Senate Bill 5 Targets Collective Bargaining for Elimination!

• Glory Days

  

  sleeper;731510 wrote:You clearly don't understand how labor economics function(or honestly any sense of economics judging by your posts). If you can't get the wage you feel you deserve from being a firefighter, then clearly the market for firefighters is either A) over saturated(thus producing lower salaries), or B)the tax payers in that locality do not want to pay extra for a strong firefighting unit. In situation A, you shouldn't have become a firefighter, you can flip burgers like the people that thought you could screw in a widget for $27/hour(or go back to school). In situation B, you can find another department/city that will pay you the wage you feel you deserve.
  
  This is reality, I'm sorry that you are now just realizing this. People in the private sector have to deal with this all the time, why should you be any different?

  A.) oversaturated lowering salaries? You need a certain number or police and fire fighters.
  B. tax payers choosing to pay for better services? You must have lived a sheltered life in the suburbs didn’t you.
  
  Why should the public sector be any different? Maybe because comparing public and private sectors is like apples and oranges.
• sleeper

  

  Glory Days;731514 wrote:A.) oversaturated lowering salaries? You need a certain number or police and fire fighters.
  B. tax payers choosing to pay for better services? You must have lived a sheltered life in the suburbs didn’t you.
  
  Why should the public sector be any different? Maybe because comparing public and private sectors is like apples and oranges.

  If there is too much supply of firefighters, the market will clear at a lower wage. You're exactly right, the market only needs a fixed amount of firefighters, so why should it A) hire more firefighters than it needs, or B) pay the firefighters higher than market wage?
  
  As far as your second point, the tax payers ultimately vote in politicians to determine their views. If a politician runs on the platform that he wants to build a safer neighborhood by raising taxes to support a better firefighting force, then the voters can decide if that's what they want. If taxpayers don't want to a high quality firefighting force, then they can vote in politicians that follow their own personal views. This is how democracy works.
  
  Why should comparing public and private sector jobs be any different? Right now, yes they are different because you have unions controlling the labor supply and paying artificially high prices to their client base. The taxpayers are fed up with this and have voted their representatives into office to make the public sector like the private sector.
• gut

  dwccrew;731388 wrote:Police officers and firefighters (to a lesser extent) can make communities safer and more desireable to live in. This would help attract businesses and residents to move into the community and increase tax revenue, thus increasing budgets.

  
  Not to mention police officers who do their job well to reduce crime then reduces the need for as many officers, so through attrition more money to go around under the same budget.
• Glory Days

  

  gut;731520 wrote:Not to mention police officers who do their job well to reduce crime then reduces the need for as many officers, so through attrition more money to go around under the same budget.

  
  Seriously? Yeah, that would work until criminals come back when there are less officers on the street.
• Glory Days

  

  sleeper;731519 wrote: As far as your second point, the tax payers ultimately vote in politicians to determine their views. If a politician runs on the platform that he wants to build a safer neighborhood by raising taxes to support a better firefighting force, then the voters can decide if that's what they want. If taxpayers don't want to a high quality firefighting force, then they can vote in politicians that follow their own personal views. This is how democracy works.
  
  Why should comparing public and private sector jobs be any different? Right now, yes they are different because you have unions controlling the labor supply and paying artificially high prices to their client base. The taxpayers are fed up with this and have voted their representatives into office to make the public sector like the private sector.

  What I meant was how is a poor community supposed to pay for a good fire department?
  How are unions controlling the labor supply?
  You do realize fire fighters get paid differently from city to city right? its not like cities are forced to pay higher wages to fire fighters because other cities pay their fire fighters more.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  A poor community may not be able to pay more for a good fire department, so they'll pay less...just like some companies pay less because they aren't run well (or for some other reason).
  
  Unions control labor supply by dictating (via collective bargaining) how many firemen per shift or hours works per shift (which would affect labor) in the contracts, and how firemen are laid off if layoffs occur.
  
  Different wages in different cities for firemen is no different than companies paying different wages, or charitable groups, or foundations, or school systems, etc.
  
  It's the way most of the real world works.
• Swamp Fox

  I wanted to commend you, ernest_t on your very nice summation of Senate Bill 5 and the reasons why I, and I am going to assume many,many others will have for voting for repealing this noxious bill that is designed to put most of the financial burden on the average everyday Americans trying to get by, while protecting the people he needs to pay back for their election support. I urge everybody to sign the petition and vote to repeal this horrific bill. Hopefully the movement is in full forward mode.
• queencitybuckeye

  Glory Days;731332 wrote:You missed the point. good workers in the private sector increase a compay's profit allowing them to get paid more. that cant happen in the public sector.

  Some positions, yes, many not. Does our receptionist contribute measurably to the bottom line? Not really, even though she does a great job (in my subjective opinion).
• Prescott

  that is designed to put most of the financial burden on the average everyday Americans trying to get by,

  What percentage of "Average Everyday Americans" does SB 5 directly affect?
• Writerbuckeye

  

  Swamp Fox;731569 wrote:I wanted to commend you, ernest_t on your very nice summation of Senate Bill 5 and the reasons why I, and I am going to assume many,many others will have for voting for repealing this noxious bill that is designed to put most of the financial burden on the average everyday Americans trying to get by, while protecting the people he needs to pay back for their election support. I urge everybody to sign the petition and vote to repeal this horrific bill. Hopefully the movement is in full forward mode.

  
  I don't see how this puts "most of the financial burden on the average everyday Americans trying to get by" and I certainly don't see how it is "protecting the people "he" (I assume Kasich here) needs to pay back for their election support."
  
  What I do see here is a lot of UNSUBSTANTIATED RHETORIC being put out there by unions that have a LOT to lose if people are actually given the freedom to choose whether they want to pay union dues and have some say in whether dues are used for political contributions.
  
  This NONSENSE about SB5 being an "attack on the middle class" is classic Alinsky strategy: where you frame your political opponents in a way that shields you from your weakest argument -- in this case, that the middle class cannot keep paying more and more taxes to support wages, health benefits, and pension plans that are out of line with what is typically being paid in most of these communities.
  
  I understand that the unions will throw tens of millions of dollars into the campaign to repeal this -- because they have no other choice. If the law stands, they will lose basically all of their funding and will no longer be a political power in the state like they once were. My biggest hope is that the overwhelming majority of Ohioans who do NOT work in a public (union) setting will realize this is a step that had to happen to bring sanity back to the system.
• sleeper

  

  Glory Days;731531 wrote:What I meant was how is a poor community supposed to pay for a good fire department?
  How are unions controlling the labor supply?
  You do realize fire fighters get paid differently from city to city right? its not like cities are forced to pay higher wages to fire fighters because other cities pay their fire fighters more.

  
  1) A poor community can pay for a good fire department if they choose to give their funding to that department(via elections) instead of something else.
  2) Unions control the labor supply by controlling the amount of people working, the hours that they work, and the wages that they are paid. Do I really need to explain collective bargaining to you? If the fireman don't like what they are being paid, the Union steps in and fixes everything, good for the fireman, bad for the taxpayers.
  3) Yes, I do realize firefighters get paid differently city to city. So if you are getting paid a lower salary in one city, you can move to another city that pays a wage you feel you deserve. This is how the real world works. It sucks, and it's not easy, but I'm sorry, that's reality. Also, cities are forced to pay higher wages because of the unions, why not let a firefighters salary be determined by the market, like everything else?
• Glory Days

  

  Writerbuckeye;731566 wrote:A poor community may not be able to pay more for a good fire department, so they'll pay less...just like some companies pay less because they aren't run well (or for some other reason).
  
  Different wages in different cities for firemen is no different than companies paying different wages, or charitable groups, or foundations, or school systems, etc.
  
  It's the way most of the real world works.

  yeah, and that’s the way the public sector works now.
• Glory Days

  

  queencitybuckeye;731583 wrote:Some positions, yes, many not. Does our receptionist contribute measurably to the bottom line? Not really, even though she does a great job (in my subjective opinion).

  
  yeah, and she may not get the same raise as the people who make the money for the company, but when business is good, she benefits too.
• sleeper

  

  Glory Days;731614 wrote:yeah, and she may not get the same raise as the people who make the money for the company, but when business is good, she benefits too.

  Oh boo hoo. We should just pay everyone $100,000 a year. If we can't afford it, just tax the rich because they don't need $100 million dollars even if they worked for it. Do you cry this much in real life? Unbelievable.
• believer

  

  sleeper;731616 wrote:Oh boo hoo. We should just pay everyone $100,000 a year. If we can't afford it, just tax the rich because they don't need $100 million dollars even if they worked for it.

  Forced redistribution of wealth is always the best policy. From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. Why not $100,000 a year even if it isn't justified?
• Glory Days

  

  sleeper;731612 wrote:1) A poor community can pay for a good fire department if they choose to give their funding to that department(via elections) instead of something else.
  2) Unions control the labor supply by controlling the amount of people working, the hours that they work, and the wages that they are paid. Do I really need to explain collective bargaining to you? If the fireman don't like what they are being paid, the Union steps in and fixes everything, good for the fireman, bad for the taxpayers.
  3) Yes, I do realize firefighters get paid differently city to city. So if you are getting paid a lower salary in one city, you can move to another city that pays a wage you feel you deserve. This is how the real world works. It sucks, and it's not easy, but I'm sorry, that's reality. Also, cities are forced to pay higher wages because of the unions, why not let a firefighters salary be determined by the market, like everything else?

  Ok, you say let the market determine firefighters pay? How would a poor community keep with up with the market when they cant afford it? Just don’t hire firefighters? Well that would go against every city’s duties to its citizens.
  And you say cities are forced to pay higher wages because of unions? How so, do you know any non union fire department you can compare it to? Plus, cities like Columbus, pay fire fighters less than the cities around it. How is Columbus being forced to pay higher wages when they already pay less than the market?
• Glory Days

  

  sleeper;731616 wrote:Oh boo hoo. We should just pay everyone $100,000 a year. If we can't afford it, just tax the rich because they don't need $100 million dollars even if they worked for it. Do you cry this much in real life? Unbelievable.

  
  Do miss this many points in real life? So you dont think the receptionist who works for a succesful company should get paid more than one at an unsuccessfull company? because thats what happens in the real world.
• believer

  

  Glory Days;731623 wrote:So you dont think the receptionist who works for a succesful company should get paid more than one at an unsuccessfull company? because thats what happens in the real world.

  Then she's an idiot for not seeking the better paying job at the successful company. Whatever the market will bear.
• Glory Days

  

  believer;731625 wrote:Then she's an idiot for not seeking the better paying job at the successful company. Whatever the market will bear.

  
  so if a city cant afford to pay what the market pays for fire fighters, they should just burn to the ground?
• sleeper

  

  Glory Days;731621 wrote:Ok, you say let the market determine firefighters pay? How would a poor community keep with up with the market when they cant afford it? Just don’t hire firefighters? Well that would go against every city’s duties to its citizens.
  
  And you say cities are forced to pay higher wages because of unions? How so, do you know any non union fire department you can compare it to? Plus, cities like Columbus, pay fire fighters less than the cities around it. How is Columbus being forced to pay higher wages when they already pay less than the market?

  1) If the poor community doesn't value their fire department and elects officials who don't do a good job, that is the community's problem(or choice). If they can't afford to pay for a good fire department, then they WON'T get a good fire department. Or we could just do it your way and pay firefighters over bloated salaries/benefits regardless if the community can pay for it.
  
  2) The fact that Columbus pays less than surrounding suburbs could be for a variety of factors, none of which neither you nor me know. The fact that it pays less than the market could be a glut of firefighters, higher benefits, or less areas of service that each station needs to protect. The beauty of free markets is, we don't have to know the factors behind the labor discrepancies, the market will ultimately fall of the correct price when unions are finally eliminated.
• sleeper

  

  Glory Days;731623 wrote:Do miss this many points in real life? So you dont think the receptionist who works for a succesful company should get paid more than one at an unsuccessfull company? because thats what happens in the real world.

  
  If the receptionist feels that she is not being paid a fair wage, regardless of the success of the company, she can find another receptionist job that will pay her what she feels she deserves, or she can go back to school and get a job that requires more than just a pulse. Choices, everyone has them, even you.
  
  And to answer your question, no, I don't think a receptionist of a successful company should be paid more than an unsuccessful company, all else equal. If she is a 9 out of 10 receptionist, then she should be paid as a 9 out of 10 receptionist everywhere.
• believer

  

  Glory Days;731630 wrote:so if a city cant afford to pay what the market pays for fire fighters, they should just burn to the ground?

  Let's say the city and its residents are living through tough economic times. Jobs are scarce in the city and the tax-base is stretched very thin.
  
  The existing well-paid fire fighters - represented of course by union thugs - are demanding more pay. The city leadership says we cannot afford the pay increases so the thug goes back to the membership and tells them to walk.
  
  The existing fire fighters making - say - $40,000 a year on average plus generous public employee bennies walk off their jobs in protest. They stay off their jobs for weeks. The public grows concerned so the city leadership decides to hire replacements (scabs) and the replacements are decent hard working folks who have been unable to find jobs in their fair city. Hell, they're willing to do it for $30,000 a year, pay $300 per month for an average health care package similar to those in the private sector, and may participate if they wish in a 401K retirement option....without union representation.
  
  The city leadership just saved the taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars a year and the city is now less likely to burn to the ground.
  
  Whatever the market will bear.
• dwccrew

  

  Swamp Fox;731569 wrote:this noxious bill that is designed to put most of the financial burden on the average everyday Americans trying to get by,

  Seriously? How many people will be effected? The average everyday American is not a public sector employee in Ohio.
  

  Glory Days;731630 wrote:so if a city cant afford to pay what the market pays for fire fighters, they should just burn to the ground?

  
  What other choice do they have? If the money isn't there, how can they pay?
• Tobias Fünke

  

  dwccrew;731643 wrote:What other choice do they have? If the money isn't there, how can they pay?

  
  They raise the taxes, which creates a greater incentive to leave. A vicious cycle of money, capital, and jobs leaving the area starts to happen (e.g. Detroit, Cleveland).
• dwccrew

  

  Tobias Fünke;731707 wrote:They raise the taxes, which creates an incentive to leave. A vicious cycle of money, capital, and jobs leaving the area starts to happen (e.g. Detroit, Cleveland).

  My point is, you can only raise the taxes so much until you start to run out of money.