QuakerOats;703153 wrote:I have a problem with the original bill rammed through in 1983 by Tricky Dick Celeste and his band of union-machine democrats! that bill intruded greatly on "people's rights": the rights of the kids to an excellent education free from a union thugocracy and strikes; the rights of the taxpayers to an excellent and affordable education for kids in their community, one free from untenable union demands and strikes and threats thereof; and the rights of the middle class taxpayer to not have their backs broken because of unaffordable compensation packages when they were not fairly represented at the negotiating table.

To hell with all those rights, so long as a disastrous '83 law stays in force so a few can continue to feed at the public trough. Seems to me we did a hell of a lot better job at educating our kids during the 180 years predating the CBA law; the facts bear that out.

sleeper;703162 wrote:They certainly have a right to do that. I hope the Unions are honest in telling their members what will happen if the succeed though. Many will lose their jobs, but the Unions will continue cashing their big paychecks while they brainwash the masses.

coach_bob1;703091 wrote:The court has the right to overrule itself. The legislature does not have the right to overrule the court.

coach_bob1;703170 wrote:In our case, I have no problem with their paychecks as long as they do their jobs and keep my daughter's therapies and numerous specialist visits covered by our insurance.

QuakerOats;703153 wrote:... thugocracy ...

O-Trap;703174 wrote:Actually, as it is the legislature's job to create laws, then provided that the courts have not explicitly ruled against such laws, that is their job. It is the job of the courts to enforce those laws put into place, and only to overrule the legislature if the law put into place by the legislature is deemed to go against the entities that supercede it (ie the Constitution at the respective level).

coach_bob1;703182 wrote:That is true, but in this case there have been numerous cases before courts about whether or not employees are allowed to unionize and collectively bargain. It has been determined to be legal. Also, the provision in the bill stating that the deciding factor in any labor dispute is the management instead of an independent third party is going to become a point of contention in courts.

coach_bob1;703074 wrote:And the puplic employees that have written the bill made sure to include lines that exclude themselves and the governor as public employees.

FatHobbit;703083 wrote:That does not surprise me at all.

O-Trap;703089 wrote:Why? It makes them sound good-natured.

coach_bob1;703168 wrote:So a significant number of people exercising their political power by following the rules that have been set forth and submitting a petition causing a law to be voted on by the general public is "usurping power" but a smaller group of people crfeating a law that will affect every citizen in the State of Ohio except themselves are completely correct?

Skyhook79;703175 wrote:and you have no problem with anyone losing their job as long as it is not yours?

coach_bob1;703182 wrote:That is true, but in this case there have been numerous cases before courts about whether or not employees are allowed to unionize and collectively bargain. It has been determined to be legal. Also, the provision in the bill stating that the deciding factor in any labor dispute is the management instead of an independent third party is going to become a point of contention in courts.

LJ;703184 wrote:Actually, many states already do not allow public employees to collectively bargain.

FatHobbit;703188 wrote:Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but it seems like they want to make sure none of this applies to them.

coach_bob1;703195 wrote:While that is true, where collective bargaining is in operation there is usually a third party to decide the outcome, not one of the first-party complaintants.

LJ;703198 wrote:They have a public employee rep in legislature in Mississippi. I dunno what that has to do with you saying it is a legal right to have CB, while states already don't allow it.

O-Trap;703203 wrote:If it was stated in the Ohio Constitution, it could be a right while being prohibited elsewhere. That's the only way I can see it being that way, though.

coach_bob1;703209 wrote:O-Trap,

I think we may be on the same idea with minor differences. I favor merit-based pay as long as an objective standard is set. Part of the problem with the bill is that it just says "a wage or salary may be paid based upon merit" while it does not elaborate further. I am aware that elaborating further would turn this 475 page bill into thounds of pages. I also think public employees should be allowed to bargain as a group for insurance puposes due to the amount of money group rates actually save the state.

LJ;703198 wrote:They have a public employee rep in legislature in Mississippi. I dunno what that has to do with you saying it is a legal right to have CB, while states already don't allow it.

coach_bob1;703216 wrote:Actually, I'm ttalking about the fact that if there is a dispute in wage bargaining, instead of going to a third party (i.e. arbitrator or mediator) management (who is a first-party) gets to decide what they feel a fair wage is. The example given of your in-laws deciding what you get in a divorce is a very apt illustration that was given in an interview recently.

LJ;703213 wrote:CBA's have nothing to do with group rates. All they would have to do is form a State Teachers of Ohio Healthcare Consortium.

LJ;703219 wrote:I know what you are saying, but what does that have to do with the legality of the bill?

coach_bob1;703228 wrote:As far as I'm aware, isn't that a no-no in labor relations?

O-Trap;703197 wrote:Sorry. That was tongue-in-cheek. Forgot the emoticon.