Senate Bill 5 Targets Collective Bargaining for Elimination!

• ernest_t_bass

  

  FatHobbit;741955 wrote:I think I get what you're saying. Wouldn't the local parents push for more money when things are going better?

  
  Possibly in a time of crisis where the district is unwilling to pay more, like in writer's example. That is a good district-by-district example.
• O-Trap

  

  ernest_t_bass;741947 wrote:Trap, you're missing my argument. There are public sector people who are adamantly fighting for the "playing field to be leveled." They're starting the process/argument, whatever you want to call it.
  
  Yes, in GOOD times, people would agree to paying public employees more, or they wouldn't disagree with BOE's accepting said agreements. However, you would not have people in the private sector starting fights for public workers to make more. Does that make sense?

  There definitely would be, though I'd imagine they would certainly not be the whole of the people who would just be okay with it. There are non-public employees who still have a vested interest in the quality of the education in their district. Namely, that'd be the parents who actually give a damn about their children's education. When the funds are there, if they are passionate about their children getting the education they deserve, I'm betting you'll see plenty of it from them.
  
  Moreover, I've seen many, MANY non-private employees who have even been very opposed to SB5. Passionately so. I'm willing to bet that these people, at the very least, would campaign for teachers to receive optimal wage as reflected by the market.
• Con_Alma

  ernest_t_bass;741954 wrote:LOL, so philosophical. If you disagree with my position of "bringing public employees down," then why are there people on this very thread who say that? I didn't say the general population. I said "some people." That could be 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 1,000.

  It may be philosophical if you interpret it as such. I intern interpret your offerings as holding onto a mindset that private sector employees want to bring you down. I disagree with such a philosophical view.
  
  "Some people" or a few people don't make a hill of beans difference in a collective funding and decision making issue long term. The key is the collective population.
• O-Trap

  

  Con_Alma;741957 wrote:Again, I disagree. The way you would see people "fight" in good times for the public sector employees to "make more" is through their demands to the board to hire more quality and qualified staff thus forcing an means of attracting such through total compensation.
  
  I will be bluntly honest with you. I don't care if you as a teach make minim wage or $300,000. What I care about is how much have the taxpayers agreed to fund and what does it take to attract the level of applicants that I desire. If it's minimum wage, great. If it's $100,000 per year then I will be disappointed because as a small part of the collective tax base I would be in the minority regarding wanting to fund such a system willing to attract that caliber of employee.

  In a time when the market is good, and that can be afforded, I'll be right there with you. Owning my own business, I do realize that in the free market, you virtually always see quality mirror cost.
• ernest_t_bass

  

  Con_Alma;741963 wrote: I intern interpret your offerings as holding onto a mindset that private sector employees want to bring you down.

  
  Not necessarily. I think it is more human nature. Everyone wants to win, at any cost. There are many instances where there are exceptions. If I'm not winning, one would hope that I work my butt off to get ahead. But the sad truth is, many people will try to "bring others down to their level." Human nature, we do it through gossiping, putting others down, spreading rumors, etc. (This example has nothing to do with teaching, or this public/private debate). However, if I'm winning (insert Charlie Sheen comment) I care much less about "bringing others up to my level" than I would if I were losing.
• georgemc80

  Writerbuckeye;741952 wrote: Will there will be schools that simply don't give a damn and go the barest minimum route possible? Yep. It's how our world works, and it's their choice. But I'd be willing to wager a majority of districts are going to want the best teachers they can afford, because it will be community names and superintendent reputations on the line, otherwise.
  
  As a result, I think you'll see many BETTER opportunities for the best in the profession -- assuming they're willing to relocate and take up the challenge that comes with being sought after.
  
  
  All in all, this will be a good thing for most teacher economically. For the ones who aren't good at their profession (or lazy, complacent, etc.) it will be their loss -- as it should be.

  
  I don't work in a collective bargaining state, but I am a proponent of the salary scale. I am not sure how anything but a salary scale would work in public education. If you are saying some districts would attract the best by individually bargaining with the teacher, I would be opposed to that. If they attracted the best because across the board they offered better pay and benefits, then I agree with you.
  
  Ever since the Soviets slingshotted that metal ball into space, this country has been to the point of crazy towards Math and Science. Leaving Humanities pushed to the back. I cannot see a reason why I should make more or less than a math teacher in the same school, teaching the same students....achieving similar results.
• Con_Alma

  ernest_t_bass;741968 wrote:Not necessarily. I think it is more human nature. Everyone wants to win, at any cost. There are many instances where there are exceptions. If I'm not winning, one would hope that I work my butt off to get ahead. But the sad truth is, many people will try to "bring others down to their level." Human nature, we do it through gossiping, putting others down, spreading rumors, etc. (This example has nothing to do with teaching, or this public/private debate). However, if I'm winning (insert Charlie Sheen comment) I care much less about "bringing others up to my level" than I would if I were losing.

  This makes me better understand your Public versus Private mentality. Thank you for sharing it.
  
  This is not my view at all. It's not a winning versus losing issue with me. I make a pretty good living. I don't ever have to worry about my wife or children's future. I'm not competing with anyone else and I hope if your skill set allows you to that you make more than I ever have.
  
  There are costs to winning. I would never agree to win at "any cost". There are things in this world to me that are nonnegotiable...at any price/cost.
  
  You mentioned some very interesting things like others "caring less" about bringing you up and their desire to bring you down. I've never worried about others and it was they that I needed to gain revenue from...just like you. I don't want others to help me or bring me up and I don't care if they are trying to tear me down. It's been my experience that if I focused on those things I would have lost sight of what they wanted as a service from me and how I could bring the best value to them in providing it.
  
  In my opinion that's how people's incomes rise.
• O-Trap

  

  ernest_t_bass;741968 wrote:Not necessarily. I think it is more human nature. Everyone wants to win, at any cost. There are many instances where there are exceptions. If I'm not winning, one would hope that I work my butt off to get ahead. But the sad truth is, many people will try to "bring others down to their level." Human nature, we do it through gossiping, putting others down, spreading rumors, etc. (This example has nothing to do with teaching, or this public/private debate). However, if I'm winning (insert Charlie Sheen comment) I care much less about "bringing others up to my level" than I would if I were losing.

  Yes, but improving the quality of teachers improves the quality of my neighborhood and children's education. Over time, those things could affect my property value and even the local economy at large. A half-intelligent narcissist would still see competing for good educators as a benefit to himself.
• ernest_t_bass

  

  Con, in my example, you would represent one of the "exceptions."
• Con_Alma

  georgemc80;741977 wrote:...
  Ever since the Soviets slingshotted that metal ball into space, this country has been to the point of crazy towards Math and Science. Leaving Humanities pushed to the back. I cannot see a reason why I should make more or less than a math teacher in the same school, teaching the same students....achieving similar results.

  I can answer that. It's good question. It's because people want and are willing to pay more to get a more quality math and science teacher and they are harder to attract than a good humanities teach.
  
  People want one thing more and are willing to pay more to get it. It's their education and their money.
• O-Trap

  

  Con_Alma;741985 wrote:I can answer that. It's good question. It's because people want and are willing to pay more to get a more quality math and science teacher and they are harder to attract than a good humanities teach.
  
  People want one thing more and are willing to pay more to get it. It's their education and their money.

  
  This rationale sounds familiar ... from when I considered going into law as a college study.
• Con_Alma

  ernest_t_bass;741984 wrote:Con, in my example, you would represent one of the "exceptions."

  
  
  Maybe, but it's the collective that matters in terms of public employees
• ernest_t_bass

  

  Con_Alma;741992 wrote:Maybe, but it's the collective that matters in terms of public employees

  
  In terms of "humanity," you would be an "exception."
• Con_Alma

  Yes, I understood that. In terms of how public employees are viewed, received and addressed it's the collective that matters.
• Glory Days

  

  Con_Alma;741985 wrote:I can answer that. It's good question. It's because people want and are willing to pay more to get a more quality math and science teacher and they are harder to attract than a good humanities teach.
  
  People want one thing more and are willing to pay more to get it. It's their education and their money.

  you really trust the average joe voter to do that? so naive. unless its a really wealthy community, all they are going to see is the "raise taxes" part and vote no.
• Con_Alma

  I have no reason to either trust them nor distrust them. They are choosing the level they want to fund. It's their community.
  
  If they don't want to pay more then their level of education services will reflect that. How is that naive?
• Glory Days

  

  WebFire;741607 wrote:First of all, I think we determined your retirement wasn't changing, correct? And that even for newcomers, their retirement is far better than the private sector's options.
  
  Second, just because you joined it that way, doesn't mean it was right and should stay that way. Should we continue making our schools poor or keep raising taxes so you can have a cushy retirement plan? WE DON"T HAVE THE MONEY! Why is that hard to understand?

  just so you know, tax rates are almost 20% lower than they were in 2004.
• Con_Alma

  Webfire wrote:...WE DON"T HAVE THE MONEY! Why is that hard to understand?

  Glory Days;742017 wrote:just so you know, tax rates are almost 20% lower than they were in 2004.

  I'll rephrase based on my opinion. The people are not willing to provide more through taxes for funding purposes.
• Glory Days

  

  Writerbuckeye;741667 wrote:Protest all you like -- but ignoring the economics that brought about this legislation and claiming union busting (while ignoring a system that can't be sustained) comes across as disingenuous, just so you know.
  
  If there weren't egregious examples all over the place as to how public unions have created a huge economic strain on local and state governments (not just Ohio, but elsewhere), you might have more credibility when you say this was only about destroying the union, and not about providing governments with tools to survive.
  
  I have yet to have one discussion with any anti-SB5 person who can refute the economics of public employee unions and the strain they've put on our system...and the clear examples that it is an economic system that could not be sustained for much longer without very dramatic changes, much like we're seeing with SB5.
  
  All I've heard from those folks is the angst about personal hardships the bill will cause, and foolish rhetoric about how the bill is an attack on the middle class (classic Alinsky rhetoric, by the way) when, in fact, it's the middle class that has to foot most of the bill for a system that is unsustainable. While some of the personal stories are compelling on their own level, they are not compelling arguments to keep a system that has all but brought some government entities to bankruptcy.
  
  But please, protest away.

  
  Tax strain? Like I just posted, taxes have been going down since 2004. And like I posted before, non CBA states are more in the red than CBA states. Also, is there any proof salaries of public employees have been going up even as the economy has been going down?
• Con_Alma

  Tax rates dropping doesn't eliminate the strain that compensation packages have been placing on the taxes which are applied to the purpose of educational funding. That's the point.
• imex99

  

  SB5 Referendum Petition Certified For Signature Collection
  Opponents of the recently passed collective bargaining measure got the go ahead Friday to collect signatures for a referendum on the November ballot.
  Attorney General Mike DeWine and Secretary of State Jon Husted certified the "short version" of proposed summary language. The AG rejected a longer version submitted at the same time by the group seeking to overturn SB 5, the We Are Ohio Committee.
  The group may now begin its efforts to amass the required 231,147 valid signatures to place the measure on the Nov. 8 general election ballot.
  
  
  Sent from my Sprint HTC EVO 4G using Tapatalk
• Con_Alma

  Being such a lightening rod/magnetizing issue I am for and hope it is place on the ballot. I would gladly sign such a petition. At this point I will vote against the referendum.
• georgemc80

  Con_Alma;741985 wrote:I can answer that. It's good question. It's because people want and are willing to pay more to get a more quality math and science teacher and they are harder to attract than a good humanities teach.
  
  People want one thing more and are willing to pay more to get it. It's their education and their money.

  
  Where does it end? If a district has great teachers, teachers will still separate themselves from others. A hierarchy will develop. Is it fair that some students get into one teacher's class and not another's?
  
  For example: Last year we had to expand to two AP US History teachers. The new teacher in her own right is an excellent teacher. By the end of the year, 92% of my students passed the AP exam and received college credit. Being her first year and using my program, she was able to get 75% of her students to pass. Does that mean those students from her class that failed would have passed if they were lucky enough to be scheduled into my class? Maybe, maybe not is the answer. Should parents be able to pick the teacher? You are opening a horrible precedent in that case.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  Horrible precedent? No. Just giving kids a life lesson they're going to get sooner or later about how competition, excellence and a bit of luck (or not) works.
  
  If kids are going on to college, they are going to face the same dilemma you just opined about. There are going to be professors they'll want desperately to take (because they're good or maybe because they're easy) and sometimes they'll get in, sometimes they won't. If it's a required class, they may be "stuck" with whoever is available.
  
  That's how life works on a lot of things, so why should it be any different in a school setting? You and that other teacher are NEVER going to be equal in ability. One of you is always going to be better, and kids are going to talk about which teacher they prefer because it's what kids always do. If they're fortunate, they'll get their first choice. If not, well, life isn't always fair now is it?
  
  Even if you keep every factor outside of your teaching ability equal (as unions try to do) it never IS equal. Not ever. So why not let the people who truly excel be compensated accordingly, and let those who don't make the mark figure out how they really fit (or don't).
• stlouiedipalma

  You make a good point, Writer. Perhaps these lessons should be taught sooner so the young will see a little bit of what the real world is like.
  
  The only part of your argument I have a problem with (and it's not a disagreement) is the whole issue of compensation. I doubt that local school boards and administrators have the balls to reward those who excel with higher compensation. Call me pessimistic, but I think it would be too much work for them.