Senate Bill 5 Targets Collective Bargaining for Elimination!

• CenterBHSFan

  

  wkfan;704816 wrote:I doubt that I'll vote for Kasich in 2014...as much for his heavy handed and dictatorial style as what he is doing. I will, however, wait to see how it turns out over the next 4 years.

  But don't you think that will take somebody/anybody to be heavy-handed in order to affect change? Not just this issue, but all and any others?
  
  Pussyfooting around, kowtowing, talking out of both sides of the mouth, Chamberlaining, etc. are what got us to where we are now. I'd much rather Ohio be in sound fiscal shape than worry about being offended.
  And believe me, just because I'm not coddling unions doesn't mean that I think I'll be exempt from feeling the price. I'm under no such thoughts.
  
  We're all going to feel something by the time heavy-handed changes are made. It's not going to start at the fed level, so the states are trying to get their houses in order. Or at least some of them are.
• O-Trap

  

  wkfan;704846 wrote:I understand how it could be done....I just sincerely doubt that a bonus will everbe a pazrt of teacher compensation.
  
  BTW...those of you exempt people who have an opportunity earn extra compensation in the form of a bonus have no room to complain about the high tax rate that it is under....those of us who are in the private sector and are exempt employees and have no bonus provisions in our pay schedules would love to have the opportunity to earn more....bus alas, we do not.

  Again, if you moved to individual bargaining, and having pay and employment contingent on performance instead of tenure, that could change.
  
  In a sense, collective bargaining prevents it from even being a possibility.
  

  ernest_t_bass;704853 wrote:Don't private sector employers HAVE to match an employee's 7.2% into Social Security? Since we are exempt from SS, then I could see a 7.2% mandate, congruent with the private sector. I don't see it as a right, but equal to what the private sector does. If I, as a public sector employee, paid 7.2% into SS, then my guess is that private sector people (especially those drawing SS) would want my employer to match.

  I believe so. I didn't think it was above 7%, but it's been several years since I looked at this.
• Footwedge

  O-Trap;704829 wrote:It wouldn't be that difficult if the means of paying for education was structured differently.
  
  One could conceive of a portion of bonuses going toward such funding ... meaning the bigger the bonus of any taxed individual, the bigger the bonus amount able to be allocated toward rewarding the best teachers.
  
  However, most of us who have a bonus as even an option are pretty sick of how sizeably it is taxed already.

  Otrap.....Bonus dollars are taxed at the same rate as your regular pay...unless your tax bracket changes....which is most likely not the case. Your witholdings are nasty...but once you square up with the IRS....you've paid the exact same percentage.
• O-Trap

  

  Footwedge;704882 wrote:Otrap.....Bonus dollars are taxed at the same rate as your regular pay...unless your tax bracket changes....which is most likely not the case. Your witholdings are nasty...but once you square up with the IRS....you've paid the exact same percentage.

  Huh. Always seemed like more. Good to know, though.
• wkfan

  O-Trap;704880 wrote:Again, if you moved to individual bargaining, and having pay and employment contingent on performance instead of tenure, that could change.
  
  In a sense, collective bargaining prevents it from even being a possibility.

  As I stated, I am not a teacher but a private sector employee.
  

  wkfan;704846 wrote:....those of us who are in the private sector and are exempt employees have no bonus provisions in our pay schedules would love to have the opportunity to earn more....bus alas, we do not.

• Skyhook79

  

  ernest_t_bass;704853 wrote:Don't private sector employers HAVE to match an employee's 7.2% into Social Security? Since we are exempt from SS, then I could see a 7.2% mandate, congruent with the private sector. I don't see it as a right, but equal to what the private sector does. If I, as a public sector employee, paid 7.2% into SS, then my guess is that private sector people (especially those drawing SS) would want my employer to match.

  Its 6.2% for SS and 1.45% for Medicare for a total of 7.65% that an employer has to match. However for 2011 the employee contribution for SS is 4.2% but the employer stays at 6.2%.
  Public employees do pay into Medicare.
• wkfan

  CenterBHSFan;704867 wrote:But don't you think that will take somebody/anybody to be heavy-handed in order to affect change? Not just this issue, but all and any others?

  Nope...there are bettwe ways that are much more fair and equitable to everyone involved. This is fueled by a political agenda and grossly unfair to police, firefighters, teachers and state/county/city workers. You cannot erase an $8 million bidget deficit on the backs of those workers alone.
  

  CenterBHSFan;704867 wrote:We're all going to feel something by the time heavy-handed changes are made. It's not going to start at the fed level, so the states are trying to get their houses in order. Or at least some of them are.

  While I do not know what you do, please tell me what you think might be shoved down your throat by the Governor or legislature that may cause you to have to sell you home or drastically alter your future?
• O-Trap

  

  wkfan;704918 wrote:As I stated, I am not a teacher but a private sector employee.

  Did I imply that I thought you weren't? If I did, I'm sorry. I didn't intend to.
  
  If you meant the "you" in the statement, that was a hypothetical "you." I wasn't addressing you, specifically.
  
  Sorry for the confusion.
• O-Trap

  

  As an aside, YAY for being the 2,000th post on the thread! ^^
• wkfan

  O-Trap;704945 wrote:Sorry for the confusion.

  No worries.....
• Writerbuckeye

  

  coach_bob1;704728 wrote:You're right. I don't speak for everyone. But I do know not all of Ohio supports this bill. In fact, if Ohio falls in line with the recent Gallop poll, then only 33% supports it.

  
  That poll is NOT reflective of Ohio opinion, and I'd doubt it reflects US opinion on public unions. It was (if I recall) 1,000 adults who were polled. There was no data or breakdown given of who those 1,000 people were. MOST polls tell you the background of those polled (i.e. gender, education, registered R or D, etc.) This poll gave none of that data that I could find. And if they did release it, I'm betting you'd find it weighted in favor of those who prefer unions to those who do not.
• coach_bob1

  http://www.gallup.com/poll/146276/Scaling-Back-State-Programs-Least-Three-Fiscal-Evils.aspx
  
  Writerbuckeye,
  
  Here is the link to the poll. Yes, they do tell you Republican, Democrat, or Independent. If you took any research statistics classes, you will remember that a valid sample set needs just 21 people. It does not mean that 21 people are a representative sample. 33 people surveyed on an issue (i.e. voting on a Senate bill) are also not a representative sample of a population of 11.5 million citizens, regardless of whether they are elected officials or not. 1,000 adults, however, would be considered a representative sample in most cases. The method of selection was a random phone dialer. I stated already that this is not just people in Ohio. If you look at the results, they are generally a 50/50 split across the board if you factor in the 4% margin of error.
• LJ

  

  coach_bob1;705249 wrote:http://www.gallup.com/poll/146276/Scaling-Back-State-Programs-Least-Three-Fiscal-Evils.aspx
  
  Writerbuckeye,
  
  Here is the link to the poll. Yes, they do tell you Republican, Democrat, or Independent. If you took any research statistics classes, you will remember that a valid sample set needs just 21 people. It does not mean that 21 people are a representative sample. 33 people surveyed on an issue (i.e. voting on a Senate bill) are also not a representative sample of a population of 11.5 million citizens, regardless of whether they are elected officials or not. 1,000 adults, however, would be considered a representative sample in most cases. The method of selection was a random phone dialer. I stated already that this is not just people in Ohio. If you look at the results, they are generally a 50/50 split across the board if you factor in the 4% margin of error.

  
  Phone dialer itself is not a good random sample source anymore due to so many people only having cell phones, which are not allowed to be called.
• O-Trap

  

  LJ;705301 wrote:Phone dialer itself is not a good random sample source anymore due to so many people only having cell phones, which are not allowed to be called.

  Unless they have an established relationship ... but the problem is, if they have an established relationship, it's probably around a common theme, meaning the sample is no longer random.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  coach_bob1;705249 wrote:http://www.gallup.com/poll/146276/Scaling-Back-State-Programs-Least-Three-Fiscal-Evils.aspx
  
  Writerbuckeye,
  
  Here is the link to the poll. Yes, they do tell you Republican, Democrat, or Independent. If you took any research statistics classes, you will remember that a valid sample set needs just 21 people. It does not mean that 21 people are a representative sample. 33 people surveyed on an issue (i.e. voting on a Senate bill) are also not a representative sample of a population of 11.5 million citizens, regardless of whether they are elected officials or not. 1,000 adults, however, would be considered a representative sample in most cases. The method of selection was a random phone dialer. I stated already that this is not just people in Ohio. If you look at the results, they are generally a 50/50 split across the board if you factor in the 4% margin of error.

  
  They never break down how many respondents identify as Republican, Democrat or independent. That's a critical piece to how the poll is weighted and will directly affect the outcome. I've seen too many of these, when the real data comes out, that were very definitely weighted in one direction or the other.
  
  If you're confident in your results, then give us the actual numbers, don't just tell us it's a representative sampling. I'm not going to believe it.
• sleeper

  

  LJ;705301 wrote:Phone dialer itself is not a good random sample source anymore due to so many people only having cell phones, which are not allowed to be called.

  
  Not to mention people using outdated artifacts like the landline are probably the same people that use outdated employment models.
• QuakerOats

  "Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek. "
  Barack Obama
• Bigdogg

  LJ;705301 wrote:Phone dialer itself is not a good random sample source anymore due to so many people only having cell phones, which are not allowed to be called.

  
  A man who understands what a scientific poll is, congratulations.
• coach_bob1

  LJ;705301 wrote:Phone dialer itself is not a good random sample source anymore due to so many people only having cell phones, which are not allowed to be called.

  
  Actually, if you read in the methods, they state they reached 850 land lines and 150 cell phones.
• LJ

  

  coach_bob1;705799 wrote:Actually, if you read in the methods, they state they reached 850 land lines and 150 cell phones.

  
  Ok? That has nothing to do with the decreased sample population
• coach_bob1

  LJ;705804 wrote:Ok? That has nothing to do with the decreased sample population

  
  Are you familiar with "regression towards the mean"? As a sample gets larger, the closer the results will be towards the average. The reason they use a sample of 1,000 is that once you exceed 1,000 members in a sample, the movement of the results towards the mean becomes very small changes that do not change the data significantly. Does that help any?
• LJ

  

  coach_bob1;705813 wrote:Are you familiar with "regression towards the mean"? As a sample gets larger, the closer the results will be towards the average. The reason they use a sample of 1,000 is that once you exceed 1,000 members in a sample, the movement of the results towards the mean becomes very small changes that do not change the data significantly. Does that help any?

  Ive only developed sampling and testing protocols for a few years now.... Its limiting who you can and cannot test.
• coach_bob1

  LJ,
  
  I will say that if Ohio were the only state surveyed, the results may be much more polarized due to the fact that this is a hotter issue in our state as opposed to, for example, Maine or Delaware.
• coach_bob1

  LJ;705818 wrote:Ive only developed sampling and testing protocols for a few years now.... Its limiting who you can and cannot test.

  
  Unfortunately, telephones are the best current medium for these type of surveys due to accesibility. I would venture to say +90% of people have access to a telephone. If these surveys didn't require speedy responses, US Mail would be the optimal medium.
• LJ

  

  coach_bob1;705824 wrote:Unfortunately, telephones are the best current medium for these type of surveys due to accesibility. I would venture to say +90% of people have access to a telephone. If these surveys didn't require speedy responses, US Mail would be the optimal medium.

  
  Access to A phone? Yes
  
  Permission to call all of those phones? Not close