Senate Bill 5 Targets Collective Bargaining for Elimination!

• Con_Alma

  O-Trap;740193 wrote:..... I made $9,700 for the year.
  
  ...

  I did not turn a profit in my business for the first three and a half years! We set the foundation however to create the cash flow so that we would never look back.
• ernest_t_bass

  

  I will echo what Gblock has said. I understand the concessions, and people want everything leveled. The economy is in bad shape, so we need to do something to public employment finances. BUT... when/if the economy is booming, and when/if the govt. has a surplus of $8 billion, there will be NO ONE saying/crying/screaming (from the private sector), "GIVE THE PUBLIC SECTOR MORE MONEY!!!"
• WebFire

  O-Trap;740193 wrote:I believe you. Trust me. You've been one of the more level heads on this thread.
  
  Your friends, however, are either not the norm, or were not "salaried" those wages.
  
  If your friends started mortgage companies and succeeded like that, they are to be congratulated. Few business owners EVER see that kind of return at the start of a business. My first year owning my business ... I made $9,700 for the year.
  
  The person from Chase probably saw a good portion of his income as commission or bonus for hitting hard-line metrics. Jobs like that are usually high-risk/high reward, and involve essentially living and breathing the job (I applied for such a job at several banks in 2010).
  
  The guy selling online businesses ... probably kind of what I'm building up to. However, that industry was EXPONENTIALLY easier in 1997 based on the lack of regulation and the lack of general skepticism of any and all things sold online. Less of an economic issue, but more of a niche evolution issue. Point being, if he's still making good money like that, he's changed his business model, works a lot harder, or has considerably more assets from earlier years to put back into his business.
  
  None of those were likely "safe" jobs or incomes. Those success stories still happen today. For example, an affiliate of my last employer went from $0 a day for several months to $60,000 overnight. Incredibly atypical story, but those do happen from time to time.

  
  Not to mentioned they probably exaggerated those incomes.
• O-Trap

  

  Con_Alma;740204 wrote:I did not turn a profit in my business for the first three and a half years! We set the foundation however to create the cash flow so that we would never look back.

  My business had a low starting overhead. Seriously, first year's added expenses were under $3,000 for the year.
  

  ernest_t_bass;740215 wrote:I will echo what Gblock has said. I understand the concessions, and people want everything leveled. The economy is in bad shape, so we need to do something to public employment finances. BUT... when/if the economy is booming, and when/if the govt. has a surplus of $8 billion, there will be NO ONE saying/crying/screaming (from the private sector), "GIVE THE PUBLIC SECTOR MORE MONEY!!!"

  Believe it or not, if there is a SURPLUS, there WILL likely be districts competing for the best teachers, which means they WILL be offering more if they can. Better teachers is believed to translate into better equipped students who value education more than normal. Better students make better workers. Many of those workers enter the private sector. Better workers in the private sector means more success. More success means more income. So rest assured that those in the private sector will WANT that edge, and if they're in a solid business with long-term goals, they'll appreciate the tradeoff.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  All I can do is SMH at the talking point out there that the retirement benefits have somehow gone away for teachers.
  
  Yes, there won't be any more 30 and out at school districts, but most people don't retire at age 52 (assuming you start work right out of college), anyway. From what I've seen, they've bumped the retirement ages up a couple years, to 32 or so. That still means a retirement at age 55 -- which is STILL about 10 years below the age most people retire.
  
  Honestly, I don't have a problem with it, but PLEASE don't make it sound like they've changed the rules now and everyone has to work until they're 70 or something.
  
  Oh, and some of those changes had to be made to keep the retirement system solvent for at least 30 years (state law) and had little to do with SB 5. Those changes were inevitable regardless...simply because the system wasn't set up to handle people living about 30 years beyond retirement age, which now happens more frequently.
• Gblock

  Writerbuckeye;740285 wrote:All I can do is SMH at the talking point out there that the retirement benefits have somehow gone away for teachers.
  
  Yes, there won't be any more 30 and out at school districts, but most people don't retire at age 52 (assuming you start work right out of college), anyway. From what I've seen, they've bumped the retirement ages up a couple years, to 32 or so. That still means a retirement at age 55 -- which is STILL about 10 years below the age most people retire.
  
  Honestly, I don't have a problem with it, but PLEASE don't make it sound like they've changed the rules now and everyone has to work until they're 70 or something.
  
  Oh, and some of those changes had to be made to keep the retirement system solvent for at least 30 years (state law) and had little to do with SB 5. Those changes were inevitable regardless...simply because the system wasn't set up to handle people living about 30 years beyond retirement age, which now happens more frequently.

  
  you have no clue your numbers arent even close. but i wasnt saying going away just saying less attractive and the days of having a better retirement are gone............ i looked on the website...mandatory 35 years for full retirement. must be 60 or older with 30 to qualify for early retirement. for me i was going to do 35 anyway. now i most likely will do 40. Im not sure which saves the public more replacing higher paid teachers w/ younger ones or making them work a few years longer. ill have to look at that.
• sleeper

  

  ernest_t_bass;740215 wrote:I will echo what Gblock has said. I understand the concessions, and people want everything leveled. The economy is in bad shape, so we need to do something to public employment finances. BUT... when/if the economy is booming, and when/if the govt. has a surplus of $8 billion, there will be NO ONE saying/crying/screaming (from the private sector), "GIVE THE PUBLIC SECTOR MORE MONEY!!!"

  
  The public sector would be getting more money as more tax revenues can be distributed. This can cause a string of competition from school districts who want the best teachers, thus raising the salaries of all teachers in attempt to acquire that talent.
• ernest_t_bass

  

  No, no, no, no, no... you guys are getting my statement all wrong. People (let's say private sector employees) are demanding that we cut certain things from public sector employee pay packages. We are doing this b/c we are facing a deficit. People want to take, which is understood. Now, will the private sector folks be standing outside my door with a bonus check when we are experiencing a surplus? No, things will be the same. No one truly wants us to be equal unless we must be brought down. If I had to take from you (private), in order to make private/public equal, there would be an outcry. It's the conundrum that makes me giggle.
• ernest_t_bass

  

  O-Trap;740236 wrote:Believe it or not, if there is a SURPLUS, there WILL likely be districts competing for the best teachers, which means they WILL be offering more if they can. Better teachers is believed to translate into better equipped students who value education more than normal. Better students make better workers. Many of those workers enter the private sector. Better workers in the private sector means more success. More success means more income. So rest assured that those in the private sector will WANT that edge, and if they're in a solid business with long-term goals, they'll appreciate the tradeoff.

  
  Again... THEY, does not equal "private sector." They=school board. Everyone wants to say, "welcome to the real world, since it's happening in the private sector, it needs to happen in the public," but when the tides have turned, you will not see the opposite happen.
  
  Tell me how you can argue this, and the shoe fits on both party's feet... Everyone is ok with taking, but no one wants to give.
• WebFire

  ernest_t_bass;740373 wrote:No, no, no, no, no... you guys are getting my statement all wrong. People (let's say private sector employees) are demanding that we cut certain things from public sector employee pay packages. We are doing this b/c we are facing a deficit. People want to take, which is understood. Now, will the private sector folks be standing outside my door with a bonus check when we are experiencing a surplus? No, things will be the same. No one truly wants us to be equal unless we must be brought down. If I had to take from you (private), in order to make private/public equal, there would be an outcry. It's the conundrum that makes me giggle.

  
  It's a long-term solution to a long-time PROBLEM. It isn't meant to be a temporary thing.
• O-Trap

  

  ernest_t_bass;740378 wrote:Again... THEY, does not equal "private sector." They=school board. Everyone wants to say, "welcome to the real world, since it's happening in the private sector, it needs to happen in the public," but when the tides have turned, you will not see the opposite happen.
  
  Tell me how you can argue this, and the shoe fits on both party's feet... Everyone is ok with taking, but no one wants to give.

  
  I completely understand that part, but guess who is going to catch a lot of heat from the locals (public and private alike) if their kids are not learning (the ones who care anyway). If they don't keep the people happy because their schools are underperforming (resultant from underpaying for teachers), they will lose their positions as members of the school board.
  
  In essence, it no longer provides them with a scapegoat, which up until now, they've had.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  Gblock;740310 wrote:you have no clue your numbers arent even close. but i wasnt saying going away just saying less attractive and the days of having a better retirement are gone............ i looked on the website...mandatory 35 years for full retirement. must be 60 or older with 30 to qualify for early retirement. for me i was going to do 35 anyway. now i most likely will do 40. Im not sure which saves the public more replacing higher paid teachers w/ younger ones or making them work a few years longer. ill have to look at that.

  
  Aren't close? I was three years off. And how much has changed because of SB5 and how much is due to STRS needing more cash to make it solvent? In any event, a teacher's retirement at age 65 is STILL a much, much better retirement program than most people have access to -- and I'll bet you it STILL will be an incentive that brings people into teaching.
  
  We also have to remember that the 30 years is a requirement for FULL retirement. People can still retire earlier than that and take less money. According to the Ohio STRS site, you can retire at age 60 and still get 75 percent of your retirement benefit, which is the average of your three years of highest pay.
  
  Still a very nice retirement benefit if you've got your heart set on retiring earlier, and still better than what's available to most people.
• Gblock

  Writerbuckeye;740680 wrote:Aren't close? I was three years off. And how much has changed because of SB5 and how much is due to STRS needing more cash to make it solvent? In any event, a teacher's retirement at age 65 is STILL a much, much better retirement program than most people have access to -- and I'll bet you it STILL will be an incentive that brings people into teaching.
  
  We also have to remember that the 30 years is a requirement for FULL retirement. People can still retire earlier than that and take less money. According to the Ohio STRS site, you can retire at age 60 and still get 75 percent of your retirement benefit, which is the average of your three years of highest pay.
  
  Still a very nice retirement benefit if you've got your heart set on retiring earlier, and still better than what's available to most people.

  It's mandatory 35 years for full retirement now and It's an average of five years. U r misinformed...and if u go early understand u would only get 75 percent of what u would've got at 35 years not the 75 percent of ur high five...im not sure what it is I forget but I think the percent just got lowered as well as the col increase dropped from 3 to 2 percent
  
  Either way ur numbers aren't accurate as usual
• Writerbuckeye

  

  Gblock;740731 wrote:It's mandatory 35 years for full retirement now and It's an average of five years. U r misinformed...and if u go early understand u would only get 75 percent of what u would've got at 35 years not the 75 percent of ur high five...im not sure what it is I forget but I think the percent just got lowered as well as the col increase dropped from 3 to 2 percent
  
  Either way ur numbers aren't accurate as usual

  
  The numbers were off the STRS site. Blame them for not updating, if that's the case. And my main point stands: even with the changes, the retirement being offered for teachers is STILL BETTER than what most people have access to -- and it will still be an incentive for people looking for a more secure working environment. Most private companies don't even offer retirement plans, anymore. They leave it all up to the individual.
• Gblock

  Writerbuckeye;740826 wrote:The numbers were off the STRS site. Blame them for not updating, if that's the case. And my main point stands: even with the changes, the retirement being offered for teachers is STILL BETTER than what most people have access to -- and it will still be an incentive for people looking for a more secure working environment. Most private companies don't even offer retirement plans, anymore. They leave it all up to the individual.

  
  Link?
• Gblock

  Writerbuckeye;740826 wrote:The numbers were off the STRS site. Blame them for not updating, if that's the case. And my main point stands: even with the changes, the retirement being offered for teachers is STILL BETTER than what most people have access to -- and it will still be an incentive for people looking for a more secure working environment. Most private companies don't even offer retirement plans, anymore. They leave it all up to the individual.

  
  Link?
• CenterBHSFan

  

  Writer will be back at some point, don't worry. He'll see your post
• ernest_t_bass

  

  CenterBHSFan;740947 wrote:Writer will be back at some point, don't worry. He'll see your post

  
  Link?
• CenterBHSFan

  

  ernest_t_bass;740950 wrote:Link?

  http://www.ohiochatter.com/forum/threads/22949-Senate-Bill-5-Targets-Collective-Bargaining-for-Elimination!/page93
• ernest_t_bass

  

  CenterBHSFan;740957 wrote:http://www.ohiochatter.com/forum/threads/22949-Senate-Bill-5-Targets-Collective-Bargaining-for-Elimination!/page93

  
  Herp, derp.
• Gblock

  i didnt mean to post that twice...i post a lot from my phone and sometimes it freezes and acts like it didnt make the post when it really did sorry
• Writerbuckeye

  

  I was working off a document that proposes changes in the plan to keep it solvent. It's on the STRS site. It has as current 3 years average salary, increasing to 5, along with other changes. There is a version of these changes in the Ohio Legislature now, and the STRS is working with the Legislature to come up with a way to make the retirement system more solvent.
  
  I would have to think that any changes in SB 5 will ultimately be reflected here; and I'm surprised they weren't already, but it doesn't look like it. Perhaps they want to wait until everything being proposed is settled and a bill is agreed upon.
  
  https://www.strsoh.org/pdfs/40-305.pdf
• Bigdogg

  Wenzel Strategies an Ohio conservative polling outfit founded by former Toledo Blade political reporter Fritz Wenzel finds Kasick's legislation in big trouble.
  

  Overall, 51% said they favor repeal, compared to 38% who said they would vote to keep the new law in place

  http://www.wenzelstrategies.com/blog/polls/wenzel-poll-majority-favors-repeal-of-senate-bill-5-2/
• derek bomar

  

  Bigdogg;741385 wrote:Wenzel Strategies an Ohio conservative polling outfit founded by former Toledo Blade political reporter Fritz Wenzel finds Kasick's legislation in big trouble.
  
  
  
  http://www.wenzelstrategies.com/blog/polls/wenzel-poll-majority-favors-repeal-of-senate-bill-5-2/

  well it won't be appealed while he's in office...so...might be a while.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  Bigdogg;741385 wrote:Wenzel Strategies an Ohio conservative polling outfit founded by former Toledo Blade political reporter Fritz Wenzel finds Kasick's legislation in big trouble.
  
  
  
  http://www.wenzelstrategies.com/blog/polls/wenzel-poll-majority-favors-repeal-of-senate-bill-5-2/

  
  That has BIASED screaming at me from all sides. The Blade is notoriously a union supporting paper. Strongly so. It's a paper that probably hasn't endorsed a Republican for any really important office (statewide or nationally) in a really long time -- because the city itself doesn't elect anyone but Democrats.
  
  Perhaps if you find a polling service with a little better reputation (I've never heard of these guys, also) we might take it a bit more seriously.
  
  Edit to add: Nowhere on the site does he give a breakdown of WHO they talked to, other than saying it was a statewide telephone poll of likely voters. How as it weighted? That's a critical question that will very obviously affect the poll outcome, as would data on whether voters came from public employee backgrounds or not.