kawi kid Posted November 4, 2011 Report Share Posted November 4, 2011 Chevy you are on the right track Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chevysoldier Posted November 4, 2011 Author Report Share Posted November 4, 2011 I do pay into my retirement...How much for health care and retirement? 10%-15%? Not all public sector workers do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chevysoldier Posted November 4, 2011 Author Report Share Posted November 4, 2011 Government unions have a straightforward business model: using money from members’ paychecks, lobby for endless tax increases and convince workers that only the union cares. From a taxpayer’s perspective this is bad enough, but OEA takes it one step further. The union pays itself big bucks to demonize Ohio’s elected officials and job creators.Larry Wicks,Executive Director $210,858Patricia Frost-Brooks,President $190,000Doug Crawford,Labor Relations Consultant $189,832Cecilia Weldon,Labor Relations Consultant $187,405Bill Leibensperger,Vice President $186,471James Martin,Assistant Executive Director, Business Services $171,528Kevin Flanagan,Assistant Executive Director, Member Services – Field $169,761Michael McEachern,Labor Relations Consultant $169,298Susan Babcock,Assistant Executive Director, Strategic/Workforce $169,148Rachelle Johnson,Assistant Executive Director, Member Services-Programming $164,525Mark Linder,Labor Relations Consultant $161,756Venita Shoulders,Labor Relations Consultant $158,432William Otten,Labor Relations Consultant $155,873Patricia Collins,Director, Region 1 $155,551Fritz Fekete,Director I/S & Research $154,635Mary Suchy,Director of Membership $152,636Randall Flora,Director, EI&I $152,114Rodney Bird,Labor Relations Consultant $152,058Jeffrey Kestner,Labor Relations Consultant $150,739These are just the OEA staff & officers paid more than $150,000. In 2010, more than 100 OEA employees were paid six figures! Strange that folks who make a living defending poor, unappreciated educators do so by shaking them down for triple the average Ohio teacher’s salary.http://biggovernment.com/jhart/2011/10/31/ohios-union-fat-cats-try-to-fool-voters-on-issue-2-public-sector-reform/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chevysoldier Posted November 4, 2011 Author Report Share Posted November 4, 2011 I do pay into my retirement/health insurance and I am a public employee...Respiratory Therapist at a county hospital to be exact. Politicians are NOT going to be hurt by this bill, it is going after the middle class public workers. Quite honestly the benefits are the main reason to stay in a public sector job. I would make a lot more if I worked for a private hospital...just wouldn't have as good of retirement/benefits.How much do you pay into it? 10%-15% like SB5 would do across the board?Not saying benefits aren't a reason to get into the public sector, but obviously our budget can't handle what we have been trying to do. How many public workers have been laid off because we have no money? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drew95gt Posted November 4, 2011 Report Share Posted November 4, 2011 Let’s keep the facts straight, only public hospital employees will be affected. The vast majority of medical professionals will not be affected.I DO work for a public hospital and pay into OPERS. Keep in mind that OSU and most of it's ancillary hospital's employees are public employees as well. That is a BIG piece of the medical employee pie in and around central Ohio. So don't talk to me like I don't know wtf I am saying here. I also work for a private hospital per diem (one of the best trauma centers in central Ohio) so I do know both sides of the issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drew95gt Posted November 4, 2011 Report Share Posted November 4, 2011 How much do you pay into it? 10%-15% like SB5 would do across the board?Not saying benefits aren't a reason to get into the public sector, but obviously our budget can't handle what we have been trying to do. How many public workers have been laid off because we have no money?Yes that's what I put in, I believe it is 12% now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chevysoldier Posted November 4, 2011 Author Report Share Posted November 4, 2011 Yes that's what I put in, I believe it is 12% now.You put in 12% into both healthcare and retirement? Now what about the rest of the public sector? I know a lot that pay 0%. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Punk Posted November 4, 2011 Report Share Posted November 4, 2011 Quite honestly the benefits are the main reason to stay in a public sector job. I would make a lot more if I worked for a private hospital...just wouldn't have as good of retirement/benefits.Good point for voting YES on issue 2, thanks for showing the truth about how public employees are compensated unfairly above what most people are and they are being asked to pay for the public employee benefits. I don't think I could have come up with as good of an argument on my own.See folks even the public employees know they are getting compensated better than the people who are paying them. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kawi kid Posted November 4, 2011 Report Share Posted November 4, 2011 What was the spread of a public employee vs private sector employee doing the same job I forget? I know they reported that a bunch. I thought it was like 30% more compensation maybe? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drc32-0 Posted November 5, 2011 Report Share Posted November 5, 2011 Has anyone here read the whole issue 2?It's 58 pages long!I guess it's like the old saying...if you can't convince them with you're brilliance,baffle them with you're bullshit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattm Posted November 5, 2011 Report Share Posted November 5, 2011 You put in 12% into both healthcare and retirement? Now what about the rest of the public sector? I know a lot that pay 0%.name 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drew95gt Posted November 5, 2011 Report Share Posted November 5, 2011 You put in 12% into both healthcare and retirement? Now what about the rest of the public sector? I know a lot that pay 0%.When you figure out my retirement and health insurance, it is about 15% of my gross combined. Most of that is my retirement because my company negotiated a good price for our insurance coverage. The other reason my health insurance premium is so low is because my wife carries the kiddos on hers and she works for the same hospital. I don't pay in to retirement (well except SS if you can count that) with my other job at the private hospital because it is just part time work I do for some extra cash. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drew95gt Posted November 5, 2011 Report Share Posted November 5, 2011 (edited) Good point for voting YES on issue 2, thanks for showing the truth about how public employees are compensated unfairly above what most people are and they are being asked to pay for the public employee benefits. I don't think I could have come up with as good of an argument on my own.See folks even the public employees know they are getting compensated better than the people who are paying them.No not really...I said clearly that I make LESS money than I would at a private hospital. Benefits don't put food on the table...they just make it so i don't have to work until I am 80 freaking years old. I want to enjoy my golden years thank you very much, it's give and take. All I was saying is that without the benefit package the public hospitals lose a lot of their competitiveness with private ones. Either way, this bill is aimed at the WRONG people. All of these people that are complaining about what I make, how much I put into retirement, how long I have to work, etc...etc...etc.. ALWAYS have the option to quit their day jobs and come work in the public sector if they think the grass is so green on this side. Edited November 5, 2011 by drew95gt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cdubyah Posted November 5, 2011 Report Share Posted November 5, 2011 How much do you pay into it? 10%-15% like SB5 would do across the board?Not saying benefits aren't a reason to get into the public sector, but obviously our budget can't handle what we have been trying to do. How many public workers have been laid off because we have no money?Public safety employees pay 17% for healthcare and 71% for retirement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drc32-0 Posted November 5, 2011 Report Share Posted November 5, 2011 No not really...I said clearly that I make LESS money than I would at a private hospital. Benefits don't put food on the table...they just make it so i don't have to work until I am 80 freaking years old. I want to enjoy my golden years thank you very much, it's give and take. All I was saying is that without the benefit package the public hospitals lose a lot of their competitiveness with private ones. Either way, this bill is aimed at the WRONG people. All of these people that are complaining about what I make, how much I put into retirement, how long I have to work, etc...etc...etc.. ALWAYS have the option to quit their day jobs and come work in the public sector if they think the grass is so green on this side.Drew...you're wasting you're time trying to reason with people with petty jealousies that want to drag people down to their level instead of going out and getting what they want.That's the vote yes people's stratagy...play to people's jealousy.They are counting on the fact that they'll just listen to the sound bites and not seek the truth which is what you stated..."this bill is aimed at the wrong people."It takes two to sign a contract,the union represents it's members and elected officials and appointed officials represent the tax payers.These officials that represent the tax payers are not doing their jobs!I don't think I have read one post in all of theses SB5/Issue2 threads that has mentioned any accountability by these managers.They have repeatedly dropped the ball for thirty years and still have wages and benifit packages that far outweight public union workers.It's way past time to reign them in and cut their golden parachutes and perks.No office worker needs a tax payer payed for car and gas card,that alone would save tens of millions.If Kasich and his supporters were truely concerned with the state's finances they could plug a large portion of the hole by just inforcing existing laws and collecting back taxes.The Columbus Dispatch had an EIGHTEEN page section in this weeks paper of people and companies that owe taxes.There was one over a million dollars and about 12 that were over $100,000.Another article this week stated that there is a total of over $190 million dollars owed in back taxes in Franklin county.That's just one county!I'm working with a local school board member here in Muskingum county and he said that if owed taxes were collected they'd easily be in the black,as it is they have a two million dollar shortage and have layed off 12 teachers.No adminisraters of course.Top heavy schools and top heavy government agencies should be a target in any equitable funding bill.From what I was able to gleen from the 58 pages of legalese that is Issue 2,this bill does not address these disparities and lack of managerial accountability.It is one sided and deserves a NO vote until these flaws are adressed.I guess we'll find out Tuesday if reason or petty jealousy wins the day.I'll be voting NO,I can't see how dragging the tax base down even farther is going to fix anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scruit Posted November 6, 2011 Report Share Posted November 6, 2011 The bill is too complex and the pro and anti sides are both arguing generalities. I don't know what to vote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rod38um Posted November 9, 2011 Report Share Posted November 9, 2011 It doesn't matter now. Issue 2 was defeated. Local government will have to make cut backs or raise taxes on an already strapped citizenry. So now we are left with a choice between laying off low seniority public workers or taking money from the private sector workers to fund the already higher wage and benefit packages of public workers. I wonder which way it will go? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scruit Posted November 9, 2011 Report Share Posted November 9, 2011 Both pro and anti sides claimed they'd save public jobs and the other side would lead to layoffs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Punk Posted November 9, 2011 Report Share Posted November 9, 2011 One side was right but the voters were schizophrenic. We had seventeen issues in our county for tax increases to help pay for public workers and services, thirteen failed. Yet they voted to continue to allow the cost of the workers to remain the same. I guess they are going to get paid with magic fairy dust. Something has to give, if the people don't want to vote in tax increases for themselves then people and services will have to be cut if costs remain under the current structure. Unintended consequences are a bitch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sixgun Posted November 9, 2011 Report Share Posted November 9, 2011 It was a feel good vote. No one I know hates Police officers, firefighters, teachers, etc. To the Victors (with senority) go the spoils! To those junior employees go the pink slips.Similar results down here on most all the local tax levys and income taxes. That pay the above folks...Sad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scruit Posted November 9, 2011 Report Share Posted November 9, 2011 I laughed when I saw a "Vote NO on Olentangy Levy! Stop Wasteful Spending!" yard sign this morning. This person claims to be so in tune with Olentangy politics that he knows what the money is being spent on and that it is being spent in a wasteful manner - but is too out of touch to realize there was NO LEVY on the ballot for Olentangy. Moron. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rod38um Posted November 9, 2011 Report Share Posted November 9, 2011 Pretty much all our tax levy's failed also except the one that claimed it was "Not a Tax increase" Gullible people voted for it thinking it didnt cost them anything. It cost $130 a year on my taxes. Deceptive advertising sucks......... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scruit Posted November 9, 2011 Report Share Posted November 9, 2011 Was it renewing an existing levy? Therefore not an "increase"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rod38um Posted November 9, 2011 Report Share Posted November 9, 2011 Was it renewing an existing levy? Therefore not an "increase"?Yes, had it been left alone or voted down my taxes would have gone back down to the original level. But like many levies, when they use it to buy or build stuff, then they need more to pay people to run it or maintain it. It seems to never end.......... At some point people are going to have to learn its ok to say no........ somebody always spins it so its for the kids..... its for our heroes, its for the disabled........ everyone wants to be kind to those that we care about but building an empire by throwing money at it is rarely a good answer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chevysoldier Posted November 9, 2011 Author Report Share Posted November 9, 2011 One side was right but the voters were schizophrenic. We had seventeen issues in our county for tax increases to help pay for public workers and services, thirteen failed. Yet they voted to continue to allow the cost of the workers to remain the same. I guess they are going to get paid with magic fairy dust. Something has to give, if the people don't want to vote in tax increases for themselves then people and services will have to be cut if costs remain under the current structure. Unintended consequences are a bitch.This is it in a nutshell. I also hope people who voted for this don't bitch when they get laid off for the simple fact they don't have seniority. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.