Senate Bill 5 Targets Collective Bargaining for Elimination!

• O-Trap

  

  Ty Webb;702430 wrote:I have changed my major as a result of this bill

  So the compensation and/or job security was your main draw?
  

  Ty Webb;702460 wrote:I've always wanted to be a teacher...it's the only thing I ever considered majoring in

  And a change in the compensation negotiation structure was all it took to push you in a completely different direction?
  

  Ty Webb;702460 wrote:But with this and my local school district cutting teachers to spend the money on sports,it makes no sense to become a teacher

  Unless you are still passionate about changing the lives of students and you think you still have something worthwhile to bring to the classroom.
  
  I'm currently in a career path where my salary will most likely top out at $54,000 a year (bonuses can get it as high as $61K, but that's the max-out). I personally am under six months, and I am making under $24,000 a year. The benefits are okay (80-20 health benefits, dental, some vision, 5% company contribution to 401k). I negotiate my own salary, and I have to account for my value to the company every six months.
  
  Why do I do it? Simple. I like what I do.
  

  Ty Webb;702460 wrote:I'm happy with my new major

  When all is said and done, this is what is important, and I am genuinely glad that you've found a major you love.
• ernest_t_bass

  

  ccrunner609;702402 wrote:Right now I stand to lose 10% of my income the next 3 years.......more into the state retirement and alot more for insurance. Does that make all of you happy?

  
  How do you figure? This bill has not passed yet, and is not law. You just get done with negotiations?
• dwccrew

  

  ernest_t_bass;702880 wrote:How do you figure? This bill has not passed yet, and is not law. You just get done with negotiations?

  
  No, he is buying into the false statements that the fear mongerers are spewing.
• ernest_t_bass

  

  dwccrew;702953 wrote:No, he is buying into the false statements that the fear mongerers are spewing.

  
  It's not false. Just not true... yet. And we don't know the extent.
• dwccrew

  

  ernest_t_bass;703031 wrote:It's not false. Just not true... yet. And we don't know the extent.

  
  If it's not true (which you admit) than it is false. Don't try to spin this into something it is not. We don't know how this will play out yet, so any and all numbers thrown out there are simply false and assumptions.
• ernest_t_bass

  

  dwccrew;703032 wrote:If it's not true (which you admit) than it is false. Don't try to spin this into something it is not. We don't know how this will play out yet, so any and all numbers thrown out there are simply false and assumptions.

  
  The numbers that I have given (previously... somewhere on here) are a worst case scenario, and it is based on 100% factual numbers. Based on percentages that have been stated by the STRS, Govt., etc., that would be my worst case scenario... $700 per month.
  
  Now, there are a TON of different things that could be different. Cost of health care, percentage BOE's are allowed to pay towards HC, percentage BOE's are allowed to pay toward pension, etc.
  
  One thing, however, is that pension will be tricky. The private sector pays a into SS at 7.2%, and their employers match it. Apparently, under Ohio law, teachers HAVE to pay into STRS, and can't choose an alternative. (Don't quote me, heard it from another teacher who has been paying closer attention to this stuff) So, with STRS changes, 28% of salary MUST be paid into retirement. Teachers would have paid 14% and BOE's pay 14%. If BOE's are no longer allowed, then apparently by law, teachers would HAVE to pay 28% towards pension. To me, that is just wrong. Especially the fact that public employers don't have to match their private employer counterparts by contributing 7.2%. It also bothers me that, apparently under law, I won't be able to withdrawal my money and invest it how I see fit.
  
  Can anyone honestly tell me that doing so would be "right?" (Us HAVING to pay 28% towards pension, no ifs, ands, or buts)
• WebFire

  ernest_t_bass;703054 wrote:The numbers that I have given (previously... somewhere on here) are a worst case scenario, and it is based on 100% factual numbers. Based on percentages that have been stated by the STRS, Govt., etc., that would be my worst case scenario... $700 per month.
  
  Now, there are a TON of different things that could be different. Cost of health care, percentage BOE's are allowed to pay towards HC, percentage BOE's are allowed to pay toward pension, etc.
  
  One thing, however, is that pension will be tricky. The private sector pays a into SS at 7.2%, and their employers match it. Apparently, under Ohio law, teachers HAVE to pay into STRS, and can't choose an alternative. (Don't quote me, heard it from another teacher who has been paying closer attention to this stuff) So, with STRS changes, 28% of salary MUST be paid into retirement. Teachers would have paid 14% and BOE's pay 14%. If BOE's are no longer allowed, then apparently by law, teachers would HAVE to pay 28% towards pension. To me, that is just wrong. Especially the fact that public employers don't have to match their private employer counterparts by contributing 7.2%. It also bothers me that, apparently under law, I won't be able to withdrawal my money and invest it how I see fit.
  
  Can anyone honestly tell me that doing so would be "right?" (Us HAVING to pay 28% towards pension, no ifs, ands, or buts)

  
  Where does it say that will be the case? I find it hard to believe it will be.
• FatHobbit

  

  Ty Webb;702430 wrote:I have changed my major as a result of this bill
  
  This bill is a massive trainwreck and will do NOTHING but make this worse in the state of Ohio

  Is that an argument for, or against this bill?
  

  Ty Webb;702460 wrote:I've always wanted to be a teacher...it's the only thing I ever considered majoring in
  
  But with this and my local school district cutting teachers to spend the money on sports,it makes no sense to become a teacher
  
  I'm happy with my new major

  
  link?
• coach_bob1

  WebFire;699712 wrote:Are you in favor of the bill now?

  
  I still have a problem with the bill. It intrudes upon peoples rights. Rights which have been decided by the courts. And the puplic employees that have written the bill made sure to include lines that exclude themselves and the governor as public employees. I believe it is an issue that needs to voted upon by the general public due to the amount of people affected by this bill.
• FatHobbit

  

  coach_bob1;703074 wrote:And the puplic employees that have written the bill made sure to include lines that exclude themselves and the governor as public employees.

  
  That does not surprise me at all.
• O-Trap

  

  WebFire;703064 wrote:Where does it say that will be the case? I find it hard to believe it will be.

  If so, I would agree that it's unjust, though.
  

  coach_bob1;703074 wrote:I still have a problem with the bill. It intrudes upon peoples rights.

  Rights tend to come and go with the whims of the court (apart from those outlined in the Constitution). Thus, suggesting that rights are being infringed upon by the court overturning its own actions is silly.
  
  Any governing institution that has the justified power to grant a right also has the justified power to disallow that right, unless that right is upheld by an entity that superceded it (ie the Constitution as an example).
• ernest_t_bass

  

  WebFire;703064 wrote:Where does it say that will be the case? I find it hard to believe it will be.

  
  It is WORST CASE SCENARIO! I don't even know if it is even possible to get to that.
• O-Trap

  

  FatHobbit;703083 wrote:That does not surprise me at all.

  Why? It makes them sound good-natured.
• coach_bob1

  O-Trap;703087 wrote:If so, I would agree that it's unjust, though.
  
  
  
  Rights tend to come and go with the whims of the court (apart from those outlined in the Constitution). Thus, suggesting that rights are being infringed upon by the court overturning its own actions is silly.
  
  Any governing institution that has the justified power to grant a right also has the justified power to disallow that right, unless that right is upheld by an entity that superceded it (ie the Constitution as an example).

  
  The court has the right to overrule itself. The legislature does not have the right to overrule the court.
• Skyhook79

  

  coach_bob1;703074 wrote:I still have a problem with the bill. It intrudes upon peoples rights. Rights which have been decided by the courts. And the puplic employees that have written the bill made sure to include lines that exclude themselves and the governor as public employees. I believe it is an issue that needs to voted upon by the general public due to the amount of people affected by this bill.

  
  They already had a vote...last November, Kasich won.
• coach_bob1

  Skyhook79;703102 wrote:They already had a vote...last November, Kasich won.

  
  Once again your ignorance amazes me. The governor is part of the executive branch. His job is not to make the laws, but to enforce them.
• sleeper

  

  coach_bob1;703121 wrote:Once again your ignorance amazes me. The governor is part of the executive branch. His job is not to make the laws, but to enforce them.

  
  LOL
  
  Wow, I guess the state house and senators aren't voted in by the people.
• coach_bob1

  sleeper;703133 wrote:LOL
  
  Wow, I guess the state house and senators aren't voted in by the people.

  
  Never said they weren't. I said I believe the issue is important enough and effects enough citizens that it should be decided by the general public. And with an estimated 350,000 union members affected and only 232,000 signatures needed to put it on the ballot, it is very possible that it will be.
• Skyhook79

  

  coach_bob1;703121 wrote:Once again your ignorance amazes me. The governor is part of the executive branch. His job is not to make the laws, but to enforce them.

  I am pretty sure that the Gov can sign or veto any bill that the Legislature (which are voted on also) puts on his desk either sending it back or making it Law.
• QuakerOats

  coach_bob1;703074 wrote:I still have a problem with the bill. It intrudes upon peoples rights.

  
  I have a problem with the original bill rammed through in 1983 by Tricky Dick Celeste and his band of union-machine democrats! that bill intruded greatly on "people's rights": the rights of the kids to an excellent education free from a union thugocracy and strikes; the rights of the taxpayers to an excellent and affordable education for kids in their community, one free from untenable union demands and strikes and threats thereof; and the rights of the middle class taxpayer to not have their backs broken because of unaffordable compensation packages when they were not fairly represented at the negotiating table.
  
  To hell with all those rights, so long as a disastrous '83 law stays in force so a few can continue to feed at the public trough. Seems to me we did a hell of a lot better job at educating our kids during the 180 years predating the CBA law; the facts bear that out.
• QuakerOats

  coach_bob1;703140 wrote:Never said they weren't. I said I believe the issue is important enough and effects enough citizens that it should be decided by the general public. And with an estimated 350,000 union members affected and only 232,000 signatures needed to put it on the ballot, it is very possible that it will be.

  
  Once again, a special interest group with its mind set on usurping power and doing an end run around our representative form of government; how disgusting.
• coach_bob1

  Skyhook79;703149 wrote:I am pretty sure that the Gov can sign or veto any bill that the Legislature (which are voted on also) puts on his desk either sending it back or making it Law.

  
  No, he enforces it by approving it. The legislature makes the laws. And refer to my replies to Webfire and Sleeper in regards to why I have issues with this bill. Oh, and for the record, I generally vote Republican.
• sleeper

  

  coach_bob1;703140 wrote:Never said they weren't. I said I believe the issue is important enough and effects enough citizens that it should be decided by the general public. And with an estimated 350,000 union members affected and only 232,000 signatures needed to put it on the ballot, it is very possible that it will be.

  
  They certainly have a right to do that. I hope the Unions are honest in telling their members what will happen if the succeed though. Many will lose their jobs, but the Unions will continue cashing their big paychecks while they brainwash the masses.
• Gblock

  QuakerOats;703153 wrote:I have a problem with the original bill rammed through in 1983 by Tricky Dick Celeste and his bank of union-machine democrats! that bill intruded greatly on "people's rights": the rights of the kids to an excellent education free from a union thugocracy and strikes; the rights of the taxpayers to an excellent and affordable education for kids in their community, one free from untenable union demands and strikes and threats thereof; and the rights of the middle class taxpayer to not have their backs broken because of unaffordable compensation packages when they were not fairly represented at the negotiating table.
  
  To hell with all those rights, so long as a disastrous '83 law stays in force so a few can continue to feed at the public trough. Seems to me we did a hell of a lot better job at educating our kids during the 180 years predating the CBA law; the facts bear that out.

  
  lol
• coach_bob1

  QuakerOats;703155 wrote:Once again, a special interest group with its mind set on usurping power and doing an end run around our representative form of government; how disgusting.

  
  So a significant number of people exercising their political power by following the rules that have been set forth and submitting a petition causing a law to be voted on by the general public is "usurping power" but a smaller group of people crfeating a law that will affect every citizen in the State of Ohio except themselves are completely correct?