Senate Bill 5

[Casper]

**DISCLAIMER - THIS IS MY PERSONAL OPINION. THIS THREAD IS TO INVOKE INTELLIGENT DISCUSSION ON THE MATTER, BOTH FOR AND AGAINST.**

With OSHA and other work safety organizations, the effectiveness of unions has long been overstated. In the 20s and 30s, they played a major role creating safe places to work. Great. Now, all they're about is squeezing more money out of already tight budgets. Raises should be based on merit/performance, not how long you've been there. Work hard, get a raise. Do the minimum, no raise. It's just how it should be. Unions unfortunately take a more socialist approach to it with equal raises for all, even those who don't deserve them. So in the end, you have outrageous payrolls and mediocre employees. Now I'm not saying all state employees are mediocre. However, think if you knew you'd get an X% raise no matter if you gave 75% or 110% at work. What would you do? The minimum? Or your best? It breeds a society of people thinking they deserve more for just showing up. Handouts and gimmes need to be stopped. It's a hard decision, but it has to be made.

Does this mean I don't think firefighters, police officers, paramedics, teachers, etc should be paid more? Absolutely not. My brother is a firefighter and a paramedic, and I hope nothing but prosperity for him and his wife. I want to see all people succeed. I believe those who work hard deserve more money than those who do not. This goes for all positions in all professions. Do your job well, get paid well. Suck at your job or do the bare minimum, you can keep making what you're making or even face disciplinary action. If you don't like it, that's the beauty of America; go find a different job, go to school to better qualify for better positions, etc. I love this country. I love this state.

This, of course, is only my opinion, which I am entitled to. So before the name calling starts, sit back and think about what I'm saying. If you disagree with me, that's your right, but let's keep this discussion civil.

If you don't know what Senate Bill 5 is, you can read it here: http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/BillText129/129_SB_5_PSC_N.html

[John]

If you don't like it, that's the beauty of America; go find a different job, go to school to better qualify for better positions, etc.

that would be all fine and good if everyone were judged solely on their own merits and everyone had a fair opportunity to develop those merits.

but the fact is they aren't and they don't. there is no horatio alger. the reason its called the american dream is because you have to be asleep to believe it.

[Disclaimer]

Summary instead of the full-text: http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/analysis.cfm?ID=129_SB_5&ACT=As%20Pending%20in%20Senate%20Committee&hf=analyses129/s0005-prop-129.htm

I need to do more digging, but abolishing collective bargaining probably isn't going to benefit anyone in the "middle class".

[Steve Butters]

im in a private union, so it doesnt affect me

[Casper]

Summary instead of the full-text: http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/analysis.cfm?ID=129_SB_5&ACT=As%20Pending%20in%20Senate%20Committee&hf=analyses129/s0005-prop-129.htm

I need to do more digging, but abolishing collective bargaining probably isn't going to benefit anyone in the "middle class".

If they'd abolished the unions in Detroit and allowed renegotiations of employee contracts, how many people would've kept their jobs? How many businesses that GM owed money wouldn't have been stuck with $$millions in unpaid bills? How much taxpayer money would've been saved in the bailouts?

If I were a state worker, I'd be a whole lot happier taking a paycut or receiving no raise than I would be if I lost my job all together. With the way things are looking with the budget, if unions keep pushing for more raises and benefits, I'd venture to says a whole lot of state jobs will be on the chopping block.

[JonS]

Union Of 1

[jarvismb]

...let's keep this discussion civil.

I had Watson try to give me an answer to this statement in the context of ORdN, and it came up with nothing.

[Casper]

I had Watson try to give me an answer to this statement in the context of ORdN, and it came up with nothing.

[Sapphy]

Just an FYI, not all state workers are Union. Some don't even have the option to be in the union. From what I hear/see this impacts Teachers, LEOs and Firefighters the most.

[Beegreenstrings]

In a way... No I dont want it to pass. But in other I do. Just like Oblaba's health care plan their are way too many underlying attachments to this that would be a negative.

Do I think that all men/women should be equal. No, simply they are not! Some work their asses off some do nothing. So no in that instance bob bust his balls to accomplish a team project, sheila jack and winston sit on their asses and get paid the same... Bullshit! Enzyte bob their gets a new position as ass. ceo and the other three do as well as the new janitors - in my mind.

However, like caspers brother... Firemen and women and police officers are different this is another reason I dont think this should pass. It is hard to have either of those jobs and not bust your ass when things go to shit... Besides the fact they are putting their lives on the line each and everyday they go to work.

It's just not comparing apples to oranges... It needs to be more detailed per work area.

in my opinion

[jporter12]

I need to read the bill, or summary of it. I'm really not sure what I think in this one. I'm anti-union in most cases. But, when working with the government (ploiticians), it's a little different.

[Disclaimer]

If they'd abolished the unions in Detroit and allowed renegotiations of employee contracts, how many people would've kept their jobs? How many businesses that GM owed money wouldn't have been stuck with $$millions in unpaid bills? How much taxpayer money would've been saved in the bailouts?

I dunno, how many? You understand how collective bargaining is supposed to work right? It's like finances in a marriage (well, some), you both sit down, look at the finances together and decide as a team what to spend, what gets saved, etc. It's supposed to be a transparent process. If GM, or Chrysler, or Ford couldn't afford those benefits, they should've never signed up to provide them, but in times of feast, it's a better investment to give your employees healthcare than giving 4 guys at the top $5M bonuses. You wouldn't tell your wife she couldn't have a pair of shoes because you want a Corvette would you? Not only that, but the unions have also sacrificed in times of famine along with the white-collars. The major difference though is, the white-collars steer the ship -- so why should we punish the blue-collar force when the white-collars are in control?

If I were a state worker, I'd be a whole lot happier taking a paycut or receiving no raise than I would be if I lost my job all together. With the way things are looking with the budget, if unions keep pushing for more raises and benefits, I'd venture to says a whole lot of state jobs will be on the chopping block.

Now you're trying to have your cake and eat it to. You don't think collective bargaining is beneficial, and unions are outdated, but yet you'd rather take a paycut than to be fired. If you're one of the high-performers, why would you ever have to worried about being fired? If you're at risk of being fired or laid-off.... guess what? You're either performing a non-essential function in which case, find something with more job security, or weren't one of the 'high performers' compared to your peers... sorry.

[Casper]

Just an FYI, not all state workers are Union. Some don't even have the option to be in the union. From what I hear/see this impacts Teachers, LEOs and Firefighters the most.

Very true. I was a state employee when I worked for Columbus State, and was not a union employee. But in those most affected positions, you have people who do the minimum and people who go above and beyond. Teachers are a prime example of this in my mind. The teachers who want to be there and want to make a difference are the ones that should be getting the raises/bonuses/etc. Raises based on performance. I can think of several teachers I had in the past who were complete wastes of my time. On the flip side of that coin, however, I can think of several who made a serious difference in my life. Those are the ones that should be recognized. While on the subject of education, I'm also a firm believer that teachers should make more. Gasp! An anti-union guy wants teachers to be paid more!? Seriously though, most teachers are there teaching because it's what they want to be doing. I think one way that could happen is to get rid of individual school districts. Have one state ran school district. One state school tax based on income, not property values. All the money gets divided equally among the schools. Teachers are paid X amount per year, with annual cost of living raises matching the federal estimates for COLI (usually 2-3.5%). Teachers who have done exceptionally well get bonuses. These also are evenly distributed throughout the state. No more rich areas having the better schools, while inner city schools crumble and students continue to fail. A junior at Columbus Public Schools should have the same exact opportunity for a good education as a junior at Dublin City Schools. This is just the tip of the iceberg, however. With one state school district, you'd get larger fuel discounts by buying in such large quantities. Same with computers, supplies, buildings, etc. You have one general inventory of all equipment. You cut the costs of having so many different upper and middle management employees. You open the door to new industries specific to the new school system setup. With money more evenly distributed and so much money freed with these savings, it'd be economically feasible to build more schools. Thus enabling smaller classroom sizes, more jobs, and again a better education for the students. There are my thoughts on education.

I dunno, how many? You understand how collective bargaining is supposed to work right? It's like finances in a marriage (well, some), you both sit down, look at the finances together and decide as a team what to spend, what gets saved, etc. It's supposed to be a transparent process. If GM, or Chrysler, or Ford couldn't afford those benefits, they should've never signed up to provide them, but in times of feast, it's a better investment to give your employees healthcare than giving 4 guys at the top $5M bonuses. You wouldn't tell your wife she couldn't have a pair of shoes because you want a Corvette would you? Not only that, but the unions have also sacrificed in times of famine along with the white-collars. The major difference though is, the white-collars steer the ship -- so why should we punish the blue-collar force when the white-collars are in control?

It's nothing like that in actuality. I'm not a union worker. Does that mean I'm being punished, and a union worker with my same position has it better than I? Definitely not. It means when it comes time for bonuses and raises, my supervisors review my performance throughout the given time frame and make a judgment based on that instead of just giving everyone the same thing. It encourages me to bust my ass to get the better pay. This is what sparks innovation. Reward people for a job well done, not just because they showed up.

Now you're trying to have your cake and eat it to. You don't think collective bargaining is beneficial, and unions are outdated, but yet you'd rather take a paycut than to be fired. If you're one of the high-performers, why would you ever have to worried about being fired? If you're at risk of being fired or laid-off.... guess what? You're either performing a non-essential function in which case, find something with more job security, or weren't one of the 'high performers' compared to your peers... sorry.

Not true at all. At any point in time my employer could decide they need to cut payroll. That happens in one of two ways, people take pay cuts or people get laid off. It's just simple math.

For simple math, say your payroll is $1,000,000, and you have 20 employees making $50,000/yr. Your budget for this year cannot afford that. You have to cut payroll costs to $800,000. How do you do this? Do you lay off four people? Or do you drop everyone's pay to $40,000/yr? Or (as I would try to do if ever in the position), do you find the top 10 performers and try to leave them at $50,000/yr; find 5 mediocre employees, and cut their pay to $40,000/yr; then look at the bottom 5 performers and offer them a demotion to $20,000/yr or the opportunity to leave?

With unions involved, people get laid off because most are unwilling to accept pay cuts. The automotive industry is a prime example. Look at all the layoffs that occurred before the government bailed them out. Hundreds of thousands of jobs were lost. How many could've been saved if they cut people's pay instead? Lots.

A 20% cut in payroll costs is roughly what the state is facing right now. It's either cut individual programs all together, or cut costs across the board. I vote cut costs and try to save as many jobs as possible.

[Disclaimer]

It's nothing like that in actuality. I'm not a union worker. Does that mean I'm being punished, and a union worker with my same position has it better than I? Definitely not. It means when it comes time for bonuses and raises, my supervisors review my performance throughout the given time frame and make a judgment based on that instead of just giving everyone the same thing. It encourages me to bust my ass to get the better pay. This is what sparks innovation. Reward people for a job well done, not just because they showed up.

Yea, I realize there is a difference between "actual" and "in theory", how do you even know you're getting better pay? How do you know the guy picking his nose next to you, didn't get a 5% raise compared to your 3.5% raise? What if he got a 3% raise instead? Compared to how much you busted your ass is that extra 0.5% worth it? This issue occurs regardless of a union, but without collective bargaining and a contract in place, it's just that much easier to extort the working class. Do you know how much the guy next to you makes? Why is that? You keep busting your ass reaching for that dangling carrot...that's exactly what they want from their worker base.

Not true at all. At any point in time my employer could decide they need to cut payroll. That happens in one of two ways, people take pay cuts or people get laid off. It's just simple math.

...Do you lay off four people? Or do you drop everyone's pay to $40,000/yr? Or (as I would try to do if ever in the position), do you find the top 10 performers and try to leave them at $50,000/yr; find 5 mediocre employees, and cut their pay to $40,000/yr; then look at the bottom 5 performers and offer them a demotion to $20,000/yr or the opportunity to leave?

That might be YOUR solution, but that might not be the best solution when you do a business case analysis. Anytime you cut pay, you're likely to turn a mediocre employee into a lackluster one. Not only that, but the top 10 performers, once they hear about everyone else's pay cut, they have the potential to have a mild form of "survivor guilt" that also reduces morale. Then you'll have other employees that know they would've rather had you just cut the 5 "dead weight" employees to maintain their own benefits. Your solution is too socialist, why spread the pain? Just cut the low performers and be done.

With unions involved, people get laid off because most are unwilling to accept pay cuts. The automotive industry is a prime example. Look at all the layoffs that occurred before the government bailed them out. Hundreds of thousands of jobs were lost. How many could've been saved if they cut people's pay instead? Lots.

And I just explained why pay cuts all around are even worse than having a union and just laying off the dead weight. If the person or the job isn't worth saving, why bother?

A 20% cut in payroll costs is roughly what the state is facing right now. It's either cut individual programs all together, or cut costs across the board. I vote cut costs and try to save as many jobs as possible.

I'll take the other side. I vote to draw a line in the sand, prioritize, and whatever falls below the line.... gone. You don't take your charity budget and support all charities with a small amount each? No, you donate a larger sum to the couple important ones that support your causes. This is the only way to get the public and politicians to face the music on budgets and priorities.

[Casper]

I'll take the other side. I vote to draw a line in the sand, prioritize, and whatever falls below the line.... gone. You don't take your charity budget and support all charities with a small amount each? No, you donate a larger sum to the couple important ones that support your causes. This is the only way to get the public and politicians to face the music on budgets and priorities.

Employees are charities. They work for you. You appreciate their work, reward them for it, and do what you can to keep them working. Your model is exactly what's wrong with corporate America.

Let Detroit be your case study for unions. Did they work for Detroit? Or how about Pittsburgh? Youngstown? Cleveland? Do you really think they have YOUR best interest in mind?

[Disclaimer]

Employees are not charities. The problem is they're treated like them. You continue to help the people that don't help themselves instead of just cutting your losses for the interest of productivity and profit. Fast-track the high performers, and cut the losers. Shouldn't be an issue as long as you aren't a loser, right? That's how Jack Welch did it, and look where GE is.

In regards to unions -- It depends on where YOUR interests are.

If YOUR interest is to make the car you're buying cheap, then maybe not.

But if YOUR interest is making a good wage with benefits to support your family to be able to afford the very products you produce - then you might have a different opinion.

[Casper]

Employees are not charities. The problem is they're treated like them. You continue to help the people that don't help themselves instead of just cutting your losses for the interest of productivity and profit. Fast-track the high performers, and cut the losers. Shouldn't be an issue as long as you aren't a loser, right? That's how Jack Welch did it, and look where GE is.

Doing pretty good actually.

In regards to unions -- It depends on where YOUR interests are.

If YOUR interest is to make the car you're buying cheap, then maybe not.

But if YOUR interest is making a good wage with benefits to support your family to be able to afford the very products you produce - then you might have a different opinion.

Depends where you want America to be in ten years. Do you want us all buying Kia's and Hyundai's? Or do you want us buying American. American automakers traditionally ship jobs to Mexico and Canada because it's cheaper for them. Wonder why?

[shittygsxr]

Union, non union it doesn't matter Americans have a shit attitude and until that changes it doesnt make a difference

from an article

But there's a deeper cleavage at work here. Today's Southern solons have watched their local economies blossom thanks to a younger, more-vibrant auto industry unencumbered by the Big Three's legacy costs and union work rules—a sort of anti-Detroit that has the flexibility and ability to turn profits by making the types of cars that Americans actually want to buy.

Of course, the foreign companies are confronting the same difficult market situation as Detroit. Car sales, hammered by a lack of credit and low consumer confidence, are down across the board this year. In November, sales of Toyotas were off 34 percent; today, a financial planner's billboard in Smyrna, Tenn., seeks the business of Nissan employees who are taking the company's buyout offer of up to $125,000. In San Antonio, the Toyota Tundra plant lay idle for three months this fall, though Toyota hasn't laid off anyone. Instead, according to Richard Perez, president and CEO of the Greater San Antonio Chamber of Commerce, Toyota offered the city "a whole bunch of folks who need to get busy." (San Antonio put them to work on beautification projects.) Of course, Toyota has resources to act in a more paternalistic manner—in part because the parent companies aren't saddled with the burdens of providing health care and retirement for workers in home markets.

Edited February 17, 2011 by shittygsxr

[Disclaimer]

Best cost country sourcing (note: I said "best" cost, not "lowest" cost)... but that all changes with the shifting costs of energy, quality, and logistics.

As soon as American people make the same sh*tty wages as they do in those countries -- by spreading all those cost savings measures across all the blue-collar employees instead of just cutting the unproductive ones, it's bound to be cheaper in American since logistics costs will be less (all else equal).

But it still goes back to -- the same Mexicans that build the Chevy Avalanche / Tahoe / Suburban, probably won't ever be able to afford one. Yet, we Americans want our big trucks, but we can pay for them because we make a decent living wage. So, do you want the blue-collars Americans among us to have the same quality of life as the blue collar Mexicans? The new hires have all but lost the prevailing UAW protections and wages that the old timers got -- so that HAS in fact changed.

Regardless, we're not talking about UAW (I grew up in a UAW family, so I feel I have a little more insight than the general public, but I digress)...SB5 is about teachers and public sector unions. Private companies are bad enough, but once you start having to deal with TAXPAYERS who ALL want something for nothing, union protections may still be relevant.

Too bad we don't have some of the people 'in the fray' commenting on this. It's easy to armchair this as a taxpayer and be a proponent for the measure, but what do the people that it actually affects have to say -- I'd venture that many of them are opposed (at least what I've read). Why?

[C-bus]

Collective bargaining in the private sector revolves around the perception of equitable distribution of the Company's profits. In the public sector, they're dealing with the citizens' income. I agree that strikes should be prohibited in the public sector. Private ... strike takes money from those aweful entrepreneurs. Public.... strikes put the public in jeopardy or neglects a service for which we have already paid.

[Casper]

Best cost country sourcing (note: I said "best" cost, not "lowest" cost)... but that all changes with the shifting costs of energy, quality, and logistics.

As soon as American people make the same sh*tty wages as they do in those countries -- by spreading all those cost savings measures across all the blue-collar employees instead of just cutting the unproductive ones, it's bound to be cheaper in American since logistics costs will be less (all else equal).

But it still goes back to -- the same Mexicans that build the Chevy Avalanche / Tahoe / Suburban, probably won't ever be able to afford one. Yet, we Americans want our big trucks, but we can pay for them because we make a decent living wage. So, do you want the blue-collars Americans among us to have the same quality of life as the blue collar Mexicans? The new hires have all but lost the prevailing UAW protections and wages that the old timers got -- so that HAS in fact changed.

Regardless, we're not talking about UAW (I grew up in a UAW family, so I feel I have a little more insight than the general public, but I digress)...SB5 is about teachers and public sector unions. Private companies are bad enough, but once you start having to deal with TAXPAYERS who ALL want something for nothing, union protections may still be relevant.

Too bad we don't have some of the people 'in the fray' commenting on this. It's easy to armchair this as a taxpayer and be a proponent for the measure, but what do the people that it actually affects have to say -- I'd venture that many of them are opposed (at least what I've read). Why?

Imagine I pay your salary. You have an entity that pretty much guarantees you get a raise every year, awesome benefits, etc. Now I'm having a problem paying you. I'm looking to get rid of that middleman, renegotiate contracts, etc. How do you feel about it? Of course you're against it. But again, this is a difficult situation which we MUST face, not ignore.

The correct response from the unions would be to come to the table with solutions to the problem. Payroll cuts, benefit cuts, etc. As far as I know, nothing of the sort has been done. I believe there was mention a while back about a specific union (really not sure which) saying cuts were not an option.

Think about your personal finances. You're running tight on cashola. Do you keep paying for premium cable and internet? Or do you cut down to the cheaper packages? Shop around for the best deal maybe?

There's nothing different here. However, the unions make it impossible to cut payroll costs. Retirement, insurance, etc. The state simply can't afford the cream of the crop anymore.

Now do you personally want to make a difference? Think that this is all bullshit, and firefighters/police/teachers/etc deserve more? Great! Take all this effort you put into arguing on the internet and start a non-profit. Collect donations from business, individuals, etc. Start a public nomination for people to nominate a public employee who has stood out and made a difference. Then put the top however many to a vote, and give them the money you raised. There, you made a difference. Or, you could volunteer for an existing non-profit that does something similar. There are many.

Don't feel like doing that do ya? Well, maybe THAT'S what's wrong with America. Everyone wants to bitch and complain when things don't go there way, but aren't willing to actually do anything about it.

[Disclaimer]

The correct response from the unions would be to come to the table with solutions to the problem. Payroll cuts, benefit cuts, etc. Instead, they said that wasn't an option.

As far as the UAW, they did renegotiate and make concessions.

http://www.upi.com/Business_News/2009/05/29/UAW-approves-GM-concessions/UPI-15171243611752/

Now, if you're talking about public sector, I'm not as well read up on that.

There's nothing different here. However, the unions make it impossible to cut payroll costs. Retirement, insurance, etc. The state simply can't afford the cream of the crop anymore.

No they don't -- it can and has been done, via collective bargaining. You aren't supposed to make a contract with someone (or a group of people) and not uphold your end of the bargain. If the state doesn't want to offer those benefits, then they shouldn't be a perk of the job for new hires, but the people that were promised them - that's what they're due.

Now do you personally want to make a difference? Think that this is all bullshit, and firefighters/police/teachers/etc deserve more? Great! Take all this effort you put into arguing on the internet and start a non-profit. Collect donations from business, individuals, etc. Start a public nomination for people to nominate a public employee who has stood out and made a difference. Then put the top however many to a vote, and give them the money you raised.

Don't feel like doing that do ya? Well, maybe THAT'S what's wrong with America.

And now....I dunno where you're trying to steer this?

[20thGix]

I dont know if this is on topic but....

I think that most all people that become teachers, firefighters, LEO's and what not do so because thats what they want to do. Going into it you know about what your salary will be. So why now that you are in your desired profession you feel that you want need paid more?

[MidgetTodd]

I am against it, as most here know I am a Firefighter/ EMT on with 2 different Depts. This bill is bad for Fire, EMS, Law.

[Disclaimer]

Here's how it's being handled in Wisconsin...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41644074/ns/us_news-life/

Wis. union vote on hold after Democrats leave state

Senate vote to end collective bargaining for most state workers delayed by opposition