Senate Bill 5 Targets Collective Bargaining for Elimination!

• jmog

  O-Trap;963168 wrote:If the private entity is to negotiate with the official being elected, then it would also be collusion, and thus, should be disallowed.
  
  It's not the large donation quantities that I personally find problematic. It's when those large donations go toward a candidate that is intended to work from the other side of the bargaining table. That's textbook collusion. As such, I don't really care if it's a union or a private entity. Collusion is collusion.

  This is what I have said since the beginning.
  
  Public unions that are fully allowed to donate to elected officials, who are then on the opposite side of the bargaining table is 100% collusion and a conflict of interest.
  
  Anyone who can not see this or agree with it is 100% biased, its simple logic.
• Pariah

  Proudly voted "yes" on Issue 2 but turn out was light in my overwhelmingly conservative, and presumably anti-union, precinct. Not good for the prospects for proponents of SB 5.
• Devils Advocate

  

  O-Trap;963586 wrote:Can someone else answer this? I'm genuinely curious.

  Issue 3 will actually be brought forward by the federal government.
  
  Issue 2 is a little more sticky. Issue 2 opponents are waiting for this issue to fail. If it does not, they are willing ride the coat tails of the wisconsin lawsuits. They are trying to form some wierd nexis to the interstate business act that would involve someone in West Virgina or Kentucky that work in Ohio.
• O-Trap

  

  Devils Advocate;963742 wrote:Issue 3 will actually be brought forward by the federal government.
  
  Issue 2 is a little more sticky. Issue 2 opponents are waiting for this issue to fail. If it does not, they are willing ride the coat tails of the wisconsin lawsuits. They are trying to form some wierd nexis to the interstate business act that would involve someone in West Virgina or Kentucky that work in Ohio.

  Ah. I was asking about Issue 2.
  
  It would seem, then, that the only way the passing of Issue 2 would cost Ohio money would be at the hands of those who oppose it. I would hardly, then, blame the cost to Ohio on the passing of the issue as it would be incurred at the hands of whoever would file the lawsuit, be they Ohioans or not.
• BRF

  

  It took me a long time to think about whose vote I would cancel out today. I finally decided that it would be Writerbuckeye! Congratulations!
• imex99

  

  Voted No and hoping it fails bad... What will they try next and when?
  
  Sent from my PG86100 using Tapatalk
• LJ

  

  Hopefully tomorrow. Outlawing striking would be a perfect place to start
• ernest_t_bass

  

  Anyone have a link to the latest poll numbers?
• Mr. 300

  

  I voted yes.
• ernest_t_bass

  

  Mr. 300;964013 wrote:I voted yes.

  So did I.
• Mr. 300

  

  ernest_t_bass;964020 wrote:So did I.

  Lulz.......
• QuakerOats

  Glory Days;963635 wrote:public workers are also citizens AND tax payers.

  And a protected class, apparently. When they decertify their unions and get realistic they will be welcomed 'home' with open arms.
• tk421

  

  If, like everyone thinks, it gets voted down get ready for job cuts. This state is broke, I'm not paying higher taxes just so a protected sacred class of the population can have outrageous benefits/pensions on the taxpayer dime. The union mentality is crazy, you don't deserve anything better than anyone else just because you're a cop/emt/teacher etc.
• Mr. 300

  

  tk......very valid point. The left/unions said you had to vote no on issue 2 to save jobs. Well guess what, you gonna lose jobs to help balance budgets to offset the decision.
• tk421

  

  Pretty sad that the general population just lets the unions suck them in. Someone explain to me how less than 5% of the population of this state deserves these benefits/pensions that the rest of us are never going to be able to match? Only 350,000 public employees, yet somehow the public is going to vote this down.
• O-Trap

  

  Per here: http://www.cleveland.com/politics/index.ssf/2011/11/issue_2_early_ohio_election_re.html
  

  Here's what Senate Bill 5 does:

  • Reduces the collective bargaining power of about 360,000 public workers in Ohio. The current collective-bargaining law gives workers the right to negotiate on a broad scope of topics including wages, hours, working conditions and any provision from an expiring contract that an employer wants to change. Under SB 5, workers no longer have the right to bargain changes from a previous contract. Certain topics that have been central to negotiations, such as health care benefits, can’t be bargained anymore. Several other topics can be bargained only if management agrees. These topics, known as “management rights,” include the right to decide employee qualifications, starting and quitting times, work assignments, promotion rules and other topics.
  • Bans public-worker strikes.
  • Eliminates binding arbitration, a process allowing a third party to impose a settlement when a union and management reach an impasse, and replaces it with a process that gives a governing body, such as a city council, the final say on a union contract.
  • Eliminates “fair-share fees” - required payments to unions from workers who choose not to join their union. Fair share fees currently can be included in a collective-bargaining agreement as a term of employment.
  • Places caps on paid personal days (three), paid holidays (12) and the amount of unused sick and vacation time a worker can cash in upon retirement.
  • Eliminates automatic pay raises based on seniority and establishes a performance-based pay system.
  • Prohibits seniority from being the sole factor considered when workers are laid off.
  • Requires public workers to pay at least 15 percent of their health care costs and to contribute at least 10 percent of their salary toward their pension.

  [/LIST]
  
  I actually have one beef with it. I believe workers should be able to individually negotiate PTO, paid holidays, etc. I don't like a mandated cap.
  
  Other than that, however, I don't see anything problematic.
  
  What's the objection?
• fish82

  

  O-Trap;964094 wrote:Per here: http://www.cleveland.com/politics/index.ssf/2011/11/issue_2_early_ohio_election_re.html
  
  
  [/LIST]
  
  I actually have one beef with it. I believe workers should be able to individually negotiate PTO, paid holidays, etc. I don't like a mandated cap.
  
  Other than that, however, I don't see anything problematic.
  
  What's the objection?

  Children will burn to death if it passes.
• stlouiedipalma

  Mr. 300;964075 wrote:tk......very valid point. The left/unions said you had to vote no on issue 2 to save jobs. Well guess what, you gonna lose jobs to help balance budgets to offset the decision.

  Nice try, but in reality you will lose jobs no matter what the outcome is. Kasich has decided to balance the state budget by cutting funding to local governments. Austerity measures will be all the vogue for the poorer communities as they try to make do with less.
  
  Issue 2 doesn't address the fact that the money is no longer there. It just eliminates union money going to Democratic candidates. With Republicans having access to unlimited corporate funding (thanks to the SCOTUS), eliminating their opponents' funding would make electing their candidates a near slam-dunk.
• O-Trap

  

  fish82;964097 wrote:Children will burn to death if it passes.

  Must've forgotten to copy/paste that one. :rolleyes:
• stlouiedipalma

  QuakerOats;964042 wrote:And a protected class, apparently. When they decertify their unions and get realistic they will be welcomed 'home' with open arms.

  
  Another excellent example of citizen vs. citizen, brought to you by the Tea Party. "If I am not successful, blame my neighbor."
• stlouiedipalma

  thePITman;963583 wrote:I voted YES on Issues 2 & 3.

  Pariah;963719 wrote:Proudly voted "yes" on Issue 2 but turn out was light in my overwhelmingly conservative, and presumably anti-union, precinct. Not good for the prospects for proponents of SB 5.

  Mr. 300;964013 wrote:I voted yes.

  ernest_t_bass;964020 wrote:So did I.

  
  If the projections hold true, my suspicions about this website will be confirmed:
  
  You are way, way, way to the right of "mere conservatives" and you are in the decided minority.
• ernest_t_bass

  

  Louie, don't be a moron. I voted no.
• stlouiedipalma

  Sorry about that ernest. Got a little slippery with the mouse and checked the wrong quote.
• thePITman

  

  Where can we find the results?
• majorspark

  

  thePITman;964132 wrote:Where can we find the results?

  http://www.cleveland.com/politics/index.ssf/2011/11/state_issues_early_results.html