environment seems to be making a dent in this practice. Several central Ohio unions have approached school boards prior to their contract ending to negotiate concessions such as increased share of benefits and pay freezes. Finally, union dues do not depend on seniority. They are the same for all teachers in a district.

Writerbuckeye;923007 wrote:Thanks for the correct information on dues. Then I don't understand the union mentality of forcing layoffs instead of making concessions so everyone can keep their job. I guess it must have to do with never giving anything up for fear you won't ever get it back. Selfish, to say the least, but it's worked for unions so far; at least union membership hasn't revolted.

I saw a similar situation in my home county where the union went to a local board and offered concessions to prevent layoffs. This only happened after SB 5 was passed, however.

WebFire;922532 wrote:And those changes are?

Writerbuckeye;922542 wrote: I want good employees paid better than poor ones, and I don't want poor ones kept on the job because the union rules say they have to be kept, or the system has become so cumbersome it's impossible to get rid of them.

Glory Days;923059 wrote:even with merit pay, you will have no say in what teachers get paid whether good or bad. unless you want some clause that allows every joe and jane out there to to send in their own evalution of each teacher in the district....yeah, because that makes sense.

Writerbuckeye;923187 wrote:I don't want any personal say -- I want there to be competent, qualified individuals making those decisions on behalf of every taxpayer in the district. There's no reason it can't be done and done well. And if the system isn't working, the school board would be the ones to intervene and make necessary changes.

I'm almost to the point that it's fruitless discussing this with you because you have absolutely made up your mind it can't work in a school district -- that for some reason, your work place is so special and unique, that something used by tens of millions of people with no problem can't ever be done equitably where you are employed.

It's total and absolute nonsense, of course, but it's hard to be rational when you're consumed with paranoia. And you do come across as paranoid, at times.

Key findings include:
Jobs in the public sector typically require more education than private sector positions. State and local employees are twice as likely to hold a college degree or higher as compared to private sector employees. Only 23 percent of private sector employees have completed college, as compared to about 48 percent in the public sector.

Benefits make up a slightly larger share of compensation for the state and local sector. But even after accounting for the value of retirement, healthcare, and other benefits, state and local employees earn less than private sector counterparts. On average, total compensation is 6.8 percent lower for state employees and 7.4 percent lower for local employees than for comparable private sector employees.

Bigdogg;922865 wrote: I don't think even the Democrats did that to pass health care reform act.

Al Bundy;923021 wrote:I agree with you that concessions should be made instead of forcing layoffs, but I think that it is a greed issue more than a union issue. In the private sector, look how many companies lay off employees while the top level management make millions in bonuses.

WebFire;923488 wrote:None of this or your two quotes has anything to do with SB5.

QuakerOats;922572 wrote:And where the hell were you in 1983 when one party -- the democrats led by Tricky **** Celeste, and controlled by public sector unions --- rammed through the biggest piece of crap legislation in history allowing public sector collective bargaining! In just 25 short years that legislation has essentially bankrupted the state, the cities, and the school districts.

Talk to me about one party ramming through "crap" legislation.

Writerbuckeye;930026 wrote:All of those issues can be addressed without the force of collective bargaining behind it. In fact, I'd venture to say they would be addressed even without collective bargaining because it's likely all of them do have an affect on the community (and indirectly, on costs borne by the community).

In other words...meaningless drivel meant to scare voters into thinking that without collective bargaining, all of a sudden, there will be be no focus on those issues.

Ridiculously misleading, not to mention stupid.

Bigdogg;930278 wrote:You mean like the pro SB5 propaganda?

Writerbuckeye;930390 wrote:The pro ads at least tell the truth. I've seen nothing but overt lies in the ads pleading for "no" votes. The whole "attack on the middle class" meme was an out and out lie. Saying that safety issues won't be addressed is an out and out lie.

If one side has to lie to the extreme to make their position palatable to the masses -- then that tells me they are on the wrong side of an issue.

Writerbuckeye;930700 wrote:The biggest whopper was the ad featuring nurses, and saying how SB 5 would create this threat to the health and welfare of people nurses take care of. It was a huge lie, in so many ways.

First, SB 5 does not take away the right to bargain for safety-related issues...but more specifically about nurses: unionized nurses only make up about 5 percent of the nursing workforce in the state, so they wouldn't have that much impact (despite what the ad said).

More importantly, nurses care for people in all types of health care facilities like nursing homes, hospitals, etc. Even if they are union, the state sets standards for the care of those people and licenses them based on meeting those standards. That's not negotiable for anyone. I know, because I worked at the agency that licensed all those facilities, and dealt with media aftermath when standards weren't being met.

Again, I've seen blatant lies in the pro SB 5 ads; lies that were so over the line I can't believe they are allowed to be aired. But, I guess that's how the system works. It will likely be because of those lies that SB 5 gets repealed and a lot of those who vote "no" won't even realize they've been bamboozled.

Bigdogg;931166 wrote:Which bring us all back to the reality that if Kasich was not such a huge douche bag trying to bust up unions and doing some reform around just benefits and arbitration , we would not be having this discussion.

QuakerOats;931247 wrote:Which brings us full circle to the real "douche bags", Tricky **** Celeste and his band of liberal democrats who rammed collective bargaining of public sector employees down the throats of taxpayers in 1983, which should never have happened, and thus 'we would not be having this discussion'.