Ohio Chatter DEV

centralbucksfan

More studies being reported:
Report: Collective-Bargaining Rights Are Not Associated With Higher Deficits

We found that on average, the budget gaps of states with and without collective bargaining for public employees are similar in 2011:

•The 9 states with no collective bargaining rights for any public employees face an average budget shortfall of 16.5 percent in the current fiscal year, while the 15 states (including the District of Columbia) with collective bargaining for all public employees face an average budget shortfall of 16.2 percent.
•For the 42 states (including the District of Columbia) with some (or all) collective bargaining rights for some (or all) public workers, the 2011 budget gap averages 16.6 percent.
•The 31 states (including the District of Columbia) with collective rights for state workers face an average budget gap of 17.6 percent while those without rights for state workers face an average budget shortfall of 15.1 percent. These numbers are all very close.

derek bomar

centralbucksfan;694445 wrote:More studies being reported:
Report: Collective-Bargaining Rights Are Not Associated With Higher Deficits

We found that on average, the budget gaps of states with and without collective bargaining for public employees are similar in 2011:

•The 9 states with no collective bargaining rights for any public employees face an average budget shortfall of 16.5 percent in the current fiscal year, while the 15 states (including the District of Columbia) with collective bargaining for all public employees face an average budget shortfall of 16.2 percent.
•For the 42 states (including the District of Columbia) with some (or all) collective bargaining rights for some (or all) public workers, the 2011 budget gap averages 16.6 percent.
•The 31 states (including the District of Columbia) with collective rights for state workers face an average budget gap of 17.6 percent while those without rights for state workers face an average budget shortfall of 15.1 percent. These numbers are all very close.

A link would be handy - also, that last blurb has a range of 2.5%, which is a pretty big dollar amount in state budgets I would assume...(and you cite no data to show the size or even statistical significance of your sampling data)

Writerbuckeye

I have to laugh at the idea unions don't protect bad employees (I know you said teachers, but unions are unions). My experience being a supervisor in the state system says otherwise. The unions went out of their way to protect employees who would have been fired long ago, otherwise. One employee they protected for years and years was a drunk who left work to drink and came back sloshed.

Despite meticulous documentation and witness statements stating she had left her work to drink, and was found to be drunk on the job, she was not fired. She'd get suspended for a ridiculously small amount of time, offered rehab (which she refused) and then get her job back.

My experience wasn't isolated, either. I talked with lots of supervisors who had similar problems with employees where poor performance had been repeatedly documented, and yet those employees still had jobs because the union went "all in" to protect them.

dwccrew

Writerbuckeye;694548 wrote:I have to laugh at the idea unions don't protect bad employees (I know you said teachers, but unions are unions). My experience being a supervisor in the state system says otherwise. The unions went out of their way to protect employees who would have been fired long ago, otherwise. One employee they protected for years and years was a drunk who left work to drink and came back sloshed.

Despite meticulous documentation and witness statements stating she had left her work to drink, and was found to be drunk on the job, she was not fired. She'd get suspended for a ridiculously small amount of time, offered rehab (which she refused) and then get her job back.

My experience wasn't isolated, either. I talked with lots of supervisors who had similar problems with employees where poor performance had been repeatedly documented, and yet those employees still had jobs because the union went "all in" to protect them.

I have also experienced similar situations with employees failing drug tests or coming to work drunk and not being fired, or being fired only to get their job back because of the union.

This was in private sector unions, but the same principle applies; protect the weakest link in the chain. Sure, the union did its job of protecting the employee, but at what cost?

ernest_t_bass

Writerbuckeye;694548 wrote:I have to laugh at the idea unions don't protect bad employees.

They do, and I'm not proud of that. Things I hate about unions:

- Protection of bad employees
- My dues going to the big wigs, instead of staying local
- Idiot pro union people always demand MORE, MORE, MORE! (In districts that are struggling).

bases_loaded

ernest_t_bass;694594 wrote:They do, and I'm not proud of that. Things I hate about unions:

- Protection of bad employees
- My dues going to the big wigs, instead of staying local
- Idiot pro union people always demand MORE, MORE, MORE! (In districts that are struggling).

Yet you are in favor of them.

What does the union do that the individual can not do better?

FatHobbit

ernest_t_bass;692740 wrote:I make $34,000. That is overpaid?

FWIW, even with benefits and only working 3/4 of the year I do not think that is overpaid.

Writerbuckeye

FatHobbit;694679 wrote:FWIW, even with benefits and only working 3/4 of the year I do not think that is overpaid.

I forget how long you've been teaching, if you said it earlier. However, it doesn't appear your salary is out of line.

However, $100,000 salary and benefits packages ARE out of line, as are retirements that end up costing taxpayers more than a million dollars over the life of the pensioner. Those are the types of salaries and benefits that most of us are talking about here. And it's not just teachers, it's all government employees. Those types of figures aren't sustainable, even with a healthy economy.

wkfan

Writerbuckeye;694689 wrote:I forget how long you've been teaching, if you said it earlier. However, it doesn't appear your salary is out of line.

However, $100,000 salary and benefits packages ARE out of line, as are retirements that end up costing taxpayers more than a million dollars over the life of the pensioner. Those are the types of salaries and benefits that most of us are talking about here. And it's not just teachers, it's all government employees. Those types of figures aren't sustainable, even with a healthy economy.

Well, you will be hard pressed to find a public school elementary, middle or high school teacher anywhere in the State of Ohio who makes more than $100K....so I'm not sure what 'most of you are talking about here'.

queencitybuckeye

wkfan;694722 wrote:Well, you will be hard pressed to find a public school elementary, middle or high school teacher anywhere in the State of Ohio who makes more than $100K....so I'm not sure what 'most of you are talking about here'.

We're talking total compensation, not merely salary. $100K is not at all unusual.

Writerbuckeye

queencitybuckeye;694742 wrote:We're talking total compensation, not merely salary. $100K is not at all unusual.

Yep. If you're making $70,000 in salary and your benefits are worth $30,000 (not unheard of if you aren't contributing anything), that's a ridiculously high amount and not sustainable, even in a good economy.

If you've got people retiring at age 55 who are going to be receiving a similar amount of salary, plus full health benefits, for the remainder of their lives, that's also not sustainable economically.

There were numbers coming out of New Jersey where public employees were retiring early (in their 50s) with $100,000 salaries and all their benefits being paid. Total cost over the expected retirement was ranging up to $2.5 million for some. Multiply that (or even half that) over thousands of public employees and you bankrupt a state (see California's debt now).

jmog

wkfan;694722 wrote:Well, you will be hard pressed to find a public school elementary, middle or high school teacher anywhere in the State of Ohio who makes more than $100K....so I'm not sure what 'most of you are talking about here'.

Total compensation, not gross pay.

I'd bet a great portion of Ohio teachers are over 100k in total compensation.

LJ

wkfan;694722 wrote:Well, you will be hard pressed to find a public school elementary, middle or high school teacher anywhere in the State of Ohio who makes more than $100K....so I'm not sure what 'most of you are talking about here'.

Uh, there are over 30 in the Upper Arlington district alone.

edit: I think some are admins, but that is still ridic.

O-Trap

jmog;694827 wrote:Total compensation, not gross pay.

I'd bet a great portion of Ohio teachers are over 100k in total compensation.

Given the salaries I've seen from even just some of my former school district's teachers, the benefits would have to be nonexistant for it NOT to be over $100K for some of them.

I do have to admit, I like being able to see what the teachers in my area are being paid. Looking in my school district right now, I see many teachers (ie not supes, principles, etc.) who have million-dollar pensions, and thus, who basically have a guaranteed $100K+ compensation package per year.

What I truly find funny is that nobody's 2010 is less than their 3-highest-year average. Many are equal, and some are higher.

O-Trap

LJ;694832 wrote:Uh, there are over 30 in the Upper Arlington district alone.

edit: I think some are admins, but that is still ridic.

Yes, some are admins. Supes, principals, and VPs are all in the Buckeye listings.

stlouiedipalma

QuakerOats;694073 wrote:What is fact is that everywhere unions have been, there is now wreckage and desolation ......... it took about 60 years for the dismantling of the steel industry, 50 years to buckle the auto industry, 40 years to cripple airlines, 30 years to ruin education, and now 20 years to break municipal and state governments.

How any leader from any union could ever hoodwink another group of workers is a God damn mystery to me.

Please remember that, when collective bargaining agreements are made, it takes BOTH sides to sign the agreement. When the UAW, USW, Teamsters or whatever union negotiates an agreement with a particular company, representatives from that company put their signatures on the agreement alongside those from the union representatives.

When a teachers union negotiates a bargaining agreement with a school district, representatives from the school district (board members or administration reps) sign the agreement as well.

While some of you have a definite bias against public worker unions, keep in mind that duly elected members OF YOUR OWN COMMUNITIES agreed to those contracts. If you want to place blame, remember to point a finger toward your neighbors as well. They helped put your district in the position it's in.

jmog

stlouiedipalma;694858 wrote:Please remember that, when collective bargaining agreements are made, it takes BOTH sides to sign the agreement. When the UAW, USW, Teamsters or whatever union negotiates an agreement with a particular company, representatives from that company put their signatures on the agreement alongside those from the union representatives.

When a teachers union negotiates a bargaining agreement with a school district, representatives from the school district (board members or administration reps) sign the agreement as well.

While some of you have a definite bias against public worker unions, keep in mind that duly elected members OF YOUR OWN COMMUNITIES agreed to those contracts. If you want to place blame, remember to point a finger toward your neighbors as well. They helped put your district in the position it's in.

Here's the problem.

The UAW and other private sector unions are negotiating with the people who will actually pay the salaries of the workers. The private sector unions are negotiating with someone who has zero financial or otherwise obligations to the unions. The public sector unions funnel money (as do private unions) to political campaigns. They help people get elected. They then negotiate with someone who "owes" them in a way because they contributed to the elected officials campaigns. They do NOT negotiate with the person who is paying the salaries (taxpayers) like a private sector union does.

That is what makes public sector unions morally wrong.

O-Trap

stlouiedipalma;694858 wrote:Please remember that, when collective bargaining agreements are made, it takes BOTH sides to sign the agreement. When the UAW, USW, Teamsters or whatever union negotiates an agreement with a particular company, representatives from that company put their signatures on the agreement alongside those from the union representatives.

When a teachers union negotiates a bargaining agreement with a school district, representatives from the school district (board members or administration reps) sign the agreement as well.

While some of you have a definite bias against public worker unions, keep in mind that duly elected members OF YOUR OWN COMMUNITIES agreed to those contracts. If you want to place blame, remember to point a finger toward your neighbors as well. They helped put your district in the position it's in.

Here's the problem. What happens if/when those officials don't agree to the terms? If the negotiations stall, the district is then handcuffed. If the collective is unwilling to work within the available budget, they as a whole are able to essentially shut down classes at this point. So when the district has to choose between risking a shutdown of the school and agreeing to financial terms they cannot fulfill under the current budget, it becomes a rock/hard place decision. Damned no matter which decision is made.

In this sense, I'd say the hand is forced to a large degree, which is the ONLY reason I don't fault the admins agreeing to these terms, because doing so is incredibly irresponsible in a vacuum.

stlouiedipalma

jmog, Are you saying that your local school board members are elected with campaign funds from unions?

stlouiedipalma

O-Trap;694878 wrote:Here's the problem. What happens if/when those officials don't agree to the terms? If the negotiations stall, the district is then handcuffed. If the collective is unwilling to work within the available budget, they as a whole are able to essentially shut down classes at this point. So when the district has to choose between risking a shutdown of the school and agreeing to financial terms they cannot fulfill under the current budget, it becomes a rock/hard place decision. Damned no matter which decision is made.

In this sense, I'd say the hand is forced to a large degree, which is the ONLY reason I don't fault the admins agreeing to these terms, because doing so is incredibly irresponsible in a vacuum.

So they fold to the demands of the union? How do they explain this to the citizens in the district? "My hands were tied, so I caved".
Sorry, but you can't have it both ways. You are either fiscally responsible or you're not.

LJ

stlouiedipalma;694890 wrote:So they fold to the demands of the union? How do they explain this to the citizens in the district? "My hands were tied, so I caved".
Sorry, but you can't have it both ways. You are either fiscally responsible or you're not.

The admins are as much to blame as well, in a state like Ohio with forced unions, it's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. It's not like they can just fire everyone and get rid of the union.

Writerbuckeye

LJ;694898 wrote:The admins are as much to blame as well, in a state like Ohio with forced unions, it's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. It's not like they can just fire everyone and get rid of the union.

THIS.

One way to take unions out of this politically would be to ban the use of dues for political contributions, especially publicly funded unions.

QuakerOats

stlouiedipalma;694890 wrote:So they fold to the demands of the union? How do they explain this to the citizens in the district? "My hands were tied, so I caved".
Sorry, but you can't have it both ways. You are either fiscally responsible or you're not.

The ability to strike severely hampers the negotiating ability of those who might be fiscally conservative. Most people in the district do not understand these wage/benefit packages well enough (UNTIL NOW) nor do they wish to pick fights publicly with teachers who are then going to be handing out grades to their kids or coaching them in sports --- human nature says they don't want to tick them off for fear of reprisal against their kids. It sounds easy to "not cave", but when your phone is ringing off the hook from parents who are screaming to get their kid back in the classroom sometimes people cave when they shouldn't. This is one reason why it should be illegal to strike against the taxpayers - period! Additionally, with the subtext involving the absurdity of binding arbitration, many communities/municipalities will not cave but then the matter goes to binding arbitration where the arbitrator is often a union sympathizer who sides with the union regardless of the entity's ability to pay. This is an abomination and must be ended. Lastly, because or organized labor's grip in certain private sector industries, it was often better to settle than to risk a strike and lose significant market share to your competitor's who were not targeted, say by the UAW. It was a ridiculous situation all around, but in the end capital fled, as it always does, to where it is treated the best. The rust belt is the rust belt for a reason, and it is easy to find the common thread.

O-Trap

stlouiedipalma;694890 wrote:So they fold to the demands of the union? How do they explain this to the citizens in the district? "My hands were tied, so I caved".
Sorry, but you can't have it both ways. You are either fiscally responsible or you're not.

Though I always enjoy a good "what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander" point, I'm afraid it's hardly that black-and-white.

Is borrowing against what you cannot pay back always a matter of fiscal responsibility? To some degree, it is, but there exists something else that takes priority in the minds of the admins negotiating with the collective (ie the continued education of the students and the school remaining open).

I just find it perplexing that the teachers' union is, in many cases (not all, of course), willing to refuse to teach the kids if they aren't paid beyond the means of the district, while the district sends itself further into debt in order to continue the classes where the students will continue to learn ... and yet somehow, the teachers in these instances seem to try to assert a platform that they care about the education of the students. That makes no sense to me.

stlouiedipalma

Writerbuckeye;694906 wrote:THIS.

One way to take unions out of this politically would be to ban the use of dues for political contributions, especially publicly funded unions.

Your position has some merit, but let's go one step further and get some REAL campaign reform and severely limit the amount that any individual or corporation can contribute. Eliminate the PACs and all other means of circumventing the rules and make some hard limits. Let's face it, when large contributions are made there is always the expectation that it will be paid back one way or another.

Archive

Senate Bill 5 Targets Collective Bargaining for Elimination!