Archive

Senate Bill 5 Targets Collective Bargaining for Elimination!

  • Bigdogg
    This sums it up nice.
    However, when a governor steps up and purposely deceives his constituents, it is a betrayal of leadership.To hear Governor Kasich tell it in his TV ad supporting Issue 2, SB5 just gets teachers, firefighters, police and other government employees to help pay for their health care benefits and retirement funds. That sounds reasonable until one reads SB5. The bill actually covers 52 issues involving public employees. Only two involve health care and retirement contributions. The remaining 50 items coalesce into a frontal assault on nearly every aspect of bargaining rights, dispute resolution, pay and benefits, seniority and other issues American workers depend on to negotiate fair compensation for their efforts and to create a more effective workplace. SB5 also strips many decision-making powers from local governments, public safety departments and school boards.
    http://www.mansfieldnewsjournal.com/article/20111013/OPINION03/110130313/Gov-Kasich-fails-mention-full-scope-State-Issue-2?odyssey=mod|mostcom
  • WebFire
    Glory Days;935201 wrote:this is the last piece i posted
    http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2011/10/sb_5_ad_war_heats_up_as_grandm.html

    nothing about losing 50,000 jobs i know of.
    For shits sakes, guess I need to hold your hand. Someone else posted a link. I quoted a section out of it about losing 51,000 jobs. YOU commented on it. And now you are confused about losing jobs. :rolleyes:
  • believer
    queencitybuckeye;935216 wrote:If this is indeed the case, the "movement" can be described in a single word - insignificant.
    It is insignificant but the liberal media wants to "prove" that there are equal numbers of Americans as unhappy with Wall Street as the Tea Party movement showed frustration with Big Government fiscal insanity.

    The comparisons aren't even close.
  • Glory Days
    WebFire;935244 wrote:For shits sakes, guess I need to hold your hand. Someone else posted a link. I quoted a section out of it about losing 51,000 jobs. YOU commented on it. And now you are confused about losing jobs. :rolleyes:
    i am confused. i was reading this sitting down though on the toilet, that is probably why.:huh:
  • BRF
    Interesting reading lately.

    I'll just say: Vote No on Issue 2.............because............because....................I said so! ;)
  • Writerbuckeye
    Nobody has a "right" to bargain. You can call it a right all you like; and act like SB 5 is taking away some inalienable right given by God...but that's not the truth.

    The truth is public unions and the ability to bargain was something granted by the legislature -- the same folks who decided it was no longer a fiscally sound policy.

    There's not a damn thing wrong with taking away any of it. In fact, given how things have "progressed" in Ohio the past 30 years or so with it as policy, I'd say it's long overdue.
  • WebFire
    Glory Days;935340 wrote:i am confused. i was reading this sitting down though on the toilet, that is probably why.:huh:
    Understandable.
  • Glory Days
    BRF;935351 wrote:Interesting reading lately.

    I'll just say: Vote No on Issue 2.............because............because....................I said so! ;)


    I'll just say:Vote Yes on Issue 2.............because............because....................If i cant have decent pay and benefits, neither can you! :rolleyes:
  • BRF
    Glory Days;935752 wrote:I'll just say:Vote Yes on Issue 2.............because............because....................If i cant have decent pay and benefits, neither can you! :rolleyes:
    Ah so! Ah so! BTW, I, like you, am not a Liberal. I am a compassionate Conservative!
  • queencitybuckeye
    Glory Days;935752 wrote:I'll just say:Vote Yes on Issue 2.............because............because....................If i cant have decent pay and benefits, neither can you! :rolleyes:
    Better said, if nearly everyone in the private sector has taken a hit in this economy, there's no logical reason the public sector should not "pay" their share.
  • BRF
    "You say either and I say either, You say neither and I say neither
    Either, either Neither, neither, Let's call the whole thing off.

    You like potato and I like potahto, You like tomato and I like tomahto
    Potato, potahto, Tomato, tomahto, Let's call the whole thing off."

  • WebFire
    Glory Days;935752 wrote:I'll just say:Vote Yes on Issue 2.............because............because....................If i cant have decent pay and benefits, neither can you! :rolleyes:
    Wait, I thought teachers and firefighters were underpaid? I've been duped!
  • believer
    queencitybuckeye;935895 wrote:Better said, if nearly everyone in the private sector has taken a hit in this economy, there's no logical reason the public sector should not "pay" their share.
    +infinity
  • BGFalcons82
    queencitybuckeye;935895 wrote:Better said, if nearly everyone in the private sector has taken a hit in this economy, there's no logical reason the public sector should not "pay" their share.
    No No No. When it comes to "fair share", it ONLY applies to the millionaires making over $200,000. Everyone else doesn't count, especially the 47% that pay 0 federal income taxes.
  • Glory Days
    queencitybuckeye;935895 wrote:Better said, if nearly everyone in the private sector has taken a hit in this economy, there's no logical reason the public sector should not "pay" their share.
    the public sector has taken a hit in this economy.
  • believer
    Glory Days;936213 wrote:the public sector has taken a hit in this economy.
    Maybe but not nearly to the degree as the private sector. Here's just one of a "boatshoes" of examples: http://www.mlive.com/opinion/bay-city/index.ssf/2011/03/our_voice_public_sector_employ.html
    Between 2000 and 2009, the average private sector pay and benefits in Michigan grew from $43,882 to $52,365. This according to date Don Grimes, a University of Michigan economist, gathered from the federal Bureau of Economic Analysis.

    During that same period, state government workers’ pay and benefits jumped from $43,450 to $62,237. That’s 19 percent vs. 43 percent. No one seemed worried about justice for the taxpayers at that point.
    http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/535714/201005271857/Big-Govt-Takes-Over.aspx
  • Manhattan Buckeye
    queencitybuckeye;935216 wrote:They also seem to be, by the amount of coverage, making this appear to be a bigger movement than it is. I was flipping stations on the radio on the way to lunch and Dave Ramsey was talking about this subject. He gave the factoid that there were more people in the stadium for the Monday night football game than people participating in this protest nationwide. If this is indeed the case, the "movement" can be described in a single word - insignificant.
    Exactly.

    The thousands of noisy individuals get the media attention, but they are collectively a flea on a wolf's back in comparison to the millions of Americans that are dissatisfied with the government that aren't making #@&%es of themselves and will actually vote.
  • Writerbuckeye
    Quite a surprise: The Cleveland Plain Dealer -- in the heart of union-friendly Cuyahoga County -- says vote "yes" on Issue 2.

    Bottom line: we are on an unsustainable path and not changing is scarier than changing. They want to see a "yes" vote and then have the Ohio General Assembly come back and tweak the bill. I'm okay with this, except I don't believe in some of the things the PD wants to keep.

    http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index.ssf/2011/10/the_law_will_need_adjustments.html
  • believer
    Writerbuckeye;936670 wrote:Quite a surprise: The Cleveland Plain Dealer -- in the heart of union-friendly Cuyahoga County -- says vote "yes" on Issue 2.
    lol My brother emailed me about this one today. It's a telling story when a typically pro-union, pro-liberal newspaper sees the handwriting on the wall.
  • Glory Days
    Writerbuckeye;936670 wrote:Quite a surprise: The Cleveland Plain Dealer -- in the heart of union-friendly Cuyahoga County -- says vote "yes" on Issue 2.

    Bottom line: we are on an unsustainable path and not changing is scarier than changing. They want to see a "yes" vote and then have the Ohio General Assembly come back and tweak the bill. I'm okay with this, except I don't believe in some of the things the PD wants to keep.

    http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index.ssf/2011/10/the_law_will_need_adjustments.html
    they should have taken the time to do it right the first time and maybe they would have more support. this isnt something like the bailout that needed to be done right now.
  • Writerbuckeye
    Glory Days;936905 wrote:they should have taken the time to do it right the first time and maybe they would have more support. this isnt something like the bailout that needed to be done right now.
    Kasich invited everyone back to the table to try and mediate this before it was put on the ballot, but the unions would rather go to the ballot and hope they win, rather than negotiate on behalf of the people they're supposed to represent.

    What does that tell you?

    Oh and if your argument is that Kasich and the Ohio General Assembly forced it through first just keep in mind that all this began when then Gov. Celeste and his cronies pushed it through the General Assembly with no discussion back in the 1980s.
  • Glory Days
    Writerbuckeye;937006 wrote: Oh and if your argument is that Kasich and the Ohio General Assembly forced it through first just keep in mind that all this began when then Gov. Celeste and his cronies pushed it through the General Assembly with no discussion back in the 1980s.
    so why didnt the people try to vote on it like now? guess they didnt care too much that it was passed.
  • Bigdogg
    Writerbuckeye;936670 wrote:Quite a surprise: The Cleveland Plain Dealer -- in the heart of union-friendly Cuyahoga County -- says vote "yes" on Issue 2.

    Bottom line: we are on an unsustainable path and not changing is scarier than changing. They want to see a "yes" vote and then have the Ohio General Assembly come back and tweak the bill. I'm okay with this, except I don't believe in some of the things the PD wants to keep.

    http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index.ssf/2011/10/the_law_will_need_adjustments.html
    Writer, Writer, Writer, you know The Plain Dealer endorsed Kasich. Did you actually read the article?

    http://www.plunderbund.com/2011/10/16/if-cleveland-plain-dealer-really-wants-sb-5-to-be-less-extreme-then-vote-no-on-issue-2/
  • Writerbuckeye
    So what? And considering Strickland's abysmal record, can you blame them? The PD is dead center in the heart of union country as far as Ohio is concerned.

    This is a significant step (in the right direction) for them. ;)
  • QuakerOats
    Glory Days;937078 wrote:so why didnt the people try to vote on it like now? guess they didnt care too much that it was passed.
    Because they didn't realize then that it would lead to fiscal destruction over the course of the next 25 years.

    Now they know.