Senate Bill 5 Targets Collective Bargaining for Elimination!

• Writerbuckeye

  

  Hard to negotiate fairly when the process is rigged in your opponent's favor.
  
  It's the main reason unions have no place in a public setting. Way too easy for the lines to get blurred as to who is representing which side.
  
  FDR understood this back in the 1930s. Not sure why it's taken us so long to figure it out.
• BRF

  

  KnightRyder;748510 wrote:what it boils down to is one side is gettin their tails kick at the bargaining table and they dont like it. instead of doing a better job at negotiating they just want to eliminate the process.

  
  
  I agree with that.
• BRF

  

  Writerbuckeye;748541 wrote:Hard to negotiate fairly when the process is rigged in your opponent's favor.

  That is rich. So, the unions have the administrators hand-cuffed?
  
  

  Writerbuckeye;748541 wrote:It's the main reason unions have no place in a public setting. Way too easy for the lines to get blurred as to who is representing which side.

  What lines are getting blurred?
  

  Writerbuckeye;748541 wrote:FDR understood this back in the 1930s. Not sure why it's taken us so long to figure it out.

  He also wanted to pack the Supreme Court for his own agenda.........kinda like....hmmmm.........you are doing on this thread!
• KnightRyder

  

  Writerbuckeye;748541 wrote:Hard to negotiate fairly when the process is rigged in your opponent's favor.
  
  It's the main reason unions have no place in a public setting. Way too easy for the lines to get blurred as to who is representing which side.
  
  FDR understood this back in the 1930s. Not sure why it's taken us so long to figure it out.

  
  if it is rigged in anyones favor it isnt the unions favor. the union doesnt employ lawyers who's education is specific to contract language and contract negotiation.
• georgemc80

  KnightRyder;748616 wrote:if it is rigged in anyones favor it isnt the unions favor. the union doesnt employ lawyers who's education is specific to contract language and contract negotiation.

  
  Then they are a piss poor union. I am in a professional organization here in Texas mostly for the discounts, but if need be, they have attorneys at their beckon call.
  
  

  BRF;748546 wrote:
  
  He also wanted to pack the Supreme Court for his own agenda.........kinda like....hmmmm.........you are doing on this thread!

  
  Be careful, FDR eventually got the court to see things his way.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  BRF;748546 wrote:That is rich. So, the unions have the administrators hand-cuffed?
  
  
  
  
  What lines are getting blurred?
  
  
  
  He also wanted to pack the Supreme Court for his own agenda.........kinda like....hmmmm.........you are doing on this thread!

  
  Administrator salaries are tied to teacher salaries. That's a fact. If teachers make a certain amount, an administrator who oversees them rightfully has to make more, and superintendents even more than that. If administrators/superintendents game the system to get teacher salaries higher, they ensure their own salaries are higher still.
  
  The lines are blurred as I wrote above. There is no definitive separation between administrators and teachers like there is in the private sector with union members and those who own the company. There's no question in the second example who is bargaining for which side.
  
  FDR knew back then you couldn't have people who work for the public and on the taxpayer dime be able to use the threat of work stoppage to get what they want; that the people would be getting the short end of the stick. As liberal as he was, and as pro union as he was, he was smart enough to know such a system would eventually collapse under its own weight.
• believer

  

  Writerbuckeye;748632 wrote:FDR knew back then you couldn't have people who work for the public and on the taxpayer dime be able to use the threat of work stoppage to get what they want; that the people would be getting the short end of the stick. As liberal as he was, and as pro union as he was, he was smart enough to know such a system would eventually collapse under its own weight.

  Simple math
• dwccrew

  

  KnightRyder;748616 wrote:if it is rigged in anyones favor it isnt the unions favor. the union doesnt employ lawyers who's education is specific to contract language and contract negotiation.

  
  Then they are doing a pretty poor job representing and negotiating for their members.
• BRF

  

  On this Easter, I was thinking about some comparisons to the crucifixion and resurrection. Maybe the crucifixion was the death of the unions and the resurrection, the "new way" that is being so highly touted on here. OR, maybe the crucifixion represents ticking off the people of Ohio and the resurrection, the Referendum in November! Ha ha! I'm just kidding. Truly, Happy Easter (with no intention of offending anyone who isn't a Christian).
• dwccrew

  

  E-mail I received from State Senator Jones (sponsor of the bill).
  

  Many of you have contacted my office to express your opinions on Senate Bill 5, and I sincerely appreciate your participation in the legislative process. I apologize for my delayed response as I have received thousands of emails, letters and calls regarding this important legislation.
  
  
  I understand and value the concerns raised by some of Ohio ’s public employees. Many of these concerns are driven by the same financial considerations that impact many other tax-paying Ohioans -- 400,000 of whom have lost jobs and countless more who have had wages, benefits, and hours cut due to Ohio ’s economic woes.
  
  Despite the controversy, I continue to believe that Senate Bill 5 is a much-needed reform of Ohio ’s public sector collective bargaining laws. Originally passed in 1983, these laws have remained largely unchanged despite both major changes in Ohio ’s economy and the public’s loud repudiation of tax increases. Reform is necessary to adjust to the new economic realities of 2011 (just as Ohio families and businesses have) and to better equip government at all levels to deal with our current economic situation without massive tax increases.
  
  Senate Bill 5 is about providing flexibility to state and local governments so that they can better manage its workforce and live within its means. Just two key provisions, asking public workers to pay a modest 15 percent of their healthcare insurance costs (most private sector workers pay an average of 31 percent of their healthcare expenses) and pay their own share of their own pension (the government employer will still pay the full employer share) will save hundreds of millions of dollars and thousands of jobs. In fact, the Columbus Dispatch estimated that these two provisions alone would save roughly $74 million for central Ohio local governments. That equates to roughly 1,500 policemen, firefighters and teachers whose jobs could be saved when budgets are trimmed just by bringing these two benefits more in line with those of average Ohioans.
  
  
  Simply put, Senate Bill 5 is designed to save jobs and protect services by giving public employers the tools to restructure their operating costs when revenues get tight. Under current law, many collective bargaining agreements are so restrictive that public employers have no other option but to lay off workers under dire financial conditions.
  
  I understand this is a difficult and emotional topic to discuss and it is even more challenging when there is so much misinformation circulating about the bill. Here are just some of the myths I’ve heard:
  
  
  Myth: The bill will hurt the middle class.
  
  Fact: Senate Bill 5 will empower the middle class in Ohio by restoring the ability of local governments to control their budgets. A common misconception is that this bill will so drastically affect wages that local economies will be devastated. This is simply untrue and does not reflect the fact that money used to pay for public servants’ salaries comes directly from the taxpayers. The common sense reforms in Senate Bill 5 will prevent massive layoffs and keep more teachers, firefighters and police officers on the job. It will help state and local governments better manage their work forces by using some of the same tools that have allowed significant productivity improvements in the private sector. The Columbus Dispatch said it best: “There is no question that Senate Bill 5 is about the middle class. But it is not an attack, it is an attempt to restore to Ohio ’s middle class the control of the government it pays for and elects.”
  
  
  Myth: This is a politically motivated reform that would “strip away collective bargaining.”
  
  Fact: Senate Bill 5 does not eliminate public employee unions and does not prohibit collective bargaining over wages, hours, or terms and conditions of employment. As well, the bill clarifies that safety equipment and training can be bargained by Ohio ’s safety forces. However, Senate Bill 5 does try to balance the previously one-sided negotiations that were slanted towards the unions when the law was first passed by increasing transparency and preserving certain management rights.
  
  
  Myth: The Senate has exempted themselves and their staff from the provisions of this bill.
  
  Fact: Legislative employees were exempted from collective bargaining when the law was originally passed in 1983. Nevertheless, all Senate employees and elected officials already pay 15% or more of their healthcare premium and 100% of their employee contribution to the retirement system. This is exactly what is required by Senate Bill 5. The pay for Senators has been frozen at the 2008 level and no increase is in the foreseeable future. I continue to support cost-cutting measures within the legislative budget.
  
  
  Myth: Senate Bill 5 will cut salaries in half or lower salaries to $17,300.
  
  
  Fact: This is simply not true. There is nothing in the bill that reduces any salaries. Period. Teachers, firefighters, police officers and other public workers will still be able to negotiate on wages, hours, and the terms and conditions of the workplace – including for safety equipment for safety forces.
  
  Under Senate Bill 5, public employees will no longer receive automatic pay increases based solely on length of service and all raises will be based on the employee’s performance. Also if layoffs are necessary, Senate Bill 5 allows an employee’s job performance to be taken into consideration instead of only seniority, thus ensuring that those who work for the public are the best and most efficient employees.
  
  
  Myth: Senate Bill 5 would not do anything to fix Ohio ’s budget problems.
  
  Fact: Senate Bill 5 will not be a sole fix to Ohio’s $8 billion projected budget shortfall (although it is worth noting that the nonpartisan Buckeye Institute suggests that “simply realigning state government worker compensation packages to match those of their private-sector peers would save taxpayers over $2.1 billion in the next two years which is nearly 28 percent of the $8 billion budget deficit we need to eliminate.&#8221 This bill will, however, give governments much needed flexibility when addressing future budget challenges.
  
  
  Again, thank you for taking the time to communicate your concerns to me. I hope this clears up some of the confusion surrounding Senate Bill 5.
  
  Sincerely,
  
  Shannon Jones
  Majority Whip
  7th Ohio Senate District
  

• Bigdogg

  
• georgemc80

  Shanon makes some good arguments. I still hesitate to take a salary schedule away from education.
• Bigdogg

  Here are the other facts Ms Jones leaves out:
  
  http://jointhefuture.org/blog/179-sb5-mythsvsfacts?tmpl=component&type=raw
• dwccrew

  

  Bigdogg;759330 wrote:Here are the other facts Ms Jones leaves out:
  
  http://jointhefuture.org/blog/179-sb5-mythsvsfacts?tmpl=component&type=raw

  
  Too bad most of the facts named on the link you provided are not what SB5 is even addressing. No one has claimed that employee payroll, i.e. wages, is bankrupting Ohio or the sole reason Ohio has a deficit. Wages are still allowed to be collectivelly bargained.
  
  A state senator declares that SB5 is unconstitutional, so that makes it a fact? LOL, state senators don't have that power, the courts do, nice try though.
  
  Public employee payroll is only 9% of the state budget, that is payroll alone! Let's not forget pension pick-ups, healthcare costs, etc.
  
  I didn't understand the point of comparing architects and engineers starting and mid-career salaries to teachers. They are not comparable in terms of what they do, so why compare them. That doesn't make any sense to compare those particular career fields.
  
  I like how this is paraded off as fact, when it is in fact an opinion. Please provide us with a better list of "facts", I could pick apart that one all day.
  

  FACTS: • Requiring merit pay for teachers with 50% of criteria for evaluation basedon standardized test scores will cause teachers to teach to the test andnarrow the curriculum. A reduction in creative and innovative classroomswill occur, ultimately causing decreased student motivation andengagement in learning.• Requiring administrators to evaluate every teacher for at least 30 minutestwice every year will increase administrative costs and mean that moremoney is spent on administrative costs instead of less.• Value-added formulas for teacher performance based on standardizedtest are not statistically valid and reliable. (Economic Policy Institute,New York Times , National Education Policy Center)• Students often receive instruction from multiple teachers, which makes itdifficult, if not impossible, to determine which teacher is responsible forstudent achievement.•

• QuakerOats

  I receieved the same, reasoned, email from Jones.
  
  The union 'leadership' () is simply in panic mode at this point; they will lie, fabricate, distort and spread untold amounts of misinformation and innuendo in order to protect their own fat paychecks that result from leaching on their membership and The People. Clearly they are in panic mode as they understand the end is near for them and they might have to enter the real world and get real jobs.
• dwccrew

  

  For me, as someone that has been a part of 2 seperate unions in the past, unions are no better than the government. Taxing the members and padding their own pockets with little to no good representation. This is my personal experience in unions.
• Bigdogg

  dwccrew;759365 wrote:Too bad most of the facts named on the link you provided are not what SB5 is even addressing. No one has claimed that employee payroll, i.e. wages, is bankrupting Ohio or the sole reason Ohio has a deficit. Wages are still allowed to be collectivelly bargained.
  
  A state senator declares that SB5 is unconstitutional, so that makes it a fact? LOL, state senators don't have that power, the courts do, nice try though.
  
  Public employee payroll is only 9% of the state budget, that is payroll alone! Let's not forget pension pick-ups, healthcare costs, etc.
  
  I didn't understand the point of comparing architects and engineers starting and mid-career salaries to teachers. They are not comparable in terms of what they do, so why compare them. That doesn't make any sense to compare those particular career fields.
  
  I like how this is paraded off as fact, when it is in fact an opinion. Please provide us with a better list of "facts", I could pick apart that one all day.

  
  The propaganda your Senator reported as facts are just too outrageous to even comment on. It's already been proven by many different school treasures throughout Ohio that the amount off savings is grossly overstated, and that's being kind. Drink the Kool-Aid.
• Con_Alma

  I have no issues with this going to the voters. I am glad it is. I will not vote for the repeal personally.
  
  If SB5 stands the collective voters are stating that the taxpayers or funders of the payroll of public service employees do not want the benefit packages collectively bargained and want more flexibility provided to the government in making decisions regarding the total benefit packages.
  
  I just can't find a reason that is a bad thing.
• dwccrew

  

  Bigdogg;759393 wrote:The propaganda your Senator reported as facts are just too outrageous to even comment on. It's already been proven by many different school treasures throughout Ohio that the amount off savings is grossly overstated, and that's being kind. Drink the Kool-Aid.

  
  I didn't know that school treasurers had all the information pertaining to the state budget. Interesting.....:rolleyes:
• dwccrew

  

  Con_Alma;759395 wrote:I have no issues with this going to the voters. I am glad it is. I will not vote for the repeal personally.
  
  If SB5 stands the collective voters are stating that the taxpayers or funders of the payroll of public service employees do not want the benefit packages collectively bargained and want more flexibility provided to the government in making decisions regarding the total benefit packages.
  
  I just can't find a reason that is a bad thing.

  
  I agree, let the people decide if it will truly hurt the middle class or not. If it is repealed, it will be by the will of the people and I have no issue with that; however, I will vote against repeal.
• Glory Days

  

  dwccrew;759408 wrote:I didn't know that school treasurers had all the information pertaining to the state budget. Interesting.....:rolleyes:

  
  what good is a balanced state budget when many cities across the state cant balance their budget?
• dwccrew

  

  Glory Days;759772 wrote:what good is a balanced state budget when many cities across the state cant balance their budget?

  
  I fail to see how a city not being able to balance their own budget is a state problem? If my neighbor can't balance his budget, or the guy down the street can't, is that my problem? No
• WebFire

  dwccrew;759781 wrote:I fail to see how a city not being able to balance their own budget is a state problem? If my neighbor can't balance his budget, or the guy down the street can't, is that my problem? No

  
  Exactly. City not balancing is a local issue.
• revgat

  dwccrew;759781 wrote:I fail to see how a city not being able to balance their own budget is a state problem? If my neighbor can't balance his budget, or the guy down the street can't, is that my problem? No

  
  It isn't a state problem until you have a lot of cities/towns turning to shit because they have no money. Eventually, that will take its toll on the state.
• Glory Days

  

  dwccrew;759781 wrote:I fail to see how a city not being able to balance their own budget is a state problem? If my neighbor can't balance his budget, or the guy down the street can't, is that my problem? No

  
  Thats not what i meant. my point was, who cares about the state budget when the cities arent balanced. i'd rather have a balanced city budget than a balanced state budget. i feel the state should do what it has to do to help cities balance their budgets before it worries about the state, instead of the other way around. basically start from the bottom up. if the cities are balanced, they will eventually be able to repay the state and make the cuts it needs once they've got everything straightened out.