Imagine a school levy fails and the district starts firing teachers. After the firings, the administrators raise their salaries. That's exactly what John Kasich is doing with his cronies.

 

No.  It's not exactly what Kasich is doing.  Nobody is getting fired.  Asking public union employees to pay a larger share of their retirement and benefits is exactly what is being done.

 

You guys are talking about two different things.

I'm a fiscal conservative and I hope Kasich succeeds in reducing some public sector pay and benefits since the private sector in this state can no longer support it (although I support some level of unions, especially for dangerous jobs like police and fire). However, raising the salaries of his cabinet members at a time of statewide economic ruin is just wrong. He needs to learn how to lead by example. It just looks bad to say, "I'm cutting your pay, but my best buddies are all getting fat raises."

 

Nobody on Kasich's team should get a pay raise until after they've proven they've turned this ship around (merit-based pay, not croney-based pay). Right now, it does look like he's enriching his cronies while setting himself up for another presidential run. He's bringing this media attention on himself (and it is all on purpose since he's trying to cry "liberal media!" despite the fact he's being attacked by some hyper-Republican media too). He has just as many enemies in his own party as he does across the aisle.

Geez.  This is gonna be a LONG FOUR YEARS!!!

 

Kasich in hot water after calling cop 'idiot'

Wednesday, February 16, 2011  02:10 PM

Updated: Wednesday, February 16, 2011 02:59 PM

By Darrel Rowland and Doug Caruso

The Columbus Dispatch

 

FULL ARTICLE AND VIDEO OF KASICH'S "IDIOT" REMARKS: http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2011/02/16/Kasich-in-hot-water-after-calling-cop-idiot.html?sid=101

 

THE NEXT TIME, JOHN, TAKE THE TRAIN!  :police:

The cop could have been an idiot...  I'd like to hear both sides of that story before.. actually, no I wouldn't, I really don't care enough to want to hear anything about it at all.

 

Kasich pays a smaller group of people a smaller amount of money to do the job a larger group of people making a larger amount of money did under the previous administration.  The small group makes more individually because they are, essentially, doing more work than their respective predecessors.

 

This is only going to be "a long four years" if the left keeps nitpicking non-issues and trying to make stories out of them.

 

Don't make me dig through the Obama thread and show what a hypocritical statement that last sentence is.

All this 'idiot' thing does is make him look brash and lack judgment, but it's becoming a pattern with him. Brashness is endearing in someone who is crusading for change and doing it effectively. Kasich is so early in his term that he has nothing to hang his hat on other than killing 3-C, for those who agree with that (probably a minority on this board...). I am not even clear what Kasich is planning to do about the budget, I thought he was going to cut enough that taxes would be cut as well.

 

Looking for moral equivalence and hypocrisy in criticizing someone for an obvious miscue on the 'left' or 'right' is a waste of time. A miscue is a miscue if enough people perceive it as one, which is the horrible truth about politics. They should be avoided and failing to do so shows poor judgment AND clever politicking by the other side. This one is pretty dumb. Kasich doesn't even make a particularly good point with his little speech. It's a pro forma 'government should be a business' speech, delivered badly, and I've heard it all before.

 

If it works, it works, and I'll re-elect him.

And, of course, there are problems with trying to make government more businesslike. A business needs to serve its paying customers. A government needs to serve the public. Who, for example, are the EPA's customers? Is it the companies seeking permits? Or is it the public, seeking clean air and water?

I don't think that the impulse to make government more businesslike involves denying that the state government's client (customer, if you prefer that term) is the entire state.  I think the focus is more internal than that: it involves things like the fact that it can take forever to get rid of an unproductive government worker for anything short of sexual harassment (and even then, it can take far longer than it would in the private sector), the fact that government workers often have very little incentive to have good customer service skills, and so on, the fact that many government programs are evaluated based on the concept behind them rather than on the results they actually achieve (e.g., anti-poverty programs are good regardless of whether they actually do much, if anything, to reduce poverty), and so on.

Your perception of the hoops government has to jump through to fire a government employee is not accurate.  Classified civil service workers have to be given notice and a fair opportunity to be heard.  This involves a letter telling the employee that a pre-disciplinary hearing will be convened in a few days and the worker must appear.  Nothing stops the employer from placing the worker on paid or unpaid leave until that hearing is held.  At the hearing, the worker is allowed to respond to the charges but, the simple fact is, 99.9% of the time this is all colored bubbles to comply with constitutional mandates as the decision has already been made for all intents and purposes.  The same day as the hearing, a letter is issued telling the worker that he/she has been terminated.

 

You are citing to the extremes.  You may be confusing the post-termination process which may or may not be required by contract and/or local civil service rules.  But the worker is gone by then, just keeping their fingers crossed that they may get their job back if a 3rd party neutral finds that there was no just cause.

Even assuming that's true, just for the sake of argument--why not deal with the extremes?

I don't think that the impulse to make government more businesslike involves denying that the state government's client (customer, if you prefer that term) is the entire state.  I think the focus is more internal than that: it involves things like the fact that it can take forever to get rid of an unproductive government worker for anything short of sexual harassment (and even then, it can take far longer than it would in the private sector), the fact that government workers often have very little incentive to have good customer service skills, and so on, the fact that many government programs are evaluated based on the concept behind them rather than on the results they actually achieve (e.g., anti-poverty programs are good regardless of whether they actually do much, if anything, to reduce poverty), and so on.

 

It sounds like you are projecting what you want it to mean as what it in fact means. I would bet many people saying they want government run like a business mean many different things. For example, the people who want public transit to turn a profit or be cut (including most 3C opponents, perhaps including Kasich) would cite your "business" leanings.

Even assuming that's true, just for the sake of argument--why not deal with the extremes?

 

Because those extremes are in California ;)  This is the Kasich thread.  Let's limit it to the problems Ohio is facing.

I actually agree that government should be more efficient and responsive. And I do not reject the "businesslike" concept. I'm just saying we need to be careful how far we take it because there are fundamental differences.

 

And, of course, I'd like the private sector to be more businesslike and efficient, too. I suspect most government workers already are more efficient and responsive than the employees who handled foreclosures as so many of the nation's largest banks.

Kasich seeks face-to-face with cop he labeled an 'idiot'

Thursday, February 17, 2011  10:16 AM

By Darrel Rowland, THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH

 

Gov. John Kasich is trying to arrange a face-to-face meeting to apologize to the Columbus Police officer he labeled an "idiot" for giving him a traffic ticket.

 

The governor initially tried to contact Officer Robert Barrett by phone last night, but the officer requested that Kasich talk to him in person, said Jim Gilbert, head of the Fraternal Order of Police union representing Columbus officers.

 

The governor "wants to be able to apologize for his words," said spokesman Rob Nichols.

 

MORE: http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2011/02/17/17-kasich-idiot-meeting.html?sid=101

Somethings weird about that cop

Oh Jesus Kasich, not another pointless beer summit.  Stop focusing on pointless issues like this and get to work stripping our budget and reforming our economy!

Kasich is bending in to peer pressure! :(

Waste of time, energy, effort, thought, priority, publicity, plus maybe the cop was acting like an idiot.  There's no point in an empty apology.

So Kasich calls the cop an idiot twice during the same week that he is pressing for an end to collective bargaining?  This is gonna get interesting

 

 

“Every officer is going to take offense to that,” Columbus Fraternal Order of Police president Jim Gilbert told Columbus’ NBC4. “It’s always going to be in the back of the minds of police officers from this point on.”

 

 

While I admire his motivation on one hand, I think he could use a lot more guidance on dealing with the public and having some tact at the same time.  Regardless of whatever progress he makes in trimming budgets and reforming legislature, he's ticked off so many people already, there will be such a firestorm at the end of his term, a Democrat is a shoe-in to replace him

 

^ So while sitting in the patrol car, instead of focusing on keeping the streets safe, he will be thinking about how John Kasich called him an idiot. Hahaha that cop needs to get over it, or be placed on medical leave due to the inability to concentrate due to the horrific event that happened.

^ So while sitting in the patrol car, instead of focusing on keeping the streets safe, he will be thinking about how John Kasich called him an idiot. Hahaha that cop needs to get over it, or be placed on medical leave due to the inability to concentrate due to the horrific event that happened.

I don't think the quote was saying that it will be distracting to the officer or affect his ability to do his duties, but it will certainly be one of the factors in his mind (and many other officers' minds) when Kasich runs for reelection.

While I admire his motivation on one hand, I think he could use a lot more guidance on dealing with the public and having some tact at the same time.  Regardless of whatever progress he makes in trimming budgets and reforming legislature, he's ticked off so many people already, there will be such a firestorm at the end of his term, a Democrat is a shoe-in to replace him

 

It's not too late for him to straighten up, but he is off to a bad start. Many of these things might be petty in the grand scheme, but those things add up. The problem is he still seems to be in Fox News host mode, not Governor of the people of Ohio mode. He can't just go off the rails like Limbaugh and Beck, he has to actually put out some olive branches, even with party control of both houses.

 

He's trying to be a Chris Christie, but Christie is chummy with people on both sides of the political divide: county executives, mayors, etc. That rejection of partisanship allows him to get away with a lot more bombast. Meanwhile, Kasich plays the Fox News style partisan.

I hope he goes along with the new rail plan. He will gain some respect from me if he does.

I don't think that the impulse to make government more businesslike involves denying that the state government's client (customer, if you prefer that term) is the entire state.  I think the focus is more internal than that: it involves things like the fact that it can take forever to get rid of an unproductive government worker for anything short of sexual harassment (and even then, it can take far longer than it would in the private sector), the fact that government workers often have very little incentive to have good customer service skills, and so on, the fact that many government programs are evaluated based on the concept behind them rather than on the results they actually achieve (e.g., anti-poverty programs are good regardless of whether they actually do much, if anything, to reduce poverty), and so on.

 

It sounds like you are projecting what you want it to mean as what it in fact means. I would bet many people saying they want government run like a business mean many different things. For example, the people who want public transit to turn a profit or be cut (including most 3C opponents, perhaps including Kasich) would cite your "business" leanings.

 

Perhaps.  Different people can definitely mean different things when they use the same buzzword or buzzphrase; that's one of the reasons I try to either avoid them or explain them as I use them.

Could what's happening in Wisconsin right now happen to Ohio next?

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20032992-503544.html

 

Sure looks like Ohioans are gearing up fights over workers rights just like Wisconsin is doing.  Up to 1800 now and steadily rising

 

 

 

http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2011/02/hundreds_descend_on_ohio_state.html

I heard about Wisconsin just now on NPR.

Strickland may not have been perfect - but Kasich screwed up even before taking office.

Could what's happening in Wisconsin right now happen to Ohio next?

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20032992-503544.html

 

Sure looks like Ohioans are gearing up fights over workers rights just like Wisconsin is doing.  Up to 1800 now and steadily rising

 

 

 

http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2011/02/hundreds_descend_on_ohio_state.html

 

The protests are understandable, as public sector union employees are the ones that are going to have to take the biggest personal hits, as they are the ones who have the most to lose from overspending.  I hope that Ohio's democratic senators and representatives aren't as childish as those in Wisconsin, though.  The entire party not attending a mandatory vote is an embarrassment to the democratic process.

It is happening in Ohio. I wouldn't underestimate what's happening in Wisconsin.

It is happening in Ohio. I wouldn't underestimate what's happening in Wisconsin.

 

So let me get this straight.  Correct me if I'm wrong.  Wisconsin was on track to have a budget surplus this year according to their non partisan "assess the finance" agency of $120 million.  Walker gave around $140 million dollars worth of business tax breaks when he got to office.  Now there is a $137 million dollar shortfall.  WTF is going on up there?

 

 

 

The protests are understandable, as public sector union employees are the ones that are going to have to take the biggest personal hits, as they are the ones who have the most to lose from overspending.

 

Really?  They have more to lose than multi-million dollar bonus CEOs whose companies are the recipients of "business friendly tax breaks"?

 

Don't let the Regressives fool you.  They're not about saving government money.  They're about redirecting it into their circle.

If a fight is taking shape, then I hope the Ohio legislators at least have the courage & credibility to stand in & vote.  It's shameful the way the Wisconsin Senators skipped out on the vote.

If a fight is taking shape, then I hope the Ohio legislators at least have the courage & credibility to stand in & vote.  It's shameful the way the Wisconsin Senators skipped out on the vote.

I think I'd like to see democrats agree to come in and vote in exchange for some changes to the bill. I view running away as just about as bad as filibustering everything. It seems like that's happening with the JobsOhio bill, and I hope that the ability to cooperate in order to minimize damage continues.

If a fight is taking shape, then I hope the Ohio legislators at least have the courage & credibility to stand in & vote.  It's shameful the way the Wisconsin Senators skipped out on the vote.

 

So you think it is the duty of legislatures to give an up/down vote on proposed legislation?  I would agree with that...

If a fight is taking shape, then I hope the Ohio legislators at least have the courage & credibility to stand in & vote.  It's shameful the way the Wisconsin Senators skipped out on the vote.

 

So you think it is the duty of legislatures to give an up/down vote on proposed legislation?  I would agree with that...

 

I think its childish but we're seeing the exact same complaint that republicans complained about.  The bill was introduced friday evening and they wanted a vote immediately.

 

This whole thing is all about politics on both sides.

Why are they trying to ram/jam/bam/cram this down our throats?  My windpipe is still recovering from the health care bill.

'Idiot' remark riles Ohio's first lady, too

Saturday, February 19, 2011  - 2:51 AM

By Catherine Candisky, THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH

 

An uncharacteristically apologetic Gov. John Kasich acknowledged yesterday that he messed up when he said a Columbus police officer who gave him a traffic ticket was an 'idiot.'

 

The remark also got Kasich in trouble with the first lady.  "My wife told me, 'Words matter, you're the governor.'  And she's right," Kasich said in his first public remarks about the incident.

 

MORE: http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2011/02/19/idiot-remark-riles-ohios-first-lady-too.html?sid=101

If a fight is taking shape, then I hope the Ohio legislators at least have the courage & credibility to stand in & vote.  It's shameful the way the Wisconsin Senators skipped out on the vote.

 

Not if the only way to stop it is to prevent a vote. If your governor threatens to shoot your constituents for standing up for themselves, then preventing a vote is a very measured response.

If a fight is taking shape, then I hope the Ohio legislators at least have the courage & credibility to stand in & vote.  It's shameful the way the Wisconsin Senators skipped out on the vote.

 

Not if the only way to stop it is to prevent a vote. If your governor threatens to shoot your constituents for standing up for themselves, then preventing a vote is a very measured response.

 

I fail to see how refusing to participate in a democratic vote is an appropriate response. That is not how a representative democracy/republic works, and if this were to become the new norm in politics - where those who seek to undermine a vote, to skip town and hold the vote hostage and demand ammendments, then I fear for the future.

If it becomes that status quo (filibuster & refusing to approve executive and judicial appointments)  certainly that is a danger.  However, I personally don't have a problem with a party pulling this tactic out once a decade or so.

I fail to see how refusing to participate in a democratic vote is an appropriate response. That is not how a representative democracy/republic works, and if this were to become the new norm in politics - where those who seek to undermine a vote, to skip town and hold the vote hostage and demand ammendments, then I fear for the future.

Well, what about all the people with the right to vote who don't choose to exercise it?  Are they holding hostage the authority to govern?  If an elected official derives his authority from the people, and only 30% of the people actually vote for the official who wins (20% for the other guy, and 50% of eligible voters choose not to cast a ballot out of apathy and indifference), does he hold authority?

 

If he does, then he does so by the rules and regulations that count that vote as the same as one where he would win 80% of the vote.  And if this is true, then the rules that govern a vote in a certain Statehouse that require a quorum are simply the rules that the polity has chosen to determine whether who holds legitimate authority.

KJP, nobody is threatening to shoot anybody, but nice dramatic analogy.  If there were a referendum vote today in Ohio on reducing the power of public unions, it would pass.  Kasich's election is complete evidence of that.  Besides, this is a democracy and the majority of people have indicated this is the direction they wish to take the state.  Some people are going to lose out but I think in the long run, it will draw business and investment back to the state and help Ohio be more competitive with other right to work states.  We already have all the other assets and intangibles.

I think if this passes, it is likely to be temporary. If that is truly the case, it might be a good solution for current budget  issues. If collective bargaining is abolished for the long term, it would be a disaster. Being such an extreme measure, permanence seems unlikely.

 

Frankly, I don't know what to make of it. I don't like the idea, but I don't know if alternative solutions are realistic -- unions will not likely agree to seemingly necessary concessions.

I disagree. I think people support the fact that people from all walks of life will have to sacrifice to help cut the deficit. Even the unions have shown that they are willing to take cuts in benefits and pay over the last few years and in the present day, they just don't want to give up their unions. However, taking from the working class while giving tax breaks to corporations and the rich is not a good political strategy and polling shows that the public overwhelmingly disagrees with this course of action. Also, Kasich ran on cutting pay and benefits to public sector workers, but he did not say he would eliminate collective bargaining. So to say the public supports the elimination of collective bargaining is reaching.

 

This article was recently posted by the Enquirer. It looks like someone made the decision to lock the statehouse. Looks like the courts will have to open the house of the people so that the opinions of the people can be exercised. This is definately not in the faith of democracy, and in the least seems to be a direct violation of first amendment rights.

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20110222/NEWS0108/302220065/Statehouse-locked-amid-union-protest

 

I think if this passes, it is likely to be temporary. If that is truly the case, it might be a good solution for current budget  issues. If collective bargaining is abolished for the long term, it would be a disaster. Being such an extreme measure, permanence seems unlikely.

 

Frankly, I don't know what to make of it. I don't like the idea, but I don't know if alternative solutions are realistic -- unions will not likely agree to seemingly necessary concessions.

 

The issue of collective bargaining is tricky to me.  We do need to limit the power of unions... almost everyone would agree with that.  In fact, I saw an interesting interview with the Mayor of Newark, NJ who gave some shocking stats on the public workers union fringe benefits in his city.  I believe he said that approximately 65% of the funds spent on personell are to cover fringe benefits.  That's nuts.  However, stripping people of their right to collectively bargain is not the solution. 

 

One part of the Wisconsin bill that I do agree with is allowing people to choose whether or not they want to be in the union.  If the benefits the union provides are good then they won't have any issues, but at least it gives people the freedom to choose.  For example, I worked at a grocery store while in high school and was forced to be in the union to work there.  I got paid about 50 cents more than minimum wage, but if I didn't work more than about 40 hours a month (can be difficult to do while playing sports) my union dues actually decreased my pay rate below minimum wage.  The other benefits were all BS too.  Apparently the union FOUGHT to get us a 15 minute break every 4 hours... great... thanks.  Point is that I would have opted out of the union if I could have.  The union used part time labor as a revenue stream to fund the benefits for the full time employees.

I'm definitely not for eliminating collective bargaining for the long term. My only thing is this: I recognize there's a big problem, and I want to be open-minded about solutions. This is certainly an extreme solution, and I would definitely not go so far as to say I "support" it. In fact, I lean towards the idea that there must be a better way...but I don't know what that way is.

 

Maybe this proposal will work as part of a bargaining tool in order to get some real concessions. There doesn't seem to be a lot of negotiation going on right now, though. Which I guess is the real problem with this approach -- it eliminates negotiation on multiple levels.

Hootenany, the option you suggest of giving people the choice of being in the union or not would break them.  Requiring them to be in the union and collecting dues is essential to their existence. 

 

bbrown, your comment about taking from the working class while giving tax breaks to corporations and the rich is not a good political strategy...  an argument can be made that the unions existence is essentially ANOTHER form of tax on the corporations and rich.  It prevents true market value of labor being established and sets a false floor which labor rate cannot drop below.  This is on top of the real cost of goods or services and essentially becomes a tax, no? 

^ I would argue that the existence of unions keeps the pay of non-union workers higher than employers would like them to be so that they can remain competitive and keep their employees. If there were no unions, non-union employers would pay their employees whatever they wanted and keep their benefits lower so that they can keep more profits for themselves. Also, I would argue union prices keep construction costs at a level that allows non-union companies to compete while maintaining decent profits. Without the union bids, I think the bid process would involve companies bidding so low to get work that it cuts into their profits and how they treat their workers. Also, in this environment corners would be cut in safety to improve the employers bottom line. I know as a former non-union construction employee, that safety was sacrificed to complete jobs under budget to maintain profits. Also, we were precluded from some jobs because to meet the level of safety needed to protect the workers would require substantial costs and investment in safety and therefore eliminate profits. For example, a water main or sewer main project would require huge investment in trench boxes, street plates, heavy equipment, and extra employees to maintain the proper level of safety, and usually private companies cannot make this type of investment without sacrificing a satisfactory profit. I do not argue with your point that union costs inflate the cost of materials, but because of my aforementioned points, I think there is presently a healthy balance.

bbrown, your comment about taking from the working class while giving tax breaks to corporations and the rich is not a good political strategy...  an argument can be made that the unions existence is essentially ANOTHER form of tax on the corporations and rich.  It prevents true market value of labor being established and sets a false floor which labor rate cannot drop below.  This is on top of the real cost of goods or services and essentially becomes a tax, no? 

 

If that is true, then minimum wage laws also prevent this "true market value" assessment.  People who argue against the existence of labor laws, social security, medicare, etc. simply don't understand how hard it was for the working class before those laws were implemented.  I'm not saying that these laws can't continue to evolve to better serve society as a whole, but doing away with such basic guarantees is simply the wrong course of action.  I'm sure those of you who are so upset with minimum wage guarantees, union protection, and the existence of entitlement programs (ALL OF WHICH CAN CERTAINLY BE REFINED) can find a cozy corner of Africa to settle down in.  Just make sure they have a 2nd Amendment equivalent and all the guarantees you really care about will be taken care of ;) (I kid.... I kid)

^ I would argue that the existence of unions keeps the pay of non-union workers higher than employers would like them to be so that they can remain competitive and keep their employees. If there were no unions, non-union employers would pay their employees whatever they wanted and keep their benefits lower so that they can keep more profits for themselves. Also, I would argue union prices keep construction costs at a level that allows non-union companies to compete while maintaining decent profits. Without the union bids, I think the bid process would involve companies bidding so low to get work that it cuts into their profits and how they treat their workers. Also, in this environment corners would be cut in safety to improve the employers bottom line. I know as a former non-union construction employee, that safety was sacrificed to complete jobs under budget to maintain profits. Also, we were precluded from some jobs because to meet the level of safety needed to protect the workers would require substantial costs and investment in safety and therefore eliminate profits. For example, a water main or sewer main project would require huge investment in trench boxes, street plates, heavy equipment, and extra employees to maintain the proper level of safety, and usually private companies cannot make this type of investment without sacrificing a satisfactory profit. I do not argue with your point that union costs inflate the cost of materials, but because of my aforementioned points, I think there is presently a healthy balance.

 

While you make some valid points here - lets all remember that the debate is in regards to public employee unions. The employer is the government.

 

The government is not a for 'profit' organization, but it IS an organization that must operate within its budget.

 

edited for typo

- lets all remember that the debate is in regards to feral employee unions. 

 

 

Feral employees?  Are those like some type of wild scavenging employees?