Archive

Senate Bill 5 Targets Collective Bargaining for Elimination!

  • jmog
    Manhattan Buckeye;682170 wrote:'I swear public employees on average just don't get it."

    End of thread. They don't, and the idiots in Wisconsin now are evidence of this. When you aren't accountable and believe you are exempt from economic realities, this is what you get. It will take a national bankruptcy (to the extent we aren't already there) and their checks to bounce to get it.

    It isn't even a GOP vs. DEM thing - My dad is a lifelong Republican and a lifetime NEA/OEA member and is absolutely clueless as to how my wife and I live.
    I had this discussion with my aunt once, who is in a public union for an Ohio county government office.

    She said that the unions were needed because if not then the "merit raises" that would be used instead would be given to the boss's "favorites" instead of those who deserve it.

    I said for one, in the private sector that can happen too, a boss can give a more favorable yearly review to one employee vs another, its part of life. If you believe you are unfairly reviewed then you can say so in your actual review and even take it to HR. So to honestly believe that would only happen in a government office building and not for those of us in the private sector is laughably out of touch.

    "Well you just don't understand the office politics and favortism that happens in a government office."

    To which I replied, again, if you don't think there is "office politics and favortism" in the real world, then you are out of touch.
  • OneBuckeye
    tiger1990;682178 wrote:Asnine. I get so sick of hearing that shit. I watch my wife nod off at 11:30 each night grading papers. She puts in a helluva lot of extra time no one by my kids & I see. She's gotten her masters & is now working on another endorsement to be a Talented & Gifted instructor (in a small, rural district), but after reading that proposed bill she's convinced she'll be one of the first to lose her job. She's too "expensive," and it doesn't take a genious to figure out it's all a numbers game if this goes through.

    I'm a private sector employee and I know if our school districts are run like the company I work for there will be temps & consultants monitoring my kid's classrooms...
    Pretty sure 90% of the people at my company put in much more than 40 hours a week and/or take work home with them.
  • jmog
    tiger1990;682178 wrote:Asnine. I get so sick of hearing that shit. I watch my wife nod off at 11:30 each night grading papers. She puts in a helluva lot of extra time no one by my kids & I see. She's gotten her masters & is now working on another endorsement to be a Talented & Gifted instructor (in a small, rural district), but after reading that proposed bill she's convinced she'll be one of the first to lose her job. She's too "expensive," and it doesn't take a genious to figure out it's all a numbers game if this goes through.

    I'm a private sector employee and I know if our school districts are run like the company I work for there will be temps & consultants monitoring my kid's classrooms...

    I'm an engineer, and there are plenty of times I am going to bed with a laptop in my lap finishing up some specifications/design/calculations. So please, lets not act like teachers are the only ones stuck with taking work home. Nearly all business/professional careers do the same thing, engineers, lawyers, doctors, businessmen, etc.

    Here's the difference, I'm and engineer AND I have taught before, so I can see both sides of the coin and I know the truth.
  • Gblock
    I wish we could ban the words private sector from this thread...I feel like I'm in a class called private sector 101.jk.LOL if schools were private sector you would pay more imo...
  • tiger1990
    I take work home too & work right beside her. Thing is, I knew what I was getting into when I chose to get my degree, as did she (& you guys too). This is what we signed up for - why tear down another profession to make things "equal"...?
  • O-Trap
    tiger1990;682153 wrote:Merit based pay = firing experienced, well-trained teachers that have become "too expensive."
    Using the same logic, no company in the private sector ever pays anyone above minimum wage, right?

    Wrong. MERIT-based pay means you stand to make more money that the person next to you if your ability and effort MERIT it.
    OneBuckeye;682175 wrote:Lets do some math. Say Private Employee gets paid 50K and Teacher gets paid 50K. Assuming a teacher works 190 days a year and Private employee works 50weeks * 5days = 250 Days a year.

    50k/190 =263$/day
    50K/250=200$/day
    63/200=32% more pay for the Teacher.

    That doesn't include the sweet Pension the Teacher gets vs the shitty 401K Private employee gets.
    You get a 401k? Lucky bastard.

    As for a pension, I'm not kidding, I'd cut my own finger off for a good pension plan and the job security teachers have.
    tiger1990;682178 wrote:... it doesn't take a genious ...
    Oh the irony ...

    As far as your wife, if she's worth her pay in her level of expertise, then she'll be fine. If not, but she's willing to take a pay cut (if she hasn't yet, and you don't think the economy warrants it, you're the one living in naivety), she'll still be fine.

    I see the same with my wife, who is also a teacher. She's a good teacher, who is currently underpaid because the teachers who have been there for 20 years and haven't updated their material for nearly half that (and whose students make absurdly little progress in their classes, despite the same class making leaps and bounds of progress in my wife's class in prior years) have more "tenure." As it is, an amazing teacher with 20 years experience and a shitty teacher with 20 years experience make the same pay. That's idiotic, and a completely unnecessary burden on society. She knows that, and thus, she's hoping this bill passes.
    tiger1990;682178 wrote:I'm a private sector employee and I know if our school districts are run like the company I work for there will be temps & consultants monitoring my kid's classrooms...
    Okay?
  • O-Trap
    Gblock;682188 wrote:I wish we could ban the words private sector from this thread...I feel like I'm in a class called private sector 101.jk.LOL if schools were private sector you would pay more imo...
    Actually, private entities typically go one of two ways.

    If you WERE to pay more, you can be damn sure that they would make the product (the "education") as high a quality education as possible.

    If you were to get an education comparable to what students get today, schools would be scrambling to make it as cheap as possible, while still being able to function and pay the employees. Cheaper school = more students = most overall cash flow and gross revenue = higher paid staff and faculty.
    tiger1990;682192 wrote:I take work home too & work right beside her. Thing is, I knew what I was getting into when I chose to get my degree, as did she (& you guys too). This is what we signed up for - why tear down another profession to make things "equal"...?

    Not tearing it down. Just pointing out that there's no justification for putting ANY profession into a protective bubble that is immune from economic ebb and flow.
  • Gblock
    Otrap why do u have to compare everything to how happy you would be with it?..i respect ur ability to eat ramen for a month but why tear down others for trying to get as much as they can get? Why not go back to school and get a job that is good that u like? Not every career is taking paycuts some are growing. If u didn't plan well career wise or were just unlucky sorry but it comes off as if we are some aholes for fighting for our families and we should be happy because we make more than u...if u are the mendoza line for who should shut up and be happy I think the bar is too low.....respectfully. hope that is not taken in the wrong way
  • Gblock
    if schools were privatized then only those who have kids would pay right? So then the price would go way up. Really u get a good deal on school
  • tiger1990
    O-Trap;682193 wrote:Using the same logic, no company in the private sector ever pays anyone above minimum wage, right?

    Wrong. MERIT-based pay means you stand to make more money that the person next to you if your ability and effort MERIT it.



    Purely arbitrary - I've seen some good people that merited good pay where I work shown the door because their jobs were eliminated due to the overhead. Disctricts will start cutting teachers based on salary & years of service unless there is some preventative measure in place like now. Senate Bill 5 takes that away. "Merit Pay" is not defined & left open to the disgression of the district. What would constitute "Merit" in Upper Arlington or Lakota is not the same as the rural district we live in. They can afford to pay top dollar for good teachers, we cannot under this bill.
  • fan_from_texas
    Gblock;682204 wrote:Otrap why do u have to compare everything to how happy you would be with it?..i respect ur ability to eat ramen for a month but why tear down others for trying to get as much as they can get? Why not go back to school and get a job that is good that u like? Not every career is taking paycuts some are growing. If u didn't plan well career wise or were just unlucky sorry but it comes off as if we are some aholes for fighting for our families and we should be happy because we make more than u...if u are the mendoza line for who should shut up and be happy I think the bar is too low.....respectfully. hope that is not taken in the wrong way

    I respect your right to fight to get more money for yourself and your family. In most industries that unionize, there is a counterbalancing force--the market. E.g., GM workers can fight for huge paydays, and when the economy is good, they get them. But when the economy slumps, the unions suffer. The problem is that there is no counterbalancing force in the private sector; the government doesn't go "bankrupt" like regular companies do, nor does the government have an incentive to respond to market forces to provide goods/services at a price the consumer wants. It's not like we can hire another gov'ts military to protect us.

    Because the gov't has a monopoly on its position, unions have close to unlimited bargaining power. When the gov't at all levels is approaching insolvency--and the solutions are to tax, tax, tax or consider pulling back some of the ridiculous perks--it seems reasonable for the citizens to say "Enough."
  • Bigdogg
    You are comparing apples to oranges as usual. There are all kinds of safety nets both public and private for people who are hungry if you can't provide for yourself. The same should be for BASIC medical care. Yes, through taxes and voluntary giving we meet all of the basic human needs (Food, clothing & shelter) so health care should be no different.
  • Bigdogg
    Cleveland Buck;682077 wrote:What about those who can't garden, hunt or fish, should they learn how to? How compassionate is that? And shouldn't you, then, learn how to treat major illnesses, or pay someone who does?

    Today 04:51 PM #439
    Bigdogg

    * View Profile
    * View Forum Posts

    Bigdogg is online now
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    555
    vCash
    5,078

    You are comparing apples to oranges as usual. There are all kinds of safety nets both public and private for people who are hungry if you can't provide for yourself. The same should be for BASIC medical care. Yes, through taxes and voluntary giving we meet all of the basic human needs (Food, clothing & shelter) so health care should be no different.
  • fan_from_texas
    Gblock;682210 wrote:if schools were privatized then only those who have kids would pay right? So then the price would go way up. Really u get a good deal on school

    On average, everyone gets the same deal. Whether it's good for them or not depends on how many kids they have and how old those kids are. Is it better to pay X for 13 years of school and then nothing for 70 years? Or X*13/83 over a lifetime? On average, it's a wash, and there's no real way to say that we're getting a "good deal" because the costs are subsidized by those who have no skin in the game at this point.
  • Bigdogg
    Cleveland Buck;682077 wrote:What about those who can't garden, hunt or fish, should they learn how to? How compassionate is that? And shouldn't you, then, learn how to treat major illnesses, or pay someone who does?

    You are comparing apples to oranges as usual. There are all kinds of safety nets both public and private for people who are hungry if you can't provide for yourself. The same should be for BASIC medical care. Yes, through taxes and voluntary giving we meet all of the basic human needs (Food, clothing & shelter) so health care should be no different.
  • Bigdogg
    fan_from_texas;682217 wrote:I respect your right to fight to get more money for yourself and your family. In most industries that unionize, there is a counterbalancing force--the market. E.g., GM workers can fight for huge paydays, and when the economy is good, they get them. But when the economy slumps, the unions suffer. The problem is that there is no counterbalancing force in the private sector; the government doesn't go "bankrupt" like regular companies do, nor does the government have an incentive to respond to market forces to provide goods/services at a price the consumer wants. It's not like we can hire another gov'ts military to protect us.

    Because the gov't has a monopoly on its position, unions have close to unlimited bargaining power. When the gov't at all levels is approaching insolvency--and the solutions are to tax, tax, tax or consider pulling back some of the ridiculous perks--it seems reasonable for the citizens to say "Enough."

    Fan, the one equation you are leaving out is public jobs have a high level of partisan politics. I lived through this time and I will tell you that without the protection of collective bargaining, which is the same right you and everyone else in the private sector currently have, you are going to see less efficiency, and much worse services and little cost savings. Go back and look at very old help wanted ads in the Washington Post. Public Jobs were being offered for sale to the highest bidder. Corruption was rampant. I do not have a public job so I have no dog in this fight. This bill is just plain wrong and bad for Ohio.
  • Writerbuckeye
    Manhattan Buckeye;682170 wrote:'I swear public employees on average just don't get it."

    End of thread. They don't, and the idiots in Wisconsin now are evidence of this. When you aren't accountable and believe you are exempt from economic realities, this is what you get. It will take a national bankruptcy (to the extent we aren't already there) and their checks to bounce to get it.

    It isn't even a GOP vs. DEM thing - My dad is a lifelong Republican and a lifetime NEA/OEA member and is absolutely clueless as to how my wife and I live.

    I honestly think most of the people (teachers especially) on here who are against this are terrified because they've never been in a private sector work situation. All they know is the so-called protection of a union. They've always had others do for them, instead of doing it themselves, or simply had it laid out and handed to them (salary schedules with pay increases built in).

    Guess what? The private sector isn't some boogeyman that wants to eat your young and take away everything you've got. It wants to succeed, and it knows it needs talented, productive people to do so. It isn't going to simply jettison good people for the hell of it. Also, I don't believe for one second that many of the protections already built into government employment (that aren't from the union) will change. Government jobs were pretty damn secure even before unions came along, and I see nothing changing in that regard -- meaning you'll have to really screw up and be unproductive or destructive to get yourself fired, most likely.

    Unless you really have no self confidence and don't believe in your own abilities, you have nothing to fear from this legislation.
  • O-Trap
    Gblock;682204 wrote:Otrap why do u have to compare everything to how happy you would be with it?
    You mean with the pension comments? Let me explain.

    I heard a student (about 16 or so) say that she refused to let her boyfriend give her a silver charm for her gold bracelet the other day. In her words, it would have made her "look like a hobo."

    She is absurdly out of touch with reality, because the truth is, having a jewel bracelet, matching or not, makes you look FAR from a hobo.

    To borrow from an old sitcom, it would be like someone complaining about having a wallet that was too small for his $50 bills or diamond shoes that were too tight. The reality is, whether you don't get every little thing you want as a teacher, the majority of people in the country right now would still KILL to have the problems you have, because theirs are far worse.
    Gblock;682204 wrote:i respect ur ability to eat ramen for a month
    Don't. It was gross. LOL!
    Gblock;682204 wrote:but why tear down others for trying to get as much as they can get?
    I have NO qualms with people trying to get as much as they can get ... IF THEY'RE EARNING IT. That's why I want individual teachers paid based on their own merit. Keeps the excellent teachers from being paid too little and the apathetic teachers from being paid too much.

    Get everything you can ... by earning it.

    But if you're trying to get as much as you can by having the rest of the population forced to give it to you, through the legislative process, when the rest of the country is already suffering financially ... then you're doing something that goes against the notion of "independence." Go after as much as you can. As the kids at the youth center say, "Get money, get paid, get money, get paid!" But get it without just abusing the system.

    I swear some teachers are no different than someone living off disability by faking an injury. Others are outstanding and deserve to be paid better than the leaches.

    Bottom line: If you're a valuable teacher, then you'll make more in a merit-based system, because instead of everyone making the "average" across the board, the above-par teachers will make the above average pay while the below average teachers will make the below average pay.
    Gblock;682204 wrote:Why not go back to school and get a job that is good that u like?
    Interestingly enough, the job I love, and am working on getting, doesn't even require a high school degree. :D
    Gblock;682204 wrote:Not every career is taking paycuts some are growing. If u didn't plan well career wise or were just unlucky sorry
    My current situation really has nothing to do with my planning, as there is no occupation out there for which I'm wishing I'd gone to school.

    My self-owned business is what I love, and I'm working at scaling it up. I'm not discontent with what I have to the degree that I would complain about it. I'm just flabergasted that people are talking about their retirement taking a minor hit while most people's retirement lays in rubble.
    Gblock;682204 wrote:... it comes off as if we are some aholes for fighting for our families and we should be happy because we make more than u...if u are the mendoza line for who should shut up and be happy I think the bar is too low.....respectfully. hope that is not taken in the wrong way

    Not at all.

    And I'm not blaming anyone for fighting for your family. If your rights were being denied so that others could see a special-exemption luxury, I would expect you to fight for your family. If you are concerned for their wellbeing, that's great. Trying to leverage yourself to receive as much government money as you can, regardless of how hard you work, doesn't fly as "fighting" though. If you care enough for your family, then work your ass off as a teacher (I have no doubt that you already do) and go to a merit system. If you do, you'll be receiving above-average pay for a teacher in the district.
  • Bigdogg
    Not listed as having an offer.

    http://recruiting.scout.com/a.z?s=73&p=9&c=11&cfg=null&sFirstName=&sLastName=mauk&yr=2012
  • FatHobbit

    It's because of the union.
  • Writerbuckeye
    Bigdogg;682231 wrote:Fan, the one equation you are leaving out is public jobs have a high level of partisan politics. I lived through this time and I will tell you that without the protection of collective bargaining, which is the same right you and everyone else in the private sector currently have, you are going to see less efficiency, and much worse services and little cost savings. Go back and look at very old help wanted ads in the Washington Post. Public Jobs were being offered for sale to the highest bidder. Corruption was rampant. I do not have a public job so I have no dog in this fight. This bill is just plain wrong and bad for Ohio.

    This makes no sense. Most private sector companies do not have any "protections" (whatever those are are) or collective bargaining like unions.

    And the partisan politics of most government jobs are in the very top positions. They're unclassified and, as such, have no government-based civil service type protections that existed long before unions came along. People who take those jobs make a bit more because they ARE in a political system that is strictly employment at-will of the official who holds the office overseeing their workplace. I know, I held one of these positions for a number of years.

    But those slots are a VERY MINOR part of total government employment. Most positions, even those as high as division chiefs (which oversee hundreds of employees) are not a part of that system.
  • O-Trap
    tiger1990;682215 wrote:Purely arbitrary - I've seen some good people that merited good pay where I work shown the door because their jobs were eliminated due to the overhead.
    You're talking to one.

    I was good at what I did, but what I did was no longer something the company did. I can't blame them for letting me go. Would a marketing company keep on a chef after they get rid of the kitchen service? No, because a chef's skills are no longer beneficial to the company.

    Should a school keep a teacher if the teacher is no longer beneficial to the education of the children within that school?
    tiger1990;682215 wrote:Disctricts will start cutting teachers based on salary & years of service unless there is some preventative measure in place like now.
    Funny, because this is certainly the exception, and not the rule, in non-union industries. Why would this boogeyman suddenly come out in education?
    tiger1990;682215 wrote:"Merit Pay" is not defined & left open to the disgression of the district. What would constitute "Merit" in Upper Arlington or Lakota is not the same as the rural district we live in. They can afford to pay top dollar for good teachers, we cannot under this bill.
    Indeed, but that's no different now than it would be otherwise.
    Bigdogg;682231 wrote:Fan, the one equation you are leaving out is public jobs have a high level of partisan politics.
    I'm surprised this doesn't scare people more than it does. I'm also surprised nobody addresses this as a big problem.
    Bigdogg;682231 wrote:I lived through this time and I will tell you that without the protection of collective bargaining, which is the same right you and everyone else in the private sector currently have, you are going to see less efficiency ...
    That isn't, at all, how it plays out. If my industry collectively bargained, I could just sit back and watch my paycheck increase with experience, so long as I did the bare minimum to keep from getting fired.

    And when I have a union on top of that, which will strong-arm my employer into not firing me, except in extreme cases, well ... I hardly have to be productive at all!
    Bigdogg;682231 wrote:Go back and look at very old help wanted ads in the Washington Post. Public Jobs were being offered for sale to the highest bidder. Corruption was rampant. I do not have a public job so I have no dog in this fight. This bill is just plain wrong and bad for Ohio.
    I won't deny the partisan problem, but I cannot fathom how someone believes that making teachers stand on their own, like most other professions, is a bad thing.
  • Manhattan Buckeye
    "you are going to see less efficiency, and much worse services and little cost savings."

    Well that's obvious given how efficient and awesome our highly unionized manufacturing industry is, that is currently a worldwide leader in innovation and growth. If Michigan gets anymore greater, we should all move there. (Major sarcasm alert). And that is an industry that actually has competition. How do we expect non-competitive organizations to react? To FFT's point, what are citizens in Wisconsin supposed to do? Not bargain with these clowns and move to Minnesota or Iowa? At least in the private sector there is choice, if you are pissed off at GM and Chrysler, and their heavily political bailout - fine. One doesn't have to buy their products. I can't not pay my property taxes without risk of losing my house or going to jail if I'm dissatisfied with Richmond, Virginia's (INCOMPETENT) public schools. We don't have debtors' prisons, aside from debts owed to the government. It is a complete market anomaly. And it is unsustainable.
  • Gblock
    I worked 8 years before making 40000 it wasn't that great
  • O-Trap
    Gblock;682260 wrote:I worked 8 years before making 40000 it wasn't that great

    See, that's the thing. Shouldn't be a timeframe issue.

    Under the current system, "excelling for 8 years as a teacher" gets you the same pay as "did just enough teaching to get by for 8 years as a teacher." It's not fair to the good teachers, and it's not fair to the kids who are unfortunate enough to be stuck in the classrooms with the apathetic "teachers."