Senate Bill 5 Targets Collective Bargaining for Elimination!

• Al Bundy

  Writerbuckeye;780306 wrote:To ignore the very obvious pressures unions bring to bear in negotiations is simply being disingenuous, to say the least.
  
  Unions have the right to strike. That means they have the ability to bring tremendous pressure on those whose responsibility it is to keep schools open and operating. That pressure plays into how negotiations play out -- to say otherwise is simply denying reality.

  Often during strikes scabs are brought in, and it is a disaster. The board and community learn that not just anyone can educate the kids to the same level as the regular teachers. The private comparison to this would be if a customer went to a competitor who underbid me, but then came back to me at a higher price because the quality of work is better.
• analogkid

  Writerbuckeye;780084 wrote:This country is better and stronger when we have government stronger (more people involved) at the local level, and more decisions being made locally than at the state or federal level.

  I agree with this to a large degree and this is actually one of the things that bothers me about some of the provisions of SB5. The provisions that all employees pay at least 15% of their health care and all of the employee contribution to pensions seem to me to limit local control. Even if a locality wanted to do these things as part of their attempt to bargain a contract that meets their needs or as an attempt to attract higher quality talent, the state has effectively prohibited them doing so. Is there anywhere in the business community that compensation packages are limited in such a fashion?
• WebFire

  analogkid;780702 wrote:I agree with this to a large degree and this is actually one of the things that bothers me about some of the provisions of SB5. The provisions that all employees pay at least 15% of their health care and all of the employee contribution to pensions seem to me to limit local control. Even if a locality wanted to do these things as part of their attempt to bargain a contract that meets their needs or as an attempt to attract higher quality talent, the state has effectively prohibited them doing so. Is there anywhere in the business community that compensation packages are limited in such a fashion?

  I do agree with this. I would be ok with a cap, but not a requirement. Locals should be able to negotiate this.
• believer

  

  Gblock;780533 wrote:all because of teacher unions?...smh

  Unionism in general.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  Gblock;780533 wrote:all because of teacher unions?...smh

  
  Did you forget that this bill is about ALL public unions, not just those related to teachers?
• Gblock

  Writerbuckeye;781699 wrote:Did you forget that this bill is about ALL public unions, not just those related to teachers?

  
  did you forget my comment clearly said teacher unions? were we not having a discussion about teachers and strikes?? i made several posts and you only addressed the one that was sarcastic and changed the subject to all unions. and as usual no response to my posts where i gave my opinion to your post. but you also think that teachers bargain with the superintendent who wants their pay to go up so that his/her can also go up...FAIL..we bargain with the school board who are elected by the people
• Writerbuckeye

  

  Yes, because superintendents have no input into whether a district ends up giving raises, how much or decides to layoff people.
  
  Don't preach to me. I covered hundreds if not thousands of school board meetings as a reporter and VERY SELDOM did the board do anything against the superintendent's wishes. There was typically one person running the show, and it wasn't the board president (whoever it happened to be that year).
  
  School boards, especially those in smaller communities, are almost always working on a learning curve and rely HEAVILY on the superintendent to guide them in all things. And that includes budgeting and negotiations on what the district can afford.
• Gblock

  Writerbuckeye;781746 wrote:Yes, because superintendents have no input into whether a district ends up giving raises, how much or decides to layoff people.
  
  Don't preach to me. I covered hundreds if not thousands of school board meetings as a reporter and VERY SELDOM did the board do anything against the superintendent's wishes. There was typically one person running the show, and it wasn't the board president (whoever it happened to be that year).
  
  School boards, especially those in smaller communities, are almost always working on a learning curve and rely HEAVILY on the superintendent to guide them in all things. And that includes budgeting and negotiations on what the district can afford.

  
  so under SB5 you want to give these people more power and flexibility when you admit they are unqualified now? seems to me your school would be in better hands with the union if thats the case
• Writerbuckeye

  

  Gblock;781754 wrote:so under SB5 you want to give these people more power and flexibility when you admit they are unqualified now? seems to me your school would be in better hands with the union if thats the case

  
  Do you ever stay on point or is drifting aimlessly from one topic to another some kind of tactic you think makes you appear smarter?
  
  I skewered your assertion that superintendents don't have influence in negotiations so you immediately conclude that union "leadership" would be better for schools...! Yeah, sure. Whatever.
• Gblock

  Writerbuckeye;781771 wrote:Do you ever stay on point or is drifting aimlessly from one topic to another some kind of tactic you think makes you appear smarter?
  
  I skewered your assertion that superintendents don't have influence in negotiations so you immediately conclude that union "leadership" would be better for schools...! Yeah, sure. Whatever.

  
  our agreement is with the board and all you did was FAIL with that in fact many times the super and the board can be enemies...just because in your town it went like that means nothing to me..then you go on to say the boards are unqualified...so i asked you do you want to have them gain more power with no one to hold them accountable if they are not competent to make informed decisions? how is that off topic?
• stlouiedipalma

  My experience is that Superintendents lead the BOE by the hand in just about every way. That includes day-to-day matters, fiscal matters and bargaining negotiations. The board is there to approve or disapprove the recommendations of the Superintendent. It is a rare case where the BOE overrules the Super.
• Gblock

  stlouiedipalma;781832 wrote:My experience is that Superintendents lead the BOE by the hand in just about every way. That includes day-to-day matters, fiscal matters and bargaining negotiations. The board is there to approve or disapprove the recommendations of the Superintendent. It is a rare case where the BOE overrules the Super.

  but in the end the board makes the decisions and also can hire/fire the super
• Writerbuckeye

  

  Gblock;781842 wrote:but in the end the board makes the decisions and also can hire/fire the super

  
  Which doesn't, in any way, shape or form, disprove what louie and I said. The superintendent IS very involved in every aspect of running the school, including negotiations. You tried to tell us it was just the board...and that's simply not true in most districts.
  
  I'm going to ignore your comments about the inexperience of boards and related issues, because regardless of all that, I'd still want local people overseeing what the superintendent does. It's a good check and balance, even if you have a great superintendent running the show.
• Gblock

  Writerbuckeye;781855 wrote:Which doesn't, in any way, shape or form, disprove what louie and I said. The superintendent IS very involved in every aspect of running the school, including negotiations. You tried to tell us it was just the board...and that's simply not true in most districts.
  
  I'm going to ignore your comments about the inexperience of boards and related issues, because regardless of all that, I'd still want local people overseeing what the superintendent does. It's a good check and balance, even if you have a great superintendent running the show.

  
  saying" very involved" is different than your portrayal of unions and superintendents working covertly to raise each other's salary. which you implied somewhere around page 98-99 or so. if you had said the super was very involved i wouldnt have made a comment because of course i agree with that. but the fact is when it comes down to it the board makes the final decision independent of the super. also you made the comments about the board of ed being on a learning curve or something which i took as saying not informed/qualified. so im not sure what comments of mine your ignoring
• Ty Webb

  

  http://politicalwire.com/archives/2011/05/26/judge_strikes_down_wisconsin_collective_bargaining_law.html
• Writerbuckeye

  

  The Wisconsin Supremes will overturn that decision -- as they should.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  Gblock;781868 wrote:saying" very involved" is different than your portrayal of unions and superintendents working covertly to raise each other's salary. which you implied somewhere around page 98-99 or so. if you had said the super was very involved i wouldnt have made a comment because of course i agree with that. but the fact is when it comes down to it the board makes the final decision independent of the super. also you made the comments about the board of ed being on a learning curve or something which i took as saying not informed/qualified. so im not sure what comments of mine your ignoring

  
  Your comments strongly suggested that I believed local boards to be incompetent in some way and that's nothing like what I posted. I said they tend to be on a perpetual learning curve, much of it due to turnover, and that's often the case. Local boards almost always rely heavily on superintendents to lead them through the processes of running the district. So their power and influence on all matters related to the district are substantial.
  
  As for saying my portrayal was that superintendents worked covertly to raise their salaries, that's nonsense and nothing close to what I said. I said the salaries of administration personnel are very closely linked to teacher salary schedules and that is the truth. So if the unions are successful in getting nice increases or better benefits for teachers -- administrators prosper just as much.
  
  I've said before that this means NO TRUE ADVERSARIAL RELATIONSHIP exists when negotiations are on-going, as they do in the private sector where both sides are totally disconnected.
  
  I don't believe most superintendents consciously work to help unions in negotiations, but I do think there has to be some subconscious influence in their decisions when the bottom line is going to also affect them so closely.
  
  They can deny it all they want and there's no way to prove I'm right...but my point remains: there is no TRUE ADVERSARIAL relationship to keep negotiations as honest as they should be in protecting taxpayers.
• stlouiedipalma

  I once proposed to my local BOE that they consider a clause which would require the Superintendent of schools to make residence in our school district. It had been a good 20 years since we had a super who lived in our small town and I felt that our supers weren't totally invested in our community, that they liked running the schools but wouldn't send their children to them. I was essentially told that they would never consider such a proposal because "they wanted to get the best candidate", and that such a clause would prevent them from getting the best. I never understood the logic in their response.
  
  The bottom line is, IMO, that local BOE members want to give back to the schools and want to represent the community, but these positions, for the vast majority, are not full-time as they are in the biggest cities. They simply don't have the time to keep track of all of the machinations of running a school district. They have little choice, then, but to let the super do the grunt work and present his vision to the board for their approval. They may have hire/fire power, but it is not used without the knowledge and approval of the super. It is a rare instance where a board arbitrarily dismisses a superintendent without extreme circumstances.
• Glory Days

  

  i am not a slippery slope guy, but for the hell of it.....
  
  so where does this end? whats next, telling me what i can and cant do with my public sector earned money?
• dwccrew

  

  Glory Days;782533 wrote:i am not a slippery slope guy, but for the hell of it.....
  
  so where does this end? whats next, telling me what i can and cant do with my public sector earned money?

  
  Hey, the gov't does it in so many other aspects of our lives, why not another?
• Bigdogg

  Kasich and his merry band of idiots attempting to split up the parts of SB5 in an effort to circumvent the people of Ohio's right for an up or down vote of this worthless piece of crap rammed down everyone throat. Glad to see Secretary of State Jon Husted (one of the guys I supported on the ballot) shoot this down.
  
  
  http://blog.dispatch.com/dailybriefing/2011/06/husted_says_kasichs_divide_and.shtml
• QuakerOats

  Bigdogg;812540 wrote:....this worthless piece of crap rammed down everyone throat. .....

  You must be talking about the original piece of crap legislation rammed down every Ohioan's throat in 1983 by Tricky Dick Celeste and his band of union-machine democrats which insituted public sector unionism which has bankrupted the state, cities, and school districts in just 25 years. Surely that is the piece of crap rammed down everyone's throat that you are talking about.
• Glory Days

  

  QuakerOats;812699 wrote:You must be talking about the original piece of crap legislation rammed down every Ohioan's throat in 1983 by Tricky **** Celeste and his band of union-machine democrats which insituted public sector unionism which has bankrupted the state, cities, and school districts in just 25 years. Surely that is the piece of crap rammed down everyone's throat that you are talking about.

  
  and i am sure you can point to specific facts that show public sector unions bankrupted the state? so then you can also explain why non union states have some of the largest deficits in the country?
  
  http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0211/Are_nonunion_states_better_off.html
  http://themonkeycage.org/blog/2011/02/21/the_relationship_between_union/
  
  interesting article i found while looking up other stuff : http://www.businessinsider.com/states-where-teachers-unions-are-illegal-2011-2
• dwccrew

  

  QuakerOats;812699 wrote:You must be talking about the original piece of crap legislation rammed down every Ohioan's throat in 1983 by Tricky **** Celeste and his band of union-machine democrats which insituted public sector unionism which has bankrupted the state, cities, and school districts in just 25 years. Surely that is the piece of crap rammed down everyone's throat that you are talking about.

  
  You don't really believe that public sector unionism is the only reason the state has gone bankrupt, do you? It has contributed to unsustainable debts, but it is not the sole reason.
• believer

  

  dwccrew;814451 wrote:You don't really believe that public sector unionism is the only reason the state has gone bankrupt, do you? It has contributed greatly to unsustainable debts, but it is not the sole reason.

  Just a little tweak.