Senate Bill 5

[Steve Butters]

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?

idk....maybe because theyre educating the future leaders of this country, and protecting the lives and property of YOU and all the other people of the United States? (even those here illegally!)

[John]

idk....maybe because theyre educating the future leaders of this country

the chinese are the future leaders of this country.

[Steve Butters]

the chinese are the future leaders of this country.

you know what i meant.

[20thGix]

idk....maybe because theyre educating the future leaders of this country, and protecting the lives and property of YOU and all the other people of the United States? (even those here illegally!)

I know what they do. I just dont think that people think to them self that " I'm going to be an 8th grade math teacher, cop or firefighter so i can make 500k a year". Are some of them under paid....yeah probally. But i bet most started in that field because thats what they WANT to do regardless of pay.

[Steve Butters]

I know what they do. I just dont think that people think to them self that " I'm going to be an 8th grade math teacher, cop or firefighter so i can make 500k a year". Are some of them under paid....yeah probally. But i bet most started in that field because thats what they WANT to do regardless of pay.

i agree...its what they want to do, lets just remove their benefits and cut them down to minimum wage...i mean, who needs money to survive when youre doing what you love! AMIRITE?

hell...why not just make them volunteers! "500k a year" yea fuckin right.... maybe union president, but never a union employee...wanting decent benefits and a yearly raise of a couple cents is not asking for a lot considering what they do. you think you deserve a raise more because you dont like your job? thats your own fault for going into a field you dont like, just because they enjoy their job doesnt mean they deserve to get paid any less than someone who hates theirs.

the longer youre with a company, the more you should make is the way i see it....youre vested in that company, youre dedicated, and obviously you do decent work or your ass would be canned (and yes, union employees DO get fired occasionally)

you act like theyre demanding $10/hr raise every year

explain why non union employees deserve to get raises but union employees dont?

(im speaking directly of the employees affected by this bill - EMT, firefighters, teachers, etc....not UAW or private unions etc...thats another story)

Edited February 17, 2011 by Steve Butters

[drc32-0]

Can I just state one fact...unions did NOT destroy our economy...the unsatiable greed of wall street non-union bosses(including John Kasic)destroyed our economy.

We need to start the cutting at the bloated top.Kasic would be a good place to start...how much did we spend on his porkbarrel home security upgrades?If it's over a penny,it's too much,we already have a governors mansion...use it or go back to legal thiefing on wallstreet.

Back on subject...his union busting and privatization b.s. is nothing more then a re-distrubution of wealth.He showed use the template when he first got in...fired six people at the bottom and gave one of his cronies a $47,000 raise.Wait till he gets done privatizing state departments,you don't like a state employee making $60,000 a year,how ya gonna like one of Kasic's buddies making several million running some company that provides cheap labor to the state of Ohio.How's that gonna help our tax base?

By the way,who do you think hires all these ill-legals in a America?Unions?Right.It's the non-union bosses who don't want to pay America wages or taxes.Are you serious...oh just work hard and everything will be hunky dory.Right.

BTW,of course I'm union,but not in the public sector.I'm just really sick and tired of hearing the middle class fighting itself,when we should be uniting and fighting the real enemy...Kasic and the ungodly greedy like him.

[20thGix]

i agree...its what they want to do, lets just remove their benefits and cut them down to minimum wage...i mean, who needs money to survive when youre doing what you love! AMIRITE?

hell...why not just make them volunteers! "500k a year" yea fuckin right.... maybe union president, but never a union employee...wanting decent benefits and a yearly raise of a couple cents is not asking for a lot considering what they do. you think you deserve a raise more because you dont like your job? thats your own fault for going into a field you dont like, just because they enjoy their job doesnt mean they deserve to get paid any less than someone who hates theirs.

the longer youre with a company, the more you should make is the way i see it....youre vested in that company, youre dedicated, and obviously you do decent work or your ass would be canned (and yes, union employees DO get fired occasionally)

you act like theyre demanding $10/hr raise every year

explain why non union employees deserve to get raises but union employees dont?

(im speaking directly of the employees affected by this bill - EMT, firefighters, teachers, etc....not UAW or private unions etc...thats another story)

I think your missing my point. I was only saying thats these problems seem to be part of the job description right or wrong.

Now as far as time vested being grounds for a raise sounds like just because i show up everyday and do mediocre work i deserve a raise.

[Steve Butters]

I think your missing my point. I was only saying thats these problems seem to be part of the job description right or wrong.

Now as far as time vested being grounds for a raise sounds like just because i show up everyday and do mediocre work i deserve a raise.

youre working well enough to keep your job, so i think you should get a raise for the time you spend working there.

if you did a horrible job, you deserve to get shit-canned. if you do your job well enough to keep it, then you deserve a raise for becoming a vested employee instead of switching companies....thats how i see it at least.

union employees cant just show up and stick their thumb up their ass and get by...you will get fired. union contracts have work loads established that employees must follow, if you arent up to par, you are open to a union contact, followed by a hearing...at the hearing disciplinary will be taken, whether its suspension or termination depends on frequency etc

for example: where i work, we have it written into our contract that we must handle 1200 packages per hour..... if i slouch around and do 600 per hour, i will receive a contact and end up at a hearing...if i bust my balls and do 1800 per hour, i will be treated the same as the person doing 1200.... if they wanted more work done, they should make that a requirement of the job, instead they say how much they want done, what their goals are, etc....you get what you ask for - ask me to do 1200/hr and im going to do 1200/hr, not 1800/hr

[fireman_343]

I'm a firefighter and this bill needs to go down... And FAST!!! I didn't read everyones comments because I'm on my iPhone now, but I did skim over a few and I don't agree with a lot of the talk about the police and fire!!

Maybe when I get more time I'll read all this on my computer..

I just don't understand why anyone is for this bill!!

[Steve Butters]

I'm a firefighter and this bill needs to go down... And FAST!!! I didn't read everyones comments because I'm on my iPhone now, but I did skim over a few and I don't agree with a lot of the talk about the police and fire!!

Maybe when I get more time I'll read all this on my computer..

I just don't understand why anyone is for this bill!!

i guess they dont appreciate what firefighters and police do. or they just hate America.

[Casper]

I'm a firefighter and this bill needs to go down... And FAST!!! I didn't read everyones comments because I'm on my iPhone now, but I did skim over a few and I don't agree with a lot of the talk about the police and fire!!

Maybe when I get more time I'll read all this on my computer..

I just don't understand why anyone is for this bill!!

I guess I need some clarification. I keep hearing how bad it is for fire, police, teachers, etc but no reasons why. Why is collective bargaining so important versus performance based/cost of living increases? Is there something in the bill I missed?

I'm not a lawmaker, so my opinion doesn't mean squat. But I'd like to be educated as best I can.

[Disclaimer]

I'm a firefighter and this bill needs to go down... And FAST!!! I didn't read everyones comments because I'm on my iPhone now, but I did skim over a few and I don't agree with a lot of the talk about the police and fire!!

Maybe when I get more time I'll read all this on my computer..

I just don't understand why anyone is for this bill!!

You're a fireman and you can afford an iPhone? They're paying you too much.

[Steve Butters]

You're a fireman and you can afford an iPhone? They're paying you too much.

agreed. in soviet america, iphone own you!

[fusion]

Why is collective bargaining so important versus performance based/cost of living increases?

These things aren't mutually exclusive. You can have collective bargained performance based agreements.

[Casper]

I can't find anything except this:

Removes a limitation on the definition of "supervisor" with respect to members of police and fire departments, potentially making more people supervisors and ineligible to collectively bargain.

Essentially, it's making those who supervise fall under the category of supervisor, making them ineligable for collective bargaining. Sounds like it's fixing a technicality.

This part for teachers is especially important:

Requires the parties to consider, during negotiations, the financial status of the public employer at the time period surrounding the negotiations for purposes of determining the ability of the employer to pay for any agreed terms.

Prohibits the parties from basing the ability of the employer to pay for terms of the agreement on potential future increases in the employer's income that would only be possible by the employer obtaining funding from an outside source, including the passage of a levy or a bond issue.

I haven't read the whole thing, but damn near. I just don't see where it's so bad. Insight from those directly affected would be great.

[Disclaimer]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_bargaining

[Casper]

Collective bargaining - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Says the guy who gives me shit for quoting Wikipedia.

[Disclaimer]

When did I ever? It's credible as long as IT also has citations... I've always maintained that position. You must be confusing me w/ someone else.

http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2011/02/hundreds_descend_on_ohio_state.html

Sean Grayson, general counsel for the AFSCME Ohio Council 8, told the committee that there is nothing in the collective bargaining law that forced government leaders to settle on the very contract agreements they now complain about.

"There is nothing that compels a public employer to cave in because of an existing part of the collective bargaining law," Grayson said. "Neither party has to propose anything. Neither party has to concede anything. Neither party has to agree to anything."

Some proponents who testified on Thursday asked the senators to expand the collective bargaining ban to include local governments, too.

Ray Warrick, of Mason in Southwest Ohio, a tea party member, told Republicans controlling the committee that people like him voted them into office, and now the lawmakers owe it those voters to pass this bill.

"You will not see us or hear us every day," Warrick said, "but I think you know there are thousands of ordinary citizens across this state that are counting on you."

Opponents say they are willing to make some concessions but stripping their rights to bargain could lead to lower wages and benefits and hurt Ohio families.

Senate Republicans said they do not expect the bill, sponsored state Sen. Shannon Jones, a Republican from Springboro, to be voted out as it was introduced.

"My view is that everybody, Democrats and Republicans, need to understand that we can't remain with the status quo on this," said state Sen. Keith Faber, a Republican, the committee's vice chairman. "Simply saying kill the bill is not an option."

But that is exactly what some protesters want. Firefighters wore T-shirts that read "Kill the Bill,"and state workers wore bright red shirts that read "No on SB 5."

"What I'm seeing here today is that management is trying to be seen as the victim here, but they sit across the table and negotiated these deals just like us," said Lawrence McKissic, of Twinsburg, who was at the Statehouse on Thursday. McKissic is an IT specialist for the Bureau of Workers' Compensation in Garfield Heights.

This is like the bailouts - if you were against the bailouts, you should be against this bill. The gov't basically wants to take an agreement and get it for a discount, after the fact. Edited February 18, 2011 by JRMMiii

[Casper]

Does it nullify existing contracts or only apply to new contracts? The way I read it, it only applies to new.

And I could've sworn you made fun of me for quoting wikileaks. I must be on crack.

[Casper]

For the record, if it nullifies existing contracts, that changes my opinion entirely.

[Cheech]

All I'm going to say is the UAW is a shitty example of a Union. At this point the UAW is a corporate entity unto themselves which still painstakingly maintains the illusion that it's helping the collective workers.

My dad was in a Union before he retired, it was very simple. He paid his dues, got unemployment and union benefits when he was laid off (construction is cyclical, especially in Cleveland) and was put in the pool when jobs came up. Union subsidized training and apprenticeship to new people just breaking into the trade. No corporate lobby, no massive private golf course in Michigan.

[buildit]

Does it nullify existing contracts or only apply to new contracts? The way I read it, it only applies to new.

Everything I heard/read says' existing contracts and obligation are uneffected. It would seem to be a way for the government to weed out the Peter Principal winners who've been incompetent at their jobs for years. I think it is ridiculous that state employees can call in sick and then picket the state house over this bill. If I were I was the government exec Id fire them for lying about being sick if they can prove they were there.

[fireman_343]

You're a fireman and you can afford an iPhone? They're paying you too much.

Haha!! Yeah right!! I'm lucky to have a wife that makes about as much as me, so that's how I can afford the iPhone!! And if I made more money, I'd have a new(er) bike and not a 8 yr old dinosaur that maybe makes 100hp! Haha And I'd also be racing 600's and not mini's!!

Casper, I'll type why and how it will affect me tomorrow!! I'm in my bed at the FD now on my overpriced smart phone!! Lol!

[chevysoldier]

Casper, I'll type why and how it will affect me tomorrow!! I'm in my bed at the FD now on my overpriced smart phone!! Lol!

Hope it's a quiet night for ya!

[Disclaimer]

Not me, I want the people of Blacklick to get their money's worth.