Senate Bill 5

[gidet]

There are some things in the document that I disagree with for sure.

I dislike how teachers can't negotiate their class sizes... A large class is not the environment that a budding student should be a part of. Smaller class sizes are needed because they kind of give a more one on one feel.

(I think this deals with classes like English or something not the graduating class)

I also dislike how teachers salaries are determined by test scores. Test scores really don't mean shit. I hated being told I had to do well on the SATs and the Ohio-whatever-that-test-is-called-that-you-take-as-a-sophomore-in-high-school-now. We would basically just study the material that was suppose to be on these tests for years and I felt like I really didn't learn anything because it was just felt like "cramming". Even thought cramming may not be the correct term it's the closest I can think of being described as.

So I guess basically I don't support this bill because when it deals with teachers since a teacher really has to do their job otherwise they lose their license. As for the government employees I haven't gotten that far yet. But if I don't agree with one part then I can't "like" the bill. Maybe I'm not grasping it all the way... It's like 200+ long and I've read articles about it and read some of the bill but, that's about it. I maybe contradicting myself but I think I was more pointing towards the auto industry unions. But I still think my example of the school group work assignment still stands.

Uhhhhh... I hope this makes sense. :-s

[cOoTeR]

I work in a factory that makes seats for Honda and we aren't union. They give us raises every once in a while, shut down pay, and everything that unions get, but like I said, we are NOT union. If we have a problem with the company we are encouraged to bring it up so we can make our work environment better for everyone. Unions are pointless now a days if you work for an outstanding company that knows what the hell they are doing.

Edit: As for government workers why shouldn't they be able to to this too? I agree with Casper.. if you do your job right despite what you're doing you should be rewarded for it but if you don't do anything and expect to be paid the same as the hard working employee it's wrong. This kind of reminds me of school projects where you're assigned to a group of four people and you end up doing all the work but they get the same grade as you, it's not fair and should be changed. Hopefully I'm getting this subject enough otherwise I'll just look like an ass.

I can only speak from my point of view as a tax paying state employee. I signed up to do a dangerous job. But when I took the job 5yrs ago I was told I would be payed a certain amount and receive certain benefits for doing my job. My union not only makes sure I receive what I was promised when I signed up but also that my job situation is as safe as possible. When you do a job that has no real product or out put you cannot judge merit pay. It becomes a game based on politics and cronieism. The friends of supervisors will receive preferential treatment while others that don't run in the clique are left behind. The unions are in place because state employees do jobs that politicians don't understand yet the politicians make the decisions that affect the said employees. It's like having a boss that has no clue how your job works changing the way you do it. The union checks the politicians when they try to do stuff that's outta line.

[cOoTeR]

Who checks the unions? Besides that' date=' do you think you're the only person with a boss that couldn't find his ass if his hand was shoved up his colon?[/quote']

The employees check the unions. No I don't but most bosses have some idea of what's going on. Having a politician decide the ins and outs of my job is like having me tell Ray Charles how to play the piano.

[Uncle Punk]

The unions are in place because state employees do jobs that politicians don't understand yet the politicians make the decisions that affect the said employees.

Not quite that simple, politicians don't understand how much a job costs and give away what they don't earn or need to worry about by balancing a budget. If they had any business sense or had any fiscal responsibility to work within their means we wouldn't be in this mess to need fixing. We both blame the politicians but I blame them for being complicit with the unions to steal from the rest of us.

[cOoTeR]

I honestly believe that what SB5 boils down to is the republican politicians feel threatened because the unions often support the democratic candidates. They are trying to cut a leg off the democratic platform. The problem with a bi-partisan government is they fight with each other and the people in the middle are the pawns that deal with the wrath.

[Uncle Punk]

Wasn't it a Democrat president who signed into law the same type of legislation for federal union workers?

If the folks in charge are trying to balance a budget and not commit to paying more than they are taking in for the future I don't care what party they are from they have my support as long as they don't do it by taking more money from me to pay for past transgressions.

[cOoTeR]

I am not anti-union. I've stated this on many occasions. What I am against is 2 groups of folks negotiating with my money' date=' when I have no vote. I think the unions should be bargaining collectively with me.

Also, you know something's awry when the [i']job to have is the county/city street sweeper position.

Are you a state employee? What money are you talking about? The tax money we all pay the state? Saying that's your money is like buying a Happy Meal at McDonald's and after you pay saying all the money in the register is yours and McDonald's needs to consult you before spending it.

[kawi kid]

Are you a state employee? What money are you talking about? The tax money we all pay the state? Saying that's your money is like buying a Happy Meal at McDonald's and after you pay saying all the money in the register is yours and McDonald's needs to consult you before spending it.

You are a state employee therefore you are a tax expense to the state.

Unless you pay more back in taxes than you make you are not a tax payer.

[cOoTeR]

I am not the expense the job I do is the expense. My job is also very important and needed. I pay an equal amount of taxes as anyone else with the same income + deductions so for you to try to say that your more of a tax payer than me is ridiculous. If you don't want the job I do to be done your crazy.

Edit: Also every day I go to work I risk my life for an income of around $37,000. Would you do that? Calling me an expense is rude and insulting.

Edited May 31, 2011 by cOoTeR

[cfd37buckeye]

I honestly believe that what SB5 boils down to is the republican politicians feel threatened because the unions often support the democratic candidates. They are trying to cut a leg off the democratic platform. The problem with a bi-partisan government is they fight with each other and the people in the middle are the pawns that deal with the wrath.

You are the first person to say it out loud. That is 100% what it is about.

[Disclaimer]

So should the people that work for a publicly held company have to collectively bargain with all the shareholders?

My boss is responsible for my wages, but it's not his money either.

Edited May 31, 2011 by JRMMiii

[cOoTeR]

You're every bit as much a tax payer as I am' date=' but that doesn't mean you aren't an expense. My boss views me as an expense. The point is does the job warrant the expense. I never said you aren't necessary. I was curious to know why you aren't collectively bargaining with me, instead of some politician that doesn't give a damn how much it costs.. because it's not his money.[/quote']

We bargain with people that are elected by the people (you and me) and the people appointed by elected officials.

My statement that you quoted was directed more to kawi kid.

[Uncle Punk]

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/08/26/a-tale-of-two-cities-wisconsin-edition/

Could Ohio benefit from the same? I liked the bill from the start and if we can benefit like Wisconsin I think I love it. Need to do some looking around to find out where we stand.

[DAC]

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/08/26/a-tale-of-two-cities-wisconsin-edition/

Could Ohio benefit from the same? I liked the bill from the start and if we can benefit like Wisconsin I think I love it. Need to do some looking around to find out where we stand.

That sounds like a zero sum game. Maybe they're right. Gov't revenues are not going up much. Period. So if the average cost per employee is higher, you just have fewer of them. If it's lower, more public workers get to have or keep their job. In the end, pretty basic equation.

[Disclaimer]

Can they? If I buy a managed mutual fund - I don't really get a choice. I delegate the choice to the fund manager to do the right thing for me.

Kind of like how you elect people in the gov't to do the same thing.

If you don't like the choices they make, you sell the fund for another one, or elect new people. Analogous.

[Rod38um]

Its pretty simple really. Public employees are employed by the taxpayer to do a job. As unemployment rises, fewer people are paying their wages. Most tax payers in the private sector have had to take wage cuts, benefit cuts and even a complete loss of pension in favor of a 401K just to stay employed. I know I have taken a substantial loss. But yet the people I employ, the public employees, continue to get healthy wage increases each year, have great benefits and pensions that exceed our ability to pay for them. The money must be borrowed......... It makes no sense to me.

Our government doesnt have options like the private sector, If a union squeezes the private company too hard, they have options, they can move to a different country or go under..... thats happened thousands of times in this country, the government cant do that, they just get forced into raising taxes or borrowing and sticking our kids with the bill. Its ridiculous, I say do away with public employees unions altogether. If people arent making enough in public jobs, they will quit and officials will be forced to pay more in order to keep the job filled. It will all work out in the end....... Just need the unions out of the way so my tax dollars can be spent more wisely.

[drc32-0]

Why don't we just let the Chinese do the jobs,or hire illegal immigrants.That's what the non-union bosses do.

Anybody want to buy a $15,000,000 house in muskingum county?Our local non-union boss is selling.As far as labor goes,it seems her local non-union help couldn't work cheap enough so she's moving more and more stuff to her socialist workers in China.What's the reward for her loyal unempolyed workers?Maybe they can drive by her $15,000,000 mansion and see what their labor bought.

Ya gotta love those non-union bosses.Just work hard and they'll give you what you deserve...right.

[Likwid]

rabble rabble rabble

[Rod38um]

Why don't we just let the Chinese do the jobs,or hire illegal immigrants.That's what the non-union bosses do.

Actually its the union bosses who are donating the money to the democratic coffers in favor of keeping the illegals here. They are easily sold on the idea of unions, they vote democrat by a huge majority when legalization status is acheived, they work hard and move to the job readily. They dont care if this leaves a legal citizen sitting at home without a job as long as that illegal is paying union dues. Its the unions who have advocated and donated big money to the democratic party for the legalization of all illegals.

It would seem the unions these days are less concerned about workers than they are about achieving the leftist, socialist agenda. Your union dues go to:

legalization of illegals

advancement of special gay rights

advancement of tax payer funded abortions

advocation of bigger government with more control of your life

advocation of higher taxes

advocation of the gov red tape that costs billions and send jobs over seas.

abolishment of your 2nd amendment rights

the list goes on..........

I was a union member for 20 years and hated that my money went for these things. I finally got out and now I donate money in accordance with my beliefs..........to the other side.

[Disclaimer]

I was a union member for 20 years and hated that my money went for these things. I finally got out and now I donate money in accordance with my beliefs..........to the other side.

In other words...

"I'll let my morals and values be bought for 20 yrs because it's damn good money that the union fought for me to have, but now that I've made my money... F*(k them unions!"

Irony.

Kinda like this guy:

Union Bashing GOPer Received $92,273 In Disability payments from his Union

Edited August 28, 2011 by JRMMiii

[drc32-0]

Actually its the union bosses who are donating the money to the democratic coffers in favor of keeping the illegals here. They are easily sold on the idea of unions, they vote democrat by a huge majority when legalization status is acheived, they work hard and move to the job readily. They dont care if this leaves a legal citizen sitting at home without a job as long as that illegal is paying union dues. Its the unions who have advocated and donated big money to the democratic party for the legalization of all illegals.

It would seem the unions these days are less concerned about workers than they are about achieving the leftist, socialist agenda. Your union dues go to:

legalization of illegals

advancement of special gay rights

advancement of tax payer funded abortions

advocation of bigger government with more control of your life

advocation of higher taxes

advocation of the gov red tape that costs billions and send jobs over seas.

abolishment of your 2nd amendment rights

the list goes on..........

I was a union member for 20 years and hated that my money went for these things. I finally got out and now I donate money in accordance with my beliefs..........to the other side.

You might want to quit drinking the coolaid.

I've worked in locals in seven states and everytime you hire in you need to show documentation proving legal status.It is the greedy(or incompetent) non-union bosses that don't want to pay decent wages or taxes that hire illegals.Unions are under a microscope,if the non-union bosses were held to the same standards there would be fines levied everyday.Of course,there is an easy solution to the illegal problem...confiscate the rescources of those who hire illegals,the problem would quickly go away.If they can do it to drug dealers they can do it to these criminals. The vast percentage of illegals are hired/exploited by law breaking non-union bosses.I'd be happy to wager on that if you're a betting man.

As for unions being responsible for sending work over seas...go back to my original post,Longaberger is a staunchly non-union company.Yet their people could not work cheap enough to keep the work in America.How are unions responsible for this?I know this is just one example,but for the last 30 years(since the Ray-gun ad) the standard pratice of companies has been to go from union to non-union to overseas.I've read where the average wage in China is $3,000 dollars a year.American labor can not work for that.Will you work for that?

Yes union people do vote dem much more often,but ironically I didn't see much,if any, positive movement on any of the issues you listed during any of the republican administrations since before Reagan.In the same timeframe the working people of America have taken a beating.

Here we go with the socialism crap again.Correct me if I'm wrong...the large percentage of management in large companies vote republican.These same republican voting managers sent millions of American jobs to SOCIALIST China.They are now partners with socialists.It's pretty easy to see that republicans love socialism if they can make a buck from it.It's just when it helps other people that they can't stand it.

Of course,being a man of principles you're not going to take any of the union negotiated benifits that you acquired during those twenty years,right?

[Rod38um]

Capitalist will make a buck wherever they can....... I never said that unions were the single thing responsible for sending jobs overseas but they do play a huge roll in more than one way. Lets face it, foreign countries have several advantages. They have:

Lower corporate taxes

Less environmental red tape

Less environmental expense

Lower wages

No unions

less benefits

Corporations are not the evil money grubbing bastards that most liberals make them out to be. They are you and me and anyone else who has investments, 401K's, mutual funds or pension plans. We pay people to manage those funds for us and if they dont produce, its their job to move our money to where it will produce. Its a simple mechanism that is cold and indifferent to the worker on the street. It forces companies to lay off workers, break unions, or move overseas.

Corporations are the life blood of the workers and the unions. Yet unions continue to advocate and donate money to those who view corporations as evil rich entities that should be taxed and regulated till they pull up roots and leave. If you want a high paying job, you should advocate low corporate taxes and for moderate streamlined regulation that protects the environment with minimal financial impact.

The fact is, we dont tax wealth, we tax income..... income is derived from productivity so when you advocate taxing the rich, what you are really doing is taxing the productive, the job creators. Who have to find a way keep a competitive product on the shelf and to maintain or increase profit to satisfy you the investor so they either lay you off to cut cost or send your job to China.

I don’t have a problem with organized labor in the private sector. I do have a problem with it in the public sector and I have a problem with it being politically active. Especially when its politics ultimately destroy the environment required to manufacture in this country and send our jobs overseas.

There is no amount of penalties or regulation that one could set in place that could make a company stay here and manufacture a product at a loss and the more of that kind of thing that gets set place the less foreign investment we would be able to attract so as popular as that is among the liberal elite, its more of the same thing that drives business away.

If you want more public employees, first we need more private sector, tax paying jobs to support them. If you want more private sector jobs, you need to make it cheaper and more attractive for companies to do business here……….. liberals will never agree to that. Vote republican!

[Rod38um]

Of course,being a man of principles you're not going to take any of the union negotiated benifits that you acquired during those twenty years,right?

Of course I'll take anything I can get. I look out for me and mine the same as you do but I also realize that this selfish attitude of "I dont care if the world burns around me, just give me what I want" that dominates the unions is what sends our jobs overseas.

To be honest, I was astounded and confused 20 some years ago when I got that job and was forced to join the union...... Dont join..... No job.

Was my pay higher? Yes

Were my benefits better? Yes

Did I have a pension? Yes

Could all that be maintained in the modern competitive world? NO

So I was faced with a question:

Is it better to make a little less and have a smaller benefit package or demand to maintain what I had plus nice annual increases and maybe have another year or two on the job before my company could no longer operate here?

I chose to take a bit less in hopes that my company could stay here. I also chose to make sure no more of my money would be sent to a political party that demonizes corporations. I want it sent to a party that cultivates an environment that companies can do business in so that my kids and grandkids can have a decent job.

Edited August 28, 2011 by Rod38um

[Disclaimer]

The hypocrisy is thick in here.

[drc32-0]

That all sounds good,but the bottom line is you can't compete with $3,000 dollar a year labor.

Another thought...I might be wrong but I belief highly unionized Germany is the second leading exporter in the world after China.If unions are the problem,how can they do that?The problem isn't unions nearly as much as the greed and incompetence of American management.A perfect example is our governor.His last private sector job led to the bankrupcy of the company and the near collapse of the American economy.How was he penalized for "creating this business friendly environment"?You republicans put him in the governors's office.Even unions don't reward that level of incompetence.

As for low taxes on the rich creating jobs...yes,they do create jobs.The only problem is they create those jobs in China and other near slave labor countries.The republican's socialist partners.You might as well keep the taxes up because tax breaks aren't creating jobs here.Now if those jobs are created here with good wages,then yes,I'll agree with tax breaks.

As for all the benifits you said you had above...I still have those.So it is still possible to have these benifits.Will they last?Who knows,but they have already lasted longer than a lot of non-union jobs where the workers made less.

You might as well stand for something.

Edited August 29, 2011 by drc32-0