Senate Bill 5 Targets Collective Bargaining for Elimination!

• ernest_t_bass

  

  Writerbuckeye;767076 wrote:Gee, a lot of Ohio schools managed to do it for close to 100 years...so I guess they could do it again.

  
  I'm not talking NO union, or NO collective bargaining. I want a DISTRICT union, where the teachers work together to form a contract. The OEA and NEA helped us little. OEA was on the phone, but that was it. We did just fine for ourselves, and our super was easy to work with. Bring in OEA, and we're losing jobs.
• believer

  

  Glory Days;767049 wrote:and now they will be paid even less since they wont have any bargaining power.

  You're talking relatively intelligent people here with college degrees.
  
  If they need union thugs to negotiate their salaries then I submit that they should send their diplomas back to their professors and work as cashiers at Wal Mart OR - better yet - if the poorer districts can't afford to meet their salary requirements, they can always seek teaching positions in richer school systems.
  
  The law of supply and demand. Oh wait....that's too much free market capitalism for a socialist to understand. Common sense then?
  
  No bargaining power? Give me a friggin break.
• WebFire

  Glory Days;767049 wrote:and now they will be paid even less since they wont have any bargaining power.

  
  Haha. Ok.
  
  You must forget that even with SB5, you can still negotiate salary via collective bargaining.
• ernest_t_bass

  

  WebFire;767251 wrote:Haha. Ok.
  
  You must forget that even with SB5, you can still negotiate salary via collective bargaining.

  
  Step pay is on the way out. We discussed this plenty in our negotiations yesterday. Will be very interesting.
• WebFire

  ernest_t_bass;767271 wrote:Step pay is on the way out. We discussed this plenty in our negotiations yesterday. Will be very interesting.

  
  Right, replaced with merit pay. But that doesn't have anything to do with collective bargaining on salaries.
• QuakerOats

  BRF;767010 wrote:And, another day of interesting reading. Who should I pick on to respond to tonight?.........hmmmm, let's see.........how about this one:
  
  
  
  Well said............hater.
  
  I will "get in the game" and eat my spinach.

  
  
  When was it when liberals began twisting logic and passion into "hate"?
• Writerbuckeye

  

  QuakerOats;767317 wrote:When was it when liberals began twisting logic and passion into "hate"?

  
  When they had no logical response.
• LJ

  

  ernest_t_bass;767271 wrote:Step pay is on the way out. We discussed this plenty in our negotiations yesterday. Will be very interesting.

  
  It's on it's way out in all gov't jobs basically. The DoD was on the right track until they told the employees that they can pay your raise in 1 bonus check rather than give you an actual raise and people freaked out. The pay pools also didn't allow them to cover raises AND inflation except for maybe the top 1% of employees.
• Glory Days

  

  LJ;767079 wrote:Uh huh..... Fear monger much? You know this as fact how?

  
  isnt that the whole point of SB5? its "supposed to give cities the ability to balance their budget". if that isnt by paying employees less, why even have SB5?
• Glory Days

  

  believer;767139 wrote:
  The law of supply and demand. Oh wait....that's too much free market capitalism for a socialist to understand. Common sense then?

  
  the public sector isnt a business, i understand that is hard for the private sector to grasp.
• Glory Days

  

  WebFire;767307 wrote:Right, replaced with merit pay. But that doesn't have anything to do with collective bargaining on salaries.

  
  yet everyone's "merit" is different.
• LJ

  

  Glory Days;767712 wrote:isnt that the whole point of SB5? its "supposed to give cities the ability to balance their budget". if that isnt by paying employees less, why even have SB5?

  
  
  Pensions my friend, pensions
• BRF

  

  I agree with everything that Glory Days has just posted. And, btw, QuakerOats, I am a "compassionate conservative"!
• analogkid

  believer;767139 wrote:If they need union thugs to negotiate their salaries then I submit that they should send their diplomas back to their professors and work as cashiers at Wal Mart OR - better yet - if the poorer districts can't afford to meet their salary requirements, they can always seek teaching positions in richer school systems.

  Now I have been doing my taxes for years and I do a pretty good job on them on the whole but it is time consuming and I am always wondering if I am missing something. I have the means and I kind of like saving that time and gaining the peace of mind of hiring a professional who knows the tax code much better than I do. So lets say that next year I go ahead and pony up some money to have someone else do my taxes. Does this make me some kind of weak minded individual? I mean we hire people all of the time to do things for us that we either lack the expertise or lack the time to accomplish in a suitable fashion.
  
  This does not seem a whole lot different than hiring someone to help me negotiate with the school board. I am sure I could do a passable job with making a case for my own performance but I am a terrible negotiator and would have a hard time getting comparable salary information, getting information about the salary pool the district has available etc... So I pay someone to do that leg work for me; someone who has that information and can negotiate more effectively than I.
  
  I have no philosophical opposition to the idea of workers unionizing. Employers can easily have a disproportionate amount of power and they also largely control the flow of information, although the internet is helping in this area. Unions can help the worker have a team of ‘experts’ to balance out the discrepancy. Problems arise when the rules are stacked to one side’s advantage. The balance was probably too far to the side of the public employee and SB5 clearly shifts the balance of power away from the public employee but does it go too far. I am still on the fence about the whole thing.
  
  I chuckle at the constant use of the term ‘thug’ to describe ‘union bosses.’ The ‘thugs’ and the administrators in my district seem to work in an atmosphere of mutual respect. Sure they often have different goals but both groups are able to compromise because they share the common goal of keeping the district alive and vibrant so that it serves the community in the best fashion possible. I doubt that a voice has been raised in the last 15 years of contract negotiations. I hope that SB5 does not change that.
  
  I guess I am just one of the sheep. Baaaa, Baaaa.
• BRF

  

  Well said analogkid!
  
  Now, prepare yourself to be called a lazy bum who can't negotiate for himself and that you are probably worthless anyhow and need to get out!
• BoatShoes

  analogkid;767731 wrote:Now I have been doing my taxes for years and I do a pretty good job on them on the whole but it is time consuming and I am always wondering if I am missing something. I have the means and I kind of like saving that time and gaining the peace of mind of hiring a professional who knows the tax code much better than I do. So lets say that next year I go ahead and pony up some money to have someone else do my taxes. Does this make me some kind of weak minded individual? I mean we hire people all of the time to do things for us that we either lack the expertise or lack the time to accomplish in a suitable fashion.
  
  This does not seem a whole lot different than hiring someone to help me negotiate with the school board. I am sure I could do a passable job with making a case for my own performance but I am a terrible negotiator and would have a hard time getting comparable salary information, getting information about the salary pool the district has available etc... So I pay someone to do that leg work for me; someone who has that information and can negotiate more effectively than I.
  
  I have no philosophical opposition to the idea of workers unionizing. Employers can easily have a disproportionate amount of power and they also largely control the flow of information, although the internet is helping in this area. Unions can help the worker have a team of ‘experts’ to balance out the discrepancy. Problems arise when the rules are stacked to one side’s advantage. The balance was probably too far to the side of the public employee and SB5 clearly shifts the balance of power away from the public employee but does it go too far. I am still on the fence about the whole thing.
  
  I chuckle at the constant use of the term ‘thug’ to describe ‘union bosses.’ The ‘thugs’ and the administrators in my district seem to work in an atmosphere of mutual respect. Sure they often have different goals but both groups are able to compromise because they share the common goal of keeping the district alive and vibrant so that it serves the community in the best fashion possible. I doubt that a voice has been raised in the last 15 years of contract negotiations. I hope that SB5 does not change that.
  
  I guess I am just one of the sheep. Baaaa, Baaaa.

  
  I appreciate this thoughtful post.
• believer

  

  Glory Days;767716 wrote:the public sector isnt a business, i understand that is hard for the private sector to grasp.

  Soooooooo unionism can be applied to salary negotiations in the public as well as the private sectors, but the economic principle in law of supply and demand only applies to the private sector? That's what I love about socialists; they want capitalist economic benefits but if it becomes too competitive, they want the government to step in and level the playing field.
  

  analogkid;767731 wrote:So I pay someone to do that leg work for me; someone who has that information and can negotiate more effectively than I.

  And someone who leeches their living off your willingness to allow them to confiscate your labor.
  
  Personally I don't have any issues with collective bargaining as long as the employees have a choice whether to be a part of the union or decline. If they choose to "pay" others to negotiate for them that's fine. Just allow those employees who have the gonads to do their own negotiations without the help of union - um - "bosses" to do so without harassment and coercion.
• Al Bundy

  believer;767750 wrote:Soooooooo unionism can be applied to salary negotiations in the public as well as the private sectors, but the economic principle in law of supply and demand only applies to the private sector? That's what I love about socialists; they want capitalist economic benefits but if it becomes too competitive, they want the government to step in and level the playing field.

  
  I work in the private industry. When I give someone a quote on a job, they factor how much it will cost them and how much money it will make them. If the difference that they will make is acceptable to them, they hire me. If the difference isn't acceptable to them, they hire someone else or go without the service. It is profit driven.
  
  If we try to apply this to teachers, it falls apart because you only have the cost aspect. If we strictly apply an economic amount, it is always going to go to the lowest bidder because the teacher does not generate a dollar amount but provides a higher quality of life for his/her students.
• sleeper

  

  Al Bundy;767751 wrote:I work in the private industry. When I give someone a quote on a job, they factor how much it will cost them and how much money it will make them. If the difference that they will make is acceptable to them, they hire me. If the difference isn't acceptable to them, they hire someone else or go without the service. It is profit driven.
  
  If we try to apply this to teachers, it falls apart because you only have the cost aspect. If we strictly apply an economic amount, it is always going to go to the lowest bidder because the teacher does not generate a dollar amount but provides a higher quality of life for his/her students.

  If the community can only afford the lowest bidder, and that is all the community wants, then that is their choice. If the employee feels their qualifications are above the bare minimum, they can seek another school district that will pay them what they want.
  
  I don't understand why this is such a hard concept, and like I've said before, I'm almost embarrassed that the people who gave me my education are this economically illiterate.
• Al Bundy

  sleeper;767765 wrote:If the community can only afford the lowest bidder, and that is all the community wants, then that is their choice. If the employee feels their qualifications are above the bare minimum, they can seek another school district that will pay them what they want.
  
  I don't understand why this is such a hard concept, and like I've said before, I'm almost embarrassed that the people who gave me my education are this economically illiterate.

  
  That isn't a business model. A business model is to maximize profit. A school isn't measured on profit. Sorry if that concept is too difficult for you to understand.
  
  If you are referring to me as economically illiterate.....LMAO. I run my own business. I had to explain to you in the past that most of our current economic problems were due to our inability to protect American jobs and too much of a dependence on foreign labor.
  
  I feel that we need to change how we pay teachers, but it is not a business model unless we are trying to maximize profit.
  
  I'm embarrassed that OSU has become so watered down that they give out degrees to people who are this economically illiterate.
• BoatShoes

  believer;767750 wrote:Soooooooo unionism can be applied to salary negotiations in the public as well as the private sectors, but the economic principle in law of supply and demand only applies to the private sector? That's what I love about socialists; they want capitalist economic benefits but if it becomes too competitive, they want the government to step in and level the playing field.
  
  
  
  And someone who leeches their living off your willingness to allow them to confiscate your labor.
  .

  
  This sentence does not make logical sense. A person who provides you a service in exchange for consideration is not a leech by definition and further more the value of labor exchanged is not confiscated if it is contracted away willingly which you acknowledge that it is.
• sleeper

  

  Al Bundy;767769 wrote:That isn't a business model. A business model is to maximize profit. A school isn't measured on profit. Sorry if that concept is too difficult for you to understand.
  
  If you are referring to me as economically illiterate.....LMAO. I run my own business. I had to explain to you in the past that most of our current economic problems were due to our inability to protect American jobs and too much of a dependence on foreign labor.
  
  I feel that we need to change how we pay teachers, but it is not a business model unless we are trying to maximize profit.
  
  I'm embarrassed that OSU has become so watered down that they give out degrees to people who are this economically illiterate.

  
  What the hell does a business model have to do with this? The goal of a school is to educate the children of the district. The district has the ability to choose the quality of teachers by allocating more or less of their salary through taxes paid to the school district.
  
  Enjoy your business, I'm sure a McDonalds can't be too hard to run.
• WebFire

  Some of you are really reaching and turning SB5 into something it isn't. We aren't going to change your mind, and you aren't changing ours. Good day.
• BRF

  

  WebFire;767781 wrote: We aren't going to change your mind, and you aren't changing ours. Good day.

  
  Wow! The clue phone was actually answered!
• WebFire

  BRF;767784 wrote:Wow! The clue phone was actually answered!

  
  No need to be a smartass. We all knew that to start. But reading some your stuff is getting old. I'm checking out for a bit.