Senate Bill 5 Targets Collective Bargaining for Elimination!

• fan_from_texas

  CenterBHSFan;738298 wrote:Let's branch this topic out a little.
  
  What are you thoughts on SCABS? (people who will do the job while the unions are on strike, don't be gross )

  
  I like them. They're hardworking people who want to support their family and step in at great personal risk.
• georgemc80

  Right out of college I crossed a picket line for a school district. I don't believe teachers have the right to strike. The stakes are too high and the victims are truly innocent.
• Glory Days

  

  http://www.politifact.com/ohio/statements/2011/apr/11/david-pepper/david-pepper-says-budget-woes-states-without-publi/

  In terms of percentages of their overall budgets, the gaps were higher in Arizona (65 percent), North Carolina (26 percent) and Nevada (47 percent) than in Ohio (14 percent) for fiscal 2010, according to data from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, also a left-leaning group. CBPP’s data is widely used by government think tank groups, including by the Pew Center on the States.
  
  Data from the bipartisan National Conference of State Legislatures showed the same was true in fiscal 2011 when those same three states had deficits that were a larger percentage of the overall budget than was the case in Ohio.
  
  In terms of dollars, Arizona’s deficit of $5.1 billion and North Carolina’s -- $5 billion -- were both higher than Ohio’s gap of $3.6 billion for 2010. But Nevada’s -- $1.5 billion -- was lower.
  States with no collective bargaining for public employees had an average budget gap of 24.8 percent in 2010, according to Policy Matters Ohio. Meanwhile, states with collective bargaining for all public employees had an average deficit gap of 24.1 percent.

• Writerbuckeye

  

  Is there a point to that, Glory?
  
  Looks to me like ALL of those states have major problems where deficits are concerned. Are we really going to quibble about how much?
• Glory Days

  

  Writerbuckeye;738865 wrote:Is there a point to that, Glory?
  
  Looks to me like ALL of those states have major problems where deficits are concerned. Are we really going to quibble about how much?

  
  but but but but SB5 will lower the deficit. remember, the whole reason Kasich came up with SB5.
• O-Trap

  

  Glory Days;738925 wrote:but but but but SB5 will lower the deficit. remember, the whole reason Kasich came up with SB5.

  
  That element of it, yes.
  
  If they decide to spend a squat-ton more elsewhere, then they're being stupid, but that doesn't mean SB5 won't be a wise decision.
  
  If I have a budget of $100, and after $90 spent, I need a haircut, which costs $12. I stay home and cut my own hair, and I save that $12. In doing so, I keep myself under budget. However, if I then turn around and buy a $100 watch, putting myself $90 over budget, does that mean that saving on the haircut was a bad choice?
• dwccrew

  

  Glory Days;738925 wrote:but but but but SB5 will lower the deficit. remember, the whole reason Kasich came up with SB5.

  
  I don't see how other states handle their budgets has anything to do with how Ohio handles the Ohio budget.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  I also didn't expect SB 5 to have IMMEDIATE savings. It's a process to end an unsustainable system.
  
  Your whole argument is extremely flawed.
• Glory Days

  

  dwccrew;738954 wrote:I don't see how other states handle their budgets has anything to do with how Ohio handles the Ohio budget.

  
  because governments will be governments. its like treating the symptoms instead of the problem.
  

  Writerbuckeye;738958 wrote:I also didn't expect SB 5 to have IMMEDIATE savings. It's a process to end an unsustainable system.
  
  Your whole argument is extremely flawed.

  where did i say it would have immediate savings? in 10 years or whatever when Ohio is still in large debt what will be the solution then?
• believer

  

  Glory Days;738995 wrote:....in 10 years or whatever when Ohio is still in large debt what will be the solution then?

  We have to start somewhere. SB5 looks like a great beginning.
• Con_Alma

  Glory Days;738995 wrote: where did i say it would have immediate savings? in 10 years or whatever when Ohio is still in large debt what will be the solution then?

  It's not just about the State budget. It will provide flexibility to communities with regards to local school funding.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  believer;739007 wrote:We have to start somewhere. SB5 looks like a great beginning.

  
  Remember when Hillary Clinton presented the reset button to the Russian government? Aside from the spelling gaffe, this is what we need to do with public education.
• Glory Days

  

  Con_Alma;739023 wrote:It's not just about the State budget. It will provide flexibility to communities with regards to local school funding.

  
  how so? Kasich cut huge amounts of funding to cities. communities wont be any more flexible because any money saved will have to goto to fill in where the state funding used to go.
• WebFire

  Glory Days;738995 wrote: where did i say it would have immediate savings? in 10 years or whatever when Ohio is still in large debt what will be the solution then?

  I love this argument! Wait, no I don't, because it's dumb! SB5 is not meant to erase the entire deficit for the state of Ohio.
• ernest_t_bass

  

  WebFire;739109 wrote:I love this argument! Wait, no I don't, because it's dumb! SB5 is not meant to erase the entire deficit for the state of Ohio.

  
  Honest question... what if it does nothing to the budget deficit?
• Con_Alma

  Glory Days;739079 wrote:how so? Kasich cut huge amounts of funding to cities. communities wont be any more flexible because any money saved will have to goto to fill in where the state funding used to go.

  It can potentially provide greater flexibility to local districts in the compensation of their staff on an annual basis as opposed to committing to 3 year locked in contracts.
• Con_Alma

  ernest_t_bass;739121 wrote:Honest question... what if it does nothing to the budget deficit?

  
  It still provides flexibility to the employer on a shorter term basis than contracted employees provide.
• ernest_t_bass

  

  Con_Alma;739128 wrote:It still provides flexibility to the employer on a shorter term basis than contracted employees provide.

  
  So it is more of a union buster. I'm fine with that, with your description, and with the budget "fixing." All I want is honesty, and I know that is an oxymoron when linked to a politician If Kasich wants to bust unions, just say so, and get it out in the open. Don't try to put the blinders over people by saying it will fix the deficit.
• Con_Alma

  ernest_t_bass;739137 wrote:So it is more of a union buster. I'm fine with that, with your description, and with the budget "fixing." All I want is honesty, and I know that is an oxymoron when linked to a politician If Kasich wants to bust unions, just say so, and get it out in the open. Don't try to put the blinders over people by saying it will fix the deficit.

  I don't know if Kasich wants to bust unions or not and if he either stated as much or not. The voters always decide whether they appreciate an elected official's manner of communicating.
  
  As a taxpayer I am glad that the ability to force contracts onto the taxpayers has been eliminated to certain degree. If that means I want unions busted then so be it. Call it whatever you choose but it's the reasons I want such a thing that are what's important as opposed to being in favor of or in favor against unions in general.
• WebFire

  ernest_t_bass;739121 wrote:Honest question... what if it does nothing to the budget deficit?

  
  Honest question...what if it does?
• WebFire

  ernest_t_bass;739137 wrote:So it is more of a union buster. I'm fine with that, with your description, and with the budget "fixing." All I want is honesty, and I know that is an oxymoron when linked to a politician If Kasich wants to bust unions, just say so, and get it out in the open. Don't try to put the blinders over people by saying it will fix the deficit.

  
  Where does he say it "fixes" the deficit? It helps save some money, and is a start it balancing the budget. By no means does it "fix" the deficit.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  As a former state employee, I don't see how this bill can possibly fail to save money. One of the things it will do is end "step" increases that are part of union contracts. Each step is about a 4 percent increase, and the employee receives this annually for something like 7 to 9 steps before that employee in that position becomes "stepped out".
  
  Those raises were on top of anything the union negotiated annually, such as a 2 or 3 percent raise per year for (depending on the life of the contract) let's say 4 years.
  
  Remember: it's not just union members that get both step increases and contract increases. The state generally gives those same wage increases to people who are supervisors and even some unclassified (not civil service) positions. Pretty much everyone but the very highest positions get these increases. Those folks have ranges and their supervisor picks a number for a raise, if they feel they've earned -- more of a true merit increase.
  
  There are something like 60,000 state employees alone. That's a lot of flexibility and potential savings right there. If the state just freezes all wages for a couple years (a real freeze, not like the one Obama did where steps still happened), you're easily looking at millions of dollars (I'm being conservative) in savings.
  
  It also allows you to dramatically cut personnel costs going forward since you won't have to include 4 percent step increases for thousands of employees in the budget. Factor in employees kicking in more toward their pension plan, and the savings really start to accumulate.
  
  The savings will be there, and no it isn't intended to fix the entire budget -- never was. That's propaganda from the unions to set the stage for this bill to "fail" at some point.
• Gblock

  yes but once you go to merit pay you no longer will have first year teachers stuck making 32000 or less. i think that many of the ones i see are excellent and will quickly move up the merit pay scale...if they reach their goals they will move up the ladder more quickly. it will also i assume raise starting pay for teachers as you will need to attract good people to the field. no one is going to want to work for 30000 and get a masters without some assurance of getting more money. so really the savings might not be as much depending on how they structure the merit pay, but rather a shift in who gets how much. the step system was more of a "rookie wage" scale imo to weed out those who may not be very good and i think people accepted lower pay because they were deferring some compensation in both salary and benefits for the future. now that you take away good benefits you are going to have to raise at least the starting pay for teachers and probably all teachers if you want to keep good teaching candidates. it took me 8 years to hit 40,000 under merit pay im sure i would have hit that the first year.
• ernest_t_bass

  

  WebFire;739145 wrote:Honest question...what if it does?

  
  I asked you first!
• fan_from_texas

  Gblock;739169 wrote:yes but once you go to merit pay you no longer will have first year teachers stuck making 32000 or less. i think that many of the ones i see are excellent and will quickly move up the merit pay scale...if they reach their goals they will move up the ladder more quickly. it will also i assume raise starting pay for teachers as you will need to attract good people to the field. no one is going to want to work for 30000 and get a masters without some assurance of getting more money. so really the savings might not be as much depending on how they structure the merit pay, but rather a shift in who gets how much. the step system was more of a "rookie wage" scale imo to weed out those who may not be very good and i think people accepted lower pay because they were deferring some compensation in both salary and benefits for the future. now that you take away good benefits you are going to have to raise at least the starting pay for teachers and probably all teachers if you want to keep good teaching candidates. it took me 8 years to hit 40,000 under merit pay im sure i would have hit that the first year.

  
  If I understand your position, the people with merit would get paid more, and the people without merit wouldn't go into the profession, correct? How is that a problem? That looks like a sure-fire way to (1) pay teachers more and (2) get rid of bad teachers.