Archive

Senate Bill 5 Targets Collective Bargaining for Elimination!

  • Al Bundy
    Ty Webb;743107 wrote:You won't be "changing" it for long Writer....it WILL be repealed in November

    http://lakecurrents.com/release-room/20110413/wenzel-strategies-poll-majority-favors-repeal-ohio-senate-bill-5

    54% of independents favor repeal

    51%-38% of all voters favor repeal

    I am not in favor of SB5, but a poll in April on a November ballot issue is meaningless.
  • Ty Webb
    Writerbuckeye;743129 wrote:We'll see, lots of time until a vote (assuming it gets on the ballot).

    In the meantime, this is the same polling outfit that came up with this:

    Wenzel Strategies reports that a recent poll indicates that not even one person in 10 believes Barry Hussein Soetoro has shown that he is eligible to be president of the United States.

    Wenzel Strategies, an independent public opinion research firm based in Ohio, conducted a nationwide telephone poll using a randomly selected sample of all adults. The survey, including 1,095 respondents, was conducted March 15-17, 2011, and carries a confidence interval of 95 percent and a margin of error of +/- 2.93 percentage points—Bob Unruh

    Now, I don't understand why Obama hasn't simply released the long version of his birth certificate, and I don't know why he keeps hiding all the documentation from his college days, but I SERIOUSLY doubt that this poll is anywhere close to being accurate.

    Even I don't REALLY believe he was born outside the US. I just want to see the information (I'm curious why he's gone to such great lengths to hide so much).

    However, when you conduct a poll like this, your credibility as a polling entity has to be questioned.

    http://www.wenzelstrategies.com/blog/polls/poll-only-9-believe-obama-has-documented-his-eligibility/
    http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2011/03/brutal-numbers-for-kasich-sb-5.html

    IS that one okay Writer?
  • BRF
    Uh oh! We've got Ty Webb on OUR side! ;-)
  • CenterBHSFan
    BRF;743186 wrote:Uh oh! We've got Ty Webb on OUR side! ;-)
    I'm sorry! ;) :p
  • Glory Days
    Writerbuckeye;742997 wrote:That's the beauty of it being the "public" sector -- we don't have to. We can change it...and are.

    yet the private sector destroys the economy, and there isnt a damn thing we can do, sounds great :)
  • queencitybuckeye
    Glory Days;743289 wrote:yet the private sector destroys the economy, and there isnt a damn thing we can do, sounds great :)

    Actually there is plenty one can do.
  • Al Bundy
    Glory Days;743289 wrote:yet the private sector destroys the economy, and there isnt a damn thing we can do, sounds great :)

    Unfortunately, neither political party wants to get at the root of the problem which is keeping jobs in America.
  • Glory Days
    queencitybuckeye;743297 wrote:Actually there is plenty one can do.

    like bring the public sector down with it?
  • Writerbuckeye
    Glory Days;743328 wrote:like bring the public sector down with it?

    Seriously, do you not get that without the private sector -- there is no public sector?

    Or do you want a government and quality of life like, say, Cuba? Or the failed USSR?

    Interesting poll, Ty. We'll see how things shape up in November after the public (hopefully) has more information about the issue other than sound bites from TV telling them it (SB5) will destroy the middle class and related bullshit.
  • dwccrew
    BRF;743186 wrote:Uh oh! We've got Ty Webb on OUR side! ;-)

    Then you are for sure on the wrong side.
  • O-Trap
    Glory Days;743289 wrote:yet the private sector destroys the economy, and there isnt a damn thing we can do, sounds great :)

    There sure is.

    We can stop bailing the cheating fuckers out!
  • Glory Days
    So is Kasich going to be paid based on merit now hahahaha.
  • Glory Days
    Writerbuckeye;743340 wrote:Seriously, do you not get that without the private sector -- there is no public sector?

    Or do you want a government and quality of life like, say, Cuba? Or the failed USSR?

    aslong as there is a constitution, there will be a public sector.
  • Writerbuckeye
    If the government goes bankrupt and stops meeting its obligations, all bets are off. There would be chaos and anarchy, and the Constitution wouldn't be worth the (very old) paper its written on. So don't think the government or the Constitution can't go away. If our "leaders" keep taking us off this economic cliff, they most certainly can.
  • dwccrew
    Glory Days;743984 wrote:aslong as there is a constitution, there will be a public sector.

    So if there is a Constittution, but no private sector, the public sector still exists? Who would fund the public sector then?
  • BRF
    Time for some stats on this epic thread that has reached 97 pages. Man, if we were at the OP (Old Place), ETB would be crowned the king of posters for starting this one, according to FFT's formulas! ;-)

    A total of 82 different Ohio Chatterers (or Chitheads, as the boss would say) have posted on this thread.

    Here are the top 10:


    1. Posts 228 O-Trap

    2. Posts 208 Gblock

    3. Posts 195 ernest_t_bass

    4. Posts 170 LJ

    5. Posts 127 Writerbuckeye

    6. Posts 96 Con_Alma

    7. Posts 77 dwccrew

    8. Posts 74 CenterBHSFan

    9. Posts 74 sleeper

    10. Posts 69 bonelizzard

    BRF's analysis of the poll results show that the enemy is winning on hammering away with their viewpoints (with a plus or minus 3 error factor). Congratulations. I will slam my head into the wall one more time in your honor.

    Some notes on other posters:

    Stalwart GloryDays is chiming in with 40 posts and well down the list.

    My OC son, ccrunner609, has done his part with a solid 26 posts. (needs to get back on here!)

    BRF and Ty Webb are amazingly tied at 21 posts (but now 22 in favor of BRF). Both Chitheads also, amazingly, hold similar views on the subject of this thread!

    Whew.......that sure did take a long time to count all that stuff up! (typed as BRF casts his rod to see who will bite!) hahahahaha!
  • O-Trap
    dwccrew;744212 wrote:So if there is a Constittution, but no private sector, the public sector still exists? Who would fund the public sector then?

    "The guvermint!" ;)

    Make that 229, BRF. :D
  • dwccrew
    O-Trap;744574 wrote:"The guvermint!" ;)

    Make that 229, BRF. :D

    True, they'd probably just print more money and pay the employees.

    BRF shorted me a post, the icon states that I have 79 (including this one). Come on BRF, don't be taking my posts away from me!
  • Glory Days
    dwccrew;744212 wrote:So if there is a Constittution, but no private sector, the public sector still exists? Who would fund the public sector then?

    by that point, money(funding) wouldnt matter. haha just look at every post apocalyptic movie haha.
  • georgemc80
    More on topic with SB5, in Texas there is no collective bargaining. I am ok with that. However, the legislation is incomplete if doesn't provide some protection for public employees.

    Down here, each school district decides their own salary schedule based on years of service and education. (Merit pay has its own thread so need not be discussed)if you don't like the pay scale, you are welcome to shop your talents elsewhere. What Texas does that SB5 needs to address is contracts. Each teacher has a contract that is the same. The district is allowed to offer any employee (3) one-year probationary contracts. After three years, they have to offer at least one year "term" contracts. (sadly we all are subject to these, due to the loss of multiple year contracts). State law says that if a teacher has a term contract they cannot be fired or non-renewed without "cause". (economics being a cause of course and seniority comes into play) If economics is not the reason, then the district has to show how they have attempted to train the teacher to fix the "problem". (usually training lasts through another term contract).

    This addresses the fear of losing jobs based on vengeful administrators. This also aligns with the model of many of the private sector companies who have employed me.
  • Gblock
    BRF;744215 wrote:Time for some stats on this epic thread that has reached 97 pages. Man, if we were at the OP (Old Place), ETB would be crowned the king of posters for starting this one, according to FFT's formulas! ;-)

    A total of 82 different Ohio Chatterers (or Chitheads, as the boss would say) have posted on this thread.

    Here are the top 10:


    1. Posts 228 O-Trap

    2. Posts 208 Gblock

    3. Posts 195 ernest_t_bass

    4. Posts 170 LJ

    5. Posts 127 Writerbuckeye

    6. Posts 96 Con_Alma

    7. Posts 77 dwccrew

    8. Posts 74 CenterBHSFan

    9. Posts 74 sleeper

    10. Posts 69 bonelizzard

    BRF's analysis of the poll results show that the enemy is winning on hammering away with their viewpoints (with a plus or minus 3 error factor). Congratulations. I will slam my head into the wall one more time in your honor.

    Some notes on other posters:

    Stalwart GloryDays is chiming in with 40 posts and well down the list.

    My OC son, ccrunner609, has done his part with a solid 26 posts. (needs to get back on here!)

    BRF and Ty Webb are amazingly tied at 21 posts (but now 22 in favor of BRF). Both Chitheads also, amazingly, hold similar views on the subject of this thread!

    Whew.......that sure did take a long time to count all that stuff up! (typed as BRF casts his rod to see who will bite!) hahahahaha!
    Effing awesome post....209
  • CenterBHSFan
    georgemc80;744845 wrote:More on topic with SB5, in Texas there is no collective bargaining. I am ok with that. However, the legislation is incomplete if doesn't provide some protection for public employees.
    But why do public employees need protection (of what you're referring to) automatically? Why should they be protected in ways that other non-public employees do not get?

    I, and others, have asked that question MANY times, yet no one bothers to give an honest answer or when they do try, it's such a runaround type of thing that branches off into other discussions.
    You're my last hope of ever giving an honest, reasonable and fair answer that sticks to just the question and just the answer.
  • O-Trap
    Gblock;744848 wrote:Effing awesome post....209

    We is teh winz.
  • georgemc80
    CenterBHSFan;744855 wrote:But why do public employees need protection (of what you're referring to) automatically? Why should they be protected in ways that other non-public employees do not get?

    I, and others, have asked that question MANY times, yet no one bothers to give an honest answer or when they do try, it's such a runaround type of thing that branches off into other discussions.
    You're my last hope of ever giving an honest, reasonable and fair answer that sticks to just the question and just the answer.

    Most companies do provide protection to their employees. Once past the probationary period, companies must meet many criteria prior to terminating an employee. HR departments and legal departments want to make sure that employees have been told of their weaknesses, a plan to make it better has been put in place (with a time table), and the employee understands the consequences. This is the model of successful business that many companies use. I don't see that it is wrong that the same type of model is in place for the public sector.

    BTW, it is not an automatic protection. A teacher in Texas can have up to (3) 1 year probationary contracts with the same district. Basically, they can be let go at any time without cause or justification. (although many districts will try to develop these teacher's weaknesses, much like the money corporations spend in training an employee)
  • stlouiedipalma
    Even in a non-union workplace, there are often guidelines (or rules and regulations) for all employees to follow. Some of the ones I've seen in the past list offenses and corresponding punishment for the offenses. I worked my entire career in a union shop (although I was a department head). I once asked the HR director if it would be easier for him if the union wasn't there, as we had a lot of rules to follow when dealing with employees and violations of the rules. He said, without hesitation, that the union environment was best for him. He had worked in both union and non-union plants and his feeling was that the union environment was more structured, that there were procedures and committees in place that organized grievances and brought them to his office in an orderly manner. It also had a built-in way of separating the wheat from the chaff, so to speak, so that frivolous grievances didn't make it to his desk. He said that the non-union environments he worked in before were less organized and much more chaotic.

    I guess the point I'm trying to make is that schools are not much different from any other employers in that its employees need to have some means of addressing grievances. I think that this is the "protection" that georgemc80 speaks of.