Ohio Chatter
Ohio Chatter

Forums

All Threads Serious Business Sports Politics Archive Pick 'ems
Log In Create Account

Senate Bill 5 Targets Collective Bargaining for Elimination!

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

O-Trap

Chief Shenanigans Officer

14,994 posts
Feb 20, 2011 1:06 AM
FatHobbit;684324 wrote:I think Otrap was only talking about the part where you said phone calls were more effective.
I thought I remembered him saying that. Again, I'm very literal. I pay attention to little stuff like that.

More personal? A phone call. More effective? An email, unless you're calling family or close friends.
Feb 20, 2011 1:06am
A

Al Bundy

Senior Member

4,180 posts
Feb 20, 2011 1:46 AM
O-Trap;684326 wrote: More personal? A phone call. More effective? An email, unless you're calling family or close friends.

Even in business I think it depends upon the situation whether an email or phone call is more effective. Some situations may be more effective on phone if a client/customer has questions instead of emailing back and forth. Some customer/clients may prefer phone (especially if they are older). I think the issue and customer determine which is better for each individual case.
Feb 20, 2011 1:46am
CenterBHSFan's avatar

CenterBHSFan

333 - I'm only half evil

6,115 posts
Feb 20, 2011 8:13 AM
Well it appears that there's protesters of the lesser grade in Ohio, just like WI.

NSFW!

[video=youtube;bskOe76kliw][/video]

YouTube - Union thug verbally attacks tea partier

Name calling and cockiness. Hmmm... reminds me of a couple of names on here lol

But, seriously. I actually support strong emotions, but this guy is old enough where he should be able to reign it in a little bit. I'm sure he's not the only one acting like that, but the worst of the worst always get noticed first - kinda like the senator in Writer's post.
SMH....
Feb 20, 2011 8:13am
Q

queencitybuckeye

Senior Member

7,117 posts
Feb 20, 2011 8:44 AM
Sonofanump;684085 wrote:I wonder why that number is use to determine gross versus actual lost income in civil liability torts.

Because lawyers are notoriously bad at math?
Feb 20, 2011 8:44am
B

Bigdogg

Senior Member

1,429 posts
Feb 20, 2011 10:14 AM
Very interesting article in the Dispatch on the applicants that applied for state jobs. The vast majority had close ties to Kasick and the Republican party. Do we really want to hire based on the party in charge like it use to be? This will filter down to the city and county level.

http://www.dispatchpolitics.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2011/02/20/copy/applicants-look-good-on-paper.html?adsec=politics&sid=101

For all of you people who said they only want the best candidates to be hired, it should show you want is at stake if collective bargaining is eliminated. I agree that there has to be reform and that the table is too far slanted for labor, but don't throw the baby out with the bath water.
Feb 20, 2011 10:14am
B

Bigdogg

Senior Member

1,429 posts
Feb 20, 2011 10:19 AM
Bigdogg;684417 wrote:Very interesting article in the Dispatch on the applicants that applied for state jobs. The vast majority had close ties to Kasick and the Republican party. Do we really want to hire based on the party in charge like it use to be? This will filter down to the city and county level.

http://www.dispatchpolitics.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2011/02/20/copy/applicants-look-good-on-paper.html?adsec=politics&sid=101

For all of you people who said they only want the best candidates to be hired, it should show you want is at stake if collective bargaining is eliminated. I agree that there has to be reform and that the table is too far slanted for labor, but don't throw the baby out with the bath water.

Aww trap, thanks but most of the idiots on here I have the ignore feature on so I really don't need help. It is fun pulling their chains once in a while though;)
Feb 20, 2011 10:19am
Writerbuckeye's avatar

Writerbuckeye

Senior Member

4,745 posts
Feb 20, 2011 10:22 AM
Bigdogg;684417 wrote:Very interesting article in the Dispatch on the applicants that applied for state jobs. The vast majority had close ties to Kasick and the Republican party. Do we really want to hire based on the party in charge like it use to be? This will filter down to the city and county level.

http://www.dispatchpolitics.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2011/02/20/copy/applicants-look-good-on-paper.html?adsec=politics&sid=101

For all of you people who said they only want the best candidates to be hired, it should show you want is at stake if collective bargaining is eliminated. I agree that there has to be reform and that the table is too far slanted for labor, but don't throw the baby out with the bath water.

First of all, it's KasicH. And patronage hiring is done after EVERY election change. For most of these jobs (all of them?) I'd say you can find equal candidates on paper where it's a pick 'em situation. In that case, the Republican is going to win under a Republican administration, and vice versa. It's not new, and it's not wrong. As I've also said MANY times on here, the number of positions where this happens is very small in comparison to the number of overall state positions available.

Oh and I forgot to add: patronage hiring was done LONG before collective bargaining came into play so whether it comes or goes, patronage hiring will always be around. To quote Obama: Elections have consequences. One of those is the winner gets the "spoils" of hiring its own people for certain positions.
Feb 20, 2011 10:22am
M

Manhattan Buckeye

Senior Member

7,566 posts
Feb 20, 2011 10:31 AM
queencitybuckeye;684383 wrote:Because lawyers are notoriously bad at math?

A better question is why it is even relevant. It has nothing to do with taxation of a U.S. citizens' earned income, as would taxation of foreigners working in the U.S. without a treaty with the U.S.
Feb 20, 2011 10:31am
S

Sonofanump

Feb 20, 2011 12:48 PM
Writerbuckeye;684284 wrote:Democrats/liberals (and yes you qualify on this issue)

That might be the first time that I have been called that.

Is limiting wage scale (which is being proposed here) a socialist (far left liberal) or capitalist theory?
Feb 20, 2011 12:48pm
S

Sonofanump

Feb 20, 2011 12:54 PM
Manhattan Buckeye;684433 wrote:A better question is why it is even relevant. It has nothing to do with taxation of a U.S. citizens' earned income, as would taxation of foreigners working in the U.S. without a treaty with the U.S.

What is the take home pay of someone earning $21,900.00? Since the figure that I guessed at are wrong as pointed out by so many on the thread (but no figures used to correct me), I would like to know what the disposable (not really per the economic term) income would be for such a graduate after paying the monthly student loan bill.
Feb 20, 2011 12:54pm
M

Manhattan Buckeye

Senior Member

7,566 posts
Feb 20, 2011 12:54 PM
Who is limiting a wage scale? The issue is a collective bargaining arrangement between labor and "management" that is supported by the same funding....taxes. At least in the private sector the UAW has to answer to its clientele, being their members (ideally) and management has to answer to its stakeholders, namely the shareholders of the company.

The weird thing with public unions is that the bargaining element is limited in that both sides are supported by the same class of people - those that pay taxes. Again, I don't have to buy Ford Motor Company stock. I do have to pay taxes, and the same people on both sides of the educational labor debate have their wages supported by the same group - who continue to have less influence.
Feb 20, 2011 12:54pm
M

Manhattan Buckeye

Senior Member

7,566 posts
Feb 20, 2011 1:02 PM
Sonofanump;684500 wrote:What is the take home pay of someone earning $21,900.00? Since the figure that I guessed at are wrong as pointed out by so many on the thread (but no figures used to correct me), I would like to know what the disposable (not really per the economic term) income would be for such a graduate after paying the monthly student loan bill.

I don't know, because I don't know what other income sources are applicable, or what deductions or credits are applicable to that taxpayer.

I do know that a single, American taxpayer with $21,900 in earned income pays far less than 30% (assuming no other income or on the other hand, no other deductions or credits), I DID use figures and real tax examples to support it. It takes 3 minutes of time, do you want me to do this? Is it worth it? It is 6.7% federal, 1.7% state, at most 1-1.5% local, the SS part of FICA isn't taxed, so it is irrelevant (an argument can be made that it isn't relevant anyway since it isn't a "tax"), as for as Medicare, it is the same as SS.

What other evidence do you need? Do you want me to figure out your taxes for you? If you make $21,900 and pay 30% in taxes, it would be worth it for you to hire me and we can split the tax refund that you get back.
Feb 20, 2011 1:02pm
dwccrew's avatar

dwccrew

Not Banned

7,817 posts
Feb 20, 2011 2:16 PM
bonelizzard;683645 wrote: Anyway and I hope I don't get cut off here before I have to log in again, about the phone call/ email personal piece. I'll try and make this bold..YOU GUYS ARE WRONG... IF YOU'RE ADULT LIKE AND/OR MATURE ENOUGH YOU WILL ADMIT THIS.. IF YOU TALK TO SOMEONE, IT IS MUCH MORE EFFECTIVE THAN EMAILING THEM AND/OR TEXTING. It's ok to admit when you're wrong. I won't think any less of you and it really does make you look like the bigger man when you do... admit when you're wrong... Better get back to the topic or I'll get scolded.. But you guys got off topic and didn't get scolded right? Maybe O trap, Dw and the moderator are all the same people? Huh, makes me curious.


My opinion, and I think I can say what I want on this public forum within the rules.. HB5 is against my constitutional rights. It's ok for me to bargain as a group, collectively..
If taken away, I feel that some of my rights as an American will be taken away from me.
I'm just curious as to how it is against your constitutional rights? FFT also asked you this question and I see you have avoided it still. Maybe you can actually start presenting facts and not talking points and we'll have a better idea of your position in this debate. Instead of just saying education quality will go down or that SB5 is not constitutional, maybe you can actually provide us with some evidence.
bonelizzard;683645 wrote: I really would like to talk to you guys and or guy about this because I talk much better than I type and can't even hold a stick to how well you guys type.. Oh, because talking to people is much more effective and personal than email.
bonelizzard;683645 wrote: IF YOU TALK TO SOMEONE, IT IS MUCH MORE EFFECTIVE THAN EMAILING THEM AND/OR TEXTING.
Here is just 2 examples of you stating that talking on the phone is more effective (also pointed out by Fathobbit)
bonelizzard;683735 wrote: Hey you said that talking is more "personal" so I was right and you were wrong. I didn't say anything about being more effective in the business world you're reading it out of context. All that I said was, "talking to someone is more personal than email" that's all. So then I'm right and you agree with me? Cool.
So are you going to admit that you are wrong and that you did state it is more effective to speak over the phone? You accused others of not being able to admit if they are wrong, can you do the same thing?
Sonofanump;683771 wrote:Some quick math: $21,900 minus 30% for taxes equals $15,300 gross per year.
Actually, the $21,900 would be the gross salary; the $15,300 would be the net salary. Also, I'm curious as to where you are getting the 30% figure from? Even if it was that percentage (which it isn't) almost all of the taxable dollars would be refunded.
bonelizzard;684240 wrote:ok, no more all caps and bold. I must have misread otraps thread... but it sure sounded that way to me. Bashing me.. Maybe I should read it again. But, ok if you say so. I'm pretty sure that I have not been the only one who has been passionate and voiced some negativity. But if you want to point the finger at me only I guess that's ok too.

Yes, I think there has been some good discussion on here and I would really hate to be the blame for shutting it down. So, please don't. Thanks...

Haven't mentioned post counts since the first time I was corrected by the moderator.. but I will definitely keep that in mind.
Not mentioning it...

signed, Bad guy bonelizzard..

Serious question.....are you really this sensitive? This is an internet forum and you are getting all bent out of shape and thinking people are attacking/bashing you. Grow some thicker skin! No one is attacking you, we're debating an issue that we disagree on, it's not personal.
bonelizzard wrote: good for you dw. Phone calls work better. More effective. more personal. Feel free to copy my post and edit it however you want, like you did before. Should have been at the State House yesterday in real support but that would have actually taken some effort and you would have had to get out into the real world. SB5 opponents far outnumbered SB5 supporters.

I just came acrossed this post in which you directly told me phone calls were more EFFECTIVE. Will you still deny that you ever said phone calls were more effective or will you admit you were wrong?
Feb 20, 2011 2:16pm
O-Trap's avatar

O-Trap

Chief Shenanigans Officer

14,994 posts
Feb 20, 2011 2:49 PM
Confession ... it's good for the soul, bone. ;)
Feb 20, 2011 2:49pm
ernest_t_bass's avatar

ernest_t_bass

12th Son of the Lama

24,984 posts
Feb 20, 2011 4:49 PM
I am going to sit down with one of our financial gurus at our school tomorrow and go over numbers with him, and I'll get back with the OC. I will provide numbers for what I make now, what is taken out now, what my take home is now... then provide what I will make then, what new will be taken out, what will be my new take home.

When I say "then," or "new," I will be referring to the portion of the bill that covers our medical insurance and pension. Currently I pay 10% of our insurance while the board picks up the rest. State is pushing for 20%. Currently I pay 10% of my salary to pension, the board picks up 18%, for a total 28% salary to pension. Starting next year, it will be 14%/14% between teacher/board.

Don't get pissy... I'm just providing numbers for discussion.
Feb 20, 2011 4:49pm
Writerbuckeye's avatar

Writerbuckeye

Senior Member

4,745 posts
Feb 20, 2011 5:11 PM
Your current setup is very sweet. Most people pay lots more for insurance and many don't even have anything close to the pension system you pay into. I'll be curious to see what the actual numbers are.
Feb 20, 2011 5:11pm
ernest_t_bass's avatar

ernest_t_bass

12th Son of the Lama

24,984 posts
Feb 20, 2011 5:15 PM
Writerbuckeye;684926 wrote:Your current setup is very sweet. Most people pay lots more for insurance and many don't even have anything close to the pension system you pay into. I'll be curious to see what the actual numbers are.

I'm not going disagree with you. Why do you think I'm fighting this bill!?
Feb 20, 2011 5:15pm
O-Trap's avatar

O-Trap

Chief Shenanigans Officer

14,994 posts
Feb 20, 2011 5:20 PM
Earnest, as crazy as it sounds, I'm willing to bet that you (if you're an above average teacher ... and I'm assuming you are) could get even better compensation if you weren't weighted down to the average.
Feb 20, 2011 5:20pm
Writerbuckeye's avatar

Writerbuckeye

Senior Member

4,745 posts
Feb 20, 2011 6:21 PM
ernest_t_bass;684939 wrote:I'm not going disagree with you. Why do you think I'm fighting this bill!?

Oh I get it. I just think that if I'm a taxpayer in your district, I want to see more balance to help the budget. Either less pay and the same benefits or the ability to make more pay, but you pay more towards your insurance and pension. Decreasing revenues (which are happening pretty much everywhere..or at least not rising) and increasing health care and pension costs say this model can't be sustained.
Feb 20, 2011 6:21pm
S

stlouiedipalma

Senior Member

1,797 posts
Feb 20, 2011 8:14 PM
You know, the common denominator with this bill, as in the one in Wisconsin, is the high cost associated with health care premiums and benefits. What does that say about our current health care system? Perhaps it is broken, with costs skyrocketing and actual benefits going down? You know, if we had true health care reform (which no one, Democrat or Republican, has proposed), or a complete makeover of the entire system we might just be able to solve many of our residual problems.
Feb 20, 2011 8:14pm
Writerbuckeye's avatar

Writerbuckeye

Senior Member

4,745 posts
Feb 20, 2011 9:39 PM
While what you write may well be true, stlouie, the bottom line for me and most people is that the system itself is not sustainable, even if health care costs were less. Eventually, you run out of money for raises and pensions unless you keep tapping the till by raising taxes. It's a vicious and never-ending cycle.
Feb 20, 2011 9:39pm
CinciX12's avatar

CinciX12

Senior Member

2,874 posts
Feb 20, 2011 10:28 PM
Heard just now that the city of Cincinnati alone owes more than 93 million in just unused sick days or something like that lol? That is a little hard to ignore.

I still stand by reform is the way to go, not complete elimination. There are very few of us opposed to this bill that don't realize the system is broken. But I think it is correctable and shouldn't be axed completely.
Feb 20, 2011 10:28pm
I

I Wear Pants

Senior Member

16,223 posts
Feb 20, 2011 10:33 PM
CinciX12;685416 wrote:Heard just now that the city of Cincinnati alone owes more than 93 million in just unused sick days or something like that lol? That is a little hard to ignore.

I still stand by reform is the way to go, not complete elimination. There are very few of us opposed to this bill that don't realize the system is broken. But I think it is correctable and shouldn't be axed completely.
And yet you didn't see the union or a seperate group of teachers saying "hey, this is unsustainable and isn't good for anyone".
Feb 20, 2011 10:33pm
CinciX12's avatar

CinciX12

Senior Member

2,874 posts
Feb 20, 2011 10:45 PM
I Wear Pants;685424 wrote:And yet you didn't see the union or a seperate group of teachers saying "hey, this is unsustainable and isn't good for anyone".

It was very good for the teachers lol. And the union reps get paid more with happy union members.
Feb 20, 2011 10:45pm
dwccrew's avatar

dwccrew

Not Banned

7,817 posts
Feb 21, 2011 12:00 AM
O-Trap;684950 wrote:Earnest, as crazy as it sounds, I'm willing to bet that you (if you're an above average teacher ... and I'm assuming you are) could get even better compensation if you weren't weighted down to the average.

This is what I don't understand about unions and some of union membership. Why hold yourself back? Why should one be paid equal (if same amount of experience and education is involved) if one teacher performs better than the other (or in any union career field)?
Feb 21, 2011 12:00am