I guess my issue, in general, is that unions take stances that have very little to do with their role as advocating for their membership.  It is my opinion that this is a big part of the reason they are in the Republican cross hairs now.  They come off as a political organization that must be dealt with.  I guess I'm feeling the same way as the pro-SB5 people.  Our local unions are fighting hard to attack progressive projects when (particularly now) they should be focusing their energies on fighting conservatives dismantling of their rights.

Again, if you consider unions to be a problem, SB5 does little (if anything) to do away with them.  Earlier versions of the Bill had more of that effect, but not the Bill that was passed and signed by Kasich.  If anything, SB5 strengthens the Unions' political sway amongst its members.

 

I just feel that you are doing exactly what you are wagging your finger at.  SB5 has nothing to do with the streetcar.  And don't forget that this Bill affects workers accross the entire state, not just the local unions you seem to dislike.

 

If you are pro-SB5, irregardless of any local battle with the unions over the streetcar, there are certainly good reasons to take that position.  But if you are only pro-SB5 because of some 'local' unions have not aligned themselves with your unrelated political interest, that makes very little sense to me.  Vindictive policy making is exactly what Kasich and Co. have done (whether that vindictive attitude be directed at public employees or at the 'train cult').

I guess you're right.  What it comes down to is that I am feeling aggrieved.  I'm feeling a vindictive pleasure of SB5 sticking it to our local unions that are actively politicking against a capital project I find worthwhile to our city.  Ultimately, I'm sure my feelings against our two local unions and progressive beliefs that are generally pro-union will clash and I just won't vote for or against the repeal.  Republicans are playing politics and our local unions are playing politics both to the detriment of our city so both are on my S#!^ list.

With SB5 on everyone's mind but not yet in effect as the law of this State, the media sure is starting to report on a trend that has been ongoing for several years (well before SB5 was a twinkle in Kasich's eyes) -- voluntary concessions by public unions.  For instance, South Euclid safety forces (both police and fire) agreed to contracts containing 0% raises and reductions in benefits (including healthcare among other perks).  There was another story today about concessions by the Berea school district employees who agreed to forego their previously agreed upon modest salary increase.  Just a few examples from today of what these public enemies...... errrrrr..... I mean public employees have been trending towards since the recession put a stranglehold on local finances a few years back. 

This is a pretty wide margin at this point.  But I expect it to be closer than this when the actual vote is held.

 

Ohio voters say new collective bargaining law should be repealed, new poll shows

 

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- A majority of Ohio voters say the state's new collective bargaining law, known as Senate Bill 5, should be dumped, a new survey shows.

 

Fifty-four percent of registered voters polled by Quinnipiac University said they favor repealing the law, which restricts collective bargaining for state employees, while 36 percent said the law should stand.

 

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,25680.30.html

 

I want to hear the side of someone who is against the bill. Can you tell me what you dont like about it?

Have you read this thread?  I have stated my position numerous times, pointing out flaws and irrationalities in the Bill.  Specifically, look to my April 5th post which listed several objections I have to the bill.  There is additional discussion in the Kasich thread as well.

 

Simply put, the polling is correct.  The Bill goes too far.  Several provisions are not objectionable, but Kasich and Co. had no interest in sitting down and working out a fair compromise that would have kept the provisions that made common sense and eliminated the provisions which are bad policy / unconstitutional / unnecessary / etc.  He wasn't going to pass up the chance to 'stick it' to his most ardent political opponents.

I want to hear the side of someone who is against the bill. Can you tell me what you dont like about it?

I have a hard time understanding why government employees should have rights, protection, bargaining, etc., that private sector employees do not have within the same state.  I've worked for the same private sector employer for 12 years and they could fire me, decrease my salary, and take away other benefits, and I have no or very little recourse.

 

I'm a former government employee (military), and my father worked in a union shop for over 40 years, so I've seen and lived both sides of the argument.  It's hard for me to grasp why the people who pay the taxes that pay the government workers salary should have less protection/rights than them.

 

At the same time, two wrongs don't make a right, so I'm actually undecided on the issue.

I want to hear the side of someone who is against the bill. Can you tell me what you dont like about it?

I have a hard time understanding why government employees should have rights, protection, bargaining, etc., that private sector employees do not have within the same state.  I've worked for the same private sector employer for 12 years and they could fire me, decrease my salary, and take away other benefits, and I have no or very little recourse.

 

I'm a former government employee (military), and my father worked in a union shop for over 40 years, so I've seen and lived both sides of the argument.  It's hard for me to grasp why the people who pay the taxes that pay the government workers salary should have less protection/rights than them.

 

At the same time, two wrongs don't make a right, so I'm actually undecided on the issue.

 

Private sector employees can be unionized as well as public sector employees.  I think the differences you are perceiving are not between public vs. private employees, but in unionized vs. non-unionized employees.

 

The difference now is that the (unionized) public sector employees have LESS rights than their (unionized) private sector counterparts.

I have a hard time understanding why government employees should have rights, protection, bargaining, etc., that private sector employees do not have within the same state.  I've worked for the same private sector employer for 12 years and they could fire me, decrease my salary, and take away other benefits, and I have no or very little recourse.

 

There is a reason why one is considered public and the other private, other than tax dollars.  One example is that as an educator until last year you were mandated to have a masters degree in your field and have to be considered "highly qualified" in your subject area (which means you technically still need a masters to renew your license).  My issue is that why mandate someone to that level of education and not let them have a say on how best to administer education in that school.  A typical teacher contract is around 90 pages, only about 10 of those pages deal with traditional "union" issues (i.e. pay, time off, retirement).  Another reason is the systems set in place is fundamentally different in regards to oversight.  If I have an issue with time warner I can take them to court.  If you have a problem with a school, minus sex and abuse, you cannot do that.  It is all handled through a separate system (SERB, ERB, Ethics Board). I would hate to see our court system if every parent could sue their teacher.  As someone who has worked a while in both sectors, trust me when I say they are COMPLETELY different fields. 

 

I hope that helps to start answer your questions.  I would be happy to provide more examples if you like.

 

I want to hear the side of someone who is against the bill. Can you tell me what you dont like about it?

I have a hard time understanding why government employees should have rights, protection, bargaining, etc., that private sector employees do not have within the same state.  I've worked for the same private sector employer for 12 years and they could fire me, decrease my salary, and take away other benefits, and I have no or very little recourse.

 

I'm a former government employee (military), and my father worked in a union shop for over 40 years, so I've seen and lived both sides of the argument.  It's hard for me to grasp why the people who pay the taxes that pay the government workers salary should have less protection/rights than them.

 

At the same time, two wrongs don't make a right, so I'm actually undecided on the issue.

 

Private sector employees can be unionized as well as public sector employees.  I think the differences you are perceiving are not between public vs. private employees, but in unionized vs. non-unionized employees.

 

The difference now is that the (unionized) public sector employees have LESS rights than their (unionized) private sector counterparts.

 

Right.  And you also need to keep in mind that the collective bargaining laws do not apply to all public employees.  SB5 would increase the amount of public employees who are entitled to negotiate their contracts.  The misconception quoted above (that private sector employees do not have collective bargaining rights) is confusing to me.  What do you think we have the NLRB for?

 

Further, those that complain about inequities in unionized shops conveniently forget the nightmares that existed prior to unions.

I want to hear the side of someone who is against the bill. Can you tell me what you dont like about it?

I have a hard time understanding why government employees should have rights, protection, bargaining, etc., that private sector employees do not have within the same state.  I've worked for the same private sector employer for 12 years and they could fire me, decrease my salary, and take away other benefits, and I have no or very little recourse.

 

I'm a former government employee (military), and my father worked in a union shop for over 40 years, so I've seen and lived both sides of the argument.  It's hard for me to grasp why the people who pay the taxes that pay the government workers salary should have less protection/rights than them.

 

At the same time, two wrongs don't make a right, so I'm actually undecided on the issue.

 

Private sector employees can be unionized as well as public sector employees.  I think the differences you are perceiving are not between public vs. private employees, but in unionized vs. non-unionized employees.

 

The difference now is that the (unionized) public sector employees have LESS rights than their (unionized) private sector counterparts.

 

Right.  And you also need to keep in mind that the collective bargaining laws do not apply to all public employees.  SB5 would increase the amount of public employees who are entitled to negotiate their contracts.  The misconception quoted above (that private sector employees do not have collective bargaining rights) is confusing to me.  What do you think we have the NLRB for?

 

Further, those that complain about inequities in unionized shops conveniently forget the nightmares that existed prior to unions.

What can the NLRB do for me when I get fired for no reason other than "downsizing", only to have my position filled a month later by someone making half the salary?  Can I contact the NLRB and have them negotiate a pay raise on my behalf since I haven't had one in almost 3 years?  How about all of my co-workers?  Can I round up my co-workers and collectively demand a raise with the NLRB's help without getting fired?  If I can, I'm all ears..

 

I'm for protecting workers rights, but I want to see more equal rights & protections between "non-Union" private sector employees (since that is what the vast majority of the current workforce is made up of) and the workers we pay the salaries of, government workers.

 

To me the onus is on Government at all levels to better protect the private-sector workforce.  Once that gets the proper focus (or concurrently), we should ensure the government or public-sector is given the same rights, protection, and benefits.  Not the other way around.

What can the Chief of the Fire Department do if he gets fired?  Nothing.  How about his secretary?  Nothing.  How about Village and Township cops and firefighters?  Nothing.  Some members of the public sector are covered and some are not.  Some members of the private sector are covered and some are not.  I'm not.  You're not.  But nothing is stopping us from demanding an employment contract and seeking a job with more security if our employers will not give it to us.

 

If you want union protection, you have to work in a union industry.  Collective bargaining is not appropriate for every industry.  In fact, for most industries in today's economy, it probably is not appropriate.  For public school teachers, cops, firefighters, EMS, coal miners, factory workers, etc., it is vital.  It all depends on the nature of the industry.

8Titles,

 

Whether or not an employee is unionized has nothing to do with whether or not they are in the public or private sector.  There are both unionized and non-unionized government employees, and there are both unionized and non-unionized private sector employees.  What this law does is take away rights from (certain) public sector unionized employees that private sector unionized employees have.  Non-unionized government employees are already in the same boat as you are (and all other non-unionized employees, whether public or private).

 

What you seem to be all up in arms about is that non-unionized employees don't have as many protections as unionized employees.  That's a different issue (and exactly why unions were formed), but it has nothing to do with whether you are a government employee or not.

Group officially formed to support SB 5, new website created, from Columbus Dispatch

 

http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2011/05/31/group-forms-to-support-SB5.html?sid=101

 

Website for "Building A Better Ohio"  http://www.betterohio.org/facts

 

 

http://www.betterohio.org/sites/default/files/facts/SpinVsTruth.pdf

 

That's the lamest list of facts I have seen in a while.

 

"Senate Bill 5 will restore FAIRNESS between public and private sector jobs."

 

Fact?  Really?  That's not a subjective opinion open for debate, but a fact?

 

That and the all caps = typical right-wing brainwashing propaganda.  No thanks.

Well there you have it, our first unbiased review...

 

For comparison, check out the Pro-SB5 website, "We Are Ohio"...  http://www.weareohio.com/Welcome.html

 

Lots of facts there:  If SB 5 passes, owners of shops, gas stations and other small businesses across this state will be forced to lay off workers or close their doors.

 

Nothing like a good ol' scare tactic to get your point across

 

How about this beauty: The average OAPSE (Ohio Association of Public School Employee) makes $24,000 a year and retires with an average pension of $900 a month

 

Can anyone provide the factual backup for that one???

I'm not anti SB5 by any stretch, but I agree, that site is awful. Let's large cap buzz words so I don't have to read all the other words. Hmmm, 'Protect', "Flexibility', 'Fairness', 'Balance'. What could be wrong with any of that.

 

I also don't like the 'us vs them' tone the site takes. This discussion should be framed as a necessary measure that's forcing everyone to make some hard assessments of how we're going to do business with each other. These are still people working for the benefit of their communities. They're hardly an evil cabal bent on bleeding me of every cent I have just for the joy of it.

^^Maybe you could explain what is unfair about the current system?  I'm sure you know and are not just accepting these talking points without rationale....

 

Let me get you started.

 

•Senate Bill 5 will help KEEP our hard-working teachers, fire fighters, police officers and other public servants on the job.

 

Is there some provision of SB5 that I am missing?  The version I read drastically increases management rights, including making layoffs much, much easier.  If you want to just go by past record, the only thing that has kept our hard-working teacher, cops, and firefighters on the job has been union concessions granted in lieu of threatened layoffs.

 

•Senate Bill 5 will PROTECT middle class taxpayers.

 

How?  It certainly doesn't protect the middle-class taxpayers which it covers.  It hurts them.  It removes their protections.  The simple truth is that it protects the desires of a distinct minority of taxpayers who Kasich is unwaveringly loyal to.  Considering that its negative impacts will be felt more in the middle class neighborhoods, then it will in the wealthy exurbs, I can't agree with that statement.

 

•Senate Bill 5 will give schools and governments the FLEXIBILITY to manage our tax dollars.

 

They act like there wasn't a lengthy and powerful 'management rights' section under the current law.

 

•Senate Bill 5 will SAVE taxpayers millions of dollars a year.

 

Prove it.  Here... let me try - "Senate Bill 5 will COST taxpayers millions of dollars a year."  That was easy

 

•Senate Bill 5 will help our communities BALANCE their budgets and fund essential services.

 

Fire, police and education are NOT essential services?  These people have their priorities all screwed up.  The estate tax would help balance local budgets too.... oh wait....

 

•Senate Bill 5 will restore FAIRNESS between public and private sector jobs.

 

No.  It does the opposite.  The current system, using third party neutrals, is fair.  This new system is rigged in an unbashful way.  As an analogy, consider selling your house.  You make a demand.  The buyer makes an offer.  A mediator tries to work out the difference, but you can't agree.  Final resolution is brought about by the buyer choosing which of the last two offers is the most fair and that is thereafter deemed the selling price.  Might as well not even have the negotiations.

 

•Senate Bill 5 will IMPROVE the accountability and transparency of government labor negotiations.

 

Translation - it will politicize those negotiations.  This is going to get ugly.  But this is also more than a bend of the truth because SERB proceedings are always open to examination.  What SB5 does is push the negotiations into the faces of the voters, sometimes even making them decide at the election booth.

 

•Senate Bill 5 will help REWARD and RETAIN the best teachers and employees.

 

Here's hoping we don't return to the days of chronyism and patronage.... exactly why we got rid of a merit based system in the first place.  But this statement, not factoring human nature, is basically true.  If this is all SB5 did, there probably would not even be a threat of reerendum

 

What needs to be done is a return to the drawing board.  Reform is needed.  Politically motivated attacks are not.

^it's a very divisive issue - I think it was probably crafted that way to draw a line to say "which side are you on" to whomever might've been in the middle and unsure which way to vote....  of course SB 5 supporters will find it objectionable but their vote was already lost...  just my hypothesis

Hts, not going to argue with you about the law, not going to convince you.  I posted the Pro-SB5 website because I thought it was news worthy & interesting and posted the Anti-SB5 website as well.  Of course they both have false claims which are totally biased and skewing the facts

Don't try and convince me.  Try to convince those who are on the fence (not you or me).  Give it a shot.  I'm up for the challenge.  You?

ha.  I'm open minded really.  I enjoy the discussion here and like hearing other's opinions, but this board has a more educated base than the average joe.  At this point, I think the referendum is a fascinating exercise in our system of government.  Anything which gets people interested in government is a good thing in my opinion.

 

I also know that the issue clearly falls into the realm of items not to discuss at the dinner table or local pub, unless you are sitting with a group that all clearly falls into the same category, or you might as well bring up abortion rights, etc.

 

One question I haven't gotten a good answer to yet: explain to me why public school teachers fall into the same category as cops, firefighters, EMS, coal miners, factory workers, etc (your post from above).  Of course they are union, but should they be?  They are definitely the anomaly of the group listed and one which will be focused on as a major hinge point for or against the argument.

And that is exactly why the GOP was unwise to attack the group as a whole.  If anything, SB5 eliminates the separation of process between teachers and other public workers.  Cops and firefighters, for instance, had a separate process for resolving impasse.  No more.

 

The 'dinner table' point sadly is true.  But that is sad about any topic that has become so partisan that we can't civilly discuss the issues.

 

Glad to hear you are in favor of holding a referendum.  Have you signed the petition yet?  Let me know if you need to know where to go.

A couple points about this "Building a Better Ohio" group.  I hear it will be headed by Vaughn Flasher, a GOP consultant and lobbyist for...... wait for it...... tobacco, energy, and insurance industries.  Grassroots indeed!  I wonder what kind of pay scale Kasich and Batchelder gave him....... $1 million for each percentage point swing in the polling perhaps?  Kasich seems to like these merit pay systems.

Another 150,000 signatures were turned in last night...Looks like by the estimates and certification rate they have the required 231,000.  That brings the uncertified total to 400,000 signatures turned in. 

8Titles,

 

Whether or not an employee is unionized has nothing to do with whether or not they are in the public or private sector.  There are both unionized and non-unionized government employees, and there are both unionized and non-unionized private sector employees.  What this law does is take away rights from (certain) public sector unionized employees that private sector unionized employees have.  Non-unionized government employees are already in the same boat as you are (and all other non-unionized employees, whether public or private).

 

What you seem to be all up in arms about is that non-unionized employees don't have as many protections as unionized employees.  That's a different issue (and exactly why unions were formed), but it has nothing to do with whether you are a government employee or not.

My point had nothing to do with with unionized or non-unionized anything.

 

I just don't get why we "must protect government or public employees and factory workers", from someone's post above, but non-government workers in other sectors don't deserve the same mention or protections.

 

I've lived on both sides of this, basically every man in my family worked in either a factory (Dad worked in the same factory for 42 years), stone quarry, or mine, and I'm ex-military so I've heard all of the arguments.  In fact, I went to the military so I could go to school, get an education, so I could stay out of a factory, or firehouse, etc..  Because that's what I feel people should do, take control of their own situation, work and invest in themselves in order to get out of this list of jobs that supposedly needs these protections over and beyond other people or groups of workers.

 

My point is that the workers who pay the salary of the public or government workers need more protection and benefits in this state and country, and that should be the initial focus, or at minimum, worked concurrently with those covered in this Issue.

The complex part is getting the sigs from the required number of counties. Do they have to have a certain number from each county? Or just the 231,000 sigs, with _____ of the 88 counties represented?

They have the required signatures, but they believe they still are a couple of counties short of the minimum 44 of 88.  This is off an estimate off the 150,000 that were just turned in.  They expect to make a media announcement later this week...

8Titles,

 

Whether or not an employee is unionized has nothing to do with whether or not they are in the public or private sector.  There are both unionized and non-unionized government employees, and there are both unionized and non-unionized private sector employees.  What this law does is take away rights from (certain) public sector unionized employees that private sector unionized employees have.  Non-unionized government employees are already in the same boat as you are (and all other non-unionized employees, whether public or private).

 

What you seem to be all up in arms about is that non-unionized employees don't have as many protections as unionized employees.  That's a different issue (and exactly why unions were formed), but it has nothing to do with whether you are a government employee or not.

My point had nothing to do with with unionized or non-unionized anything.

 

I just don't get why we "must protect government or public employees and factory workers", from someone's post above, but non-government workers in other sectors don't deserve the same mention or protections.

 

I've lived on both sides of this, basically every man in my family worked in either a factory (Dad worked in the same factory for 42 years), stone quarry, or mine, and I'm ex-military so I've heard all of the arguments.  In fact, I went to the military so I could go to school, get an education, so I could stay out of a factory, or firehouse, etc..  Because that's what I feel people should do, take control of their own situation, work and invest in themselves in order to get out of this list of jobs that supposedly needs these protections over and beyond other people or groups of workers.

 

My point is that the workers who pay the salary of the public or government workers need more protection and benefits in this state and country, and that should be the initial focus, or at minimum, worked concurrently with those covered in this Issue.

 

Your initial premise is wrong.  Some private sector employees, if they choose to elect to use it, have union protection and some do not.  Similarly, some public employees, if they choose to elect to use it, have union protection and some do not.  The Mayor's secretary does not have union protection.  The Chief of Police does not have union protection.  The County judges' staffs do not have union protection.  The clerk in the Recorders' Office does not have union protection.  Public Officials do not not have union protection.  It is granted when it is appropriate because national labor laws, which cover the factory worker, the coal miner, etc., do not and can not apply to the inidividual states' public employees.  It is a 10th Amendment issue.  There are certain limited states that do not let ANY of their public employees collectively bargain.

 

Also, FYI, there are plenty of people in the firehouse who have degrees.  Cops and firefighters are also given preference in hiring if they are military vets.  Many of them go into the military, then take advantage of the college assistance offered, then join the civil service.

 

One thing you also might not be considering is that, in your job, your boss does not change with the whims of the voting public every few years or so.  There is most likely much more stability and you don't have to worry so much about chronyism and political patronage.

I didn't understand his comment about staying out of the firehouse, either. 

Cleveland police union's Steve Loomis says Ohio's new labor law effectively eliminates collective bargaining for police: PolitiFact Ohio

 

Cleveland Police Patrolmen's Association President Steve Loomis and other labor leaders rallying for repeal said the new law effectively eliminates the ability of unions to negotiate at all.

 

In fact, SB 5 explicitly gives police and fire unions the right to collectively bargain for wages and safety equipment. PolitiFact Ohio asked Loomis to explain.

 

"He (Kasich) is not taking away our right to sit at the table," he said. "He is taking away the right to collectively bargain.

 

http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2011/06/cleveland_police_union_preside.html

 

Rated as "Mostly True" by non-partisan Politifact - http://www.politifact.com/ohio/statements/2011/jun/15/steve-loomis/union-president-steve-loomis-says-ohios-new-labor-/

Looks like Mayor Frank Jackson agrees with merit based pay for teachers

 

http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2011/06/breaking_with_democrats_mayor.html

 

You can bet we'll see that in the political ads come fall....

I think Jackson's support is technically for the merit pay system included in the budget.  This is separate from SB5.  Personally, I have not heard terribly persuasive arguments one way or another for the teacher merit pay system.  I realize it has its drawbacks and there is some cause for concern that it could be used as a subterfuge for chronnyism and patronage, but it has undeniable benefits as well.  If SB5 merely contained this change and some other reasonable changes in the law, it would not likely face the same level of opposition.  But the drafters overreached into the realm of political retribution and that will be the death of it.  I'm not sure that a repeal of SB5 would also repeal this budget provision.  I don't think it will.

Opponents of Senate Bill 5 ready to file

Wednesday, June 22, 2011

By Catherine Candisky, The Columbus Dispatch

 

We are Ohio, the coalition of union supporters that wants to overturn Ohio's new collective bargaining law, says it is ready to file signatures necessary to get a referendum on the November ballot.  Spokeswoman Melissa Fazekas said the group plans to deliver petitions to the secretary of state's office next Wednesday, a day before the filing deadline for the November ballot.

. . .

 

Last week, We Are Ohio announced 714,137 total signatures had been collected.  A final count will be announced when the signatures are submitted to Secretary of State Jon Husted next week.  Valid signatures of 231,000 registered voters are required to force the issue to the ballot and delay implementation of Senate Bill 5 pending the outcome of the vote.

 

READ MORE: http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2011/06/22/opponents-of-senate-bill-5-ready-to-file.html?sid=101

However, Kasich and his allies are scrambling to save at least parts of SB5 by splitting it into multiple votes:

 

Multiple choice for SB 5 vote? - GOP considering ballot questions on each provision of contentious law

 

---

 

Only to be told by their fellow Republican Secretary of State Jon Husted that splitting the SB5 at the ballot would unconstitutional:

 

Husted says SB5 referendum can't be split up

I am more than a little surprised to see this out of Larkin...

 

Cut Ohio's losses by cutting a deal on SB 5: Brent Larkin

 

Senate Bill 5 goes further in eroding public worker rights than White called for 15 years ago. And the former mayor says he has "no plans to get involved" in the likely campaign this year seeking its repeal. But of today's big-city mayors, only Mike Bell in Toledo supports retaining Senate Bill 5. The others want it gone.

"I continue to say there needs to be some changes in how management and unions interact," said Cleveland Mayor Frank Jackson. "We live in a world now where current work rules don't work. But the people who were promoting this went too far. This is more about destruction of the unions. And now the state has galvanized unions that often don't agree with each other."

 

Aside from White, no big-city mayor in the last two decades has been more critical of union work rules than Akron's Don Plusquellic. Nevertheless, Plusquellic supports SB 5's repeal.

 

t's fair to wonder if the mayor's position has something to do with a potentially competitive re-election campaign this year in a town with many union workers. But Plusquellic said he told legislators and an official in the Kasich administration before the law was enacted that "it goes too far."

 

State officials "have really made a mistake here," said Plusquellic. "They've done something that really hurts their own cause."

 

http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index.ssf/2011/06/cut_ohios_losses_by_cutting_a.html

Kasich is going to get pounded by this, as he should.  It's just really too bad that the consequences for his stupidity aren't going to be as far-reaching as they could have been (i.e. having the repeal effort happen next year for the 2012 election).

^^ Larkin asks for a compromise by those who don't view SB5 through a "political prism." The problem is, SB5 is nothing but a political bill. It is not, and never was, about cutting costs. It was, and is, about decimating unions, thwarting Democrats and splitting the middle class by turning private-sector workers against public-sector workers instead of against the public-sector millionaires who are screwing them.

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

 

Pro-union coalition delivers 1.3 million signatures for SB 5 referendum

Wednesday, June 29, 2011  11:23 AM

Updated: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 02:05 PM

By Joe Vardon

 

The Columbus Dispatch

 

The coalition leading the effort to repeal Senate Bill 5 delivered a record of nearly 1.3 million signatures to the secretary of state today to place Ohio's new collective bargaining law on the November ballot.

 

A parade of more than 6,000, led by a banner proclaiming the "million signature march," rumbled through Downtown this morning.

 

We Are Ohio, the group leading the referendum effort, organized the march up Broad Street to Fourth Street, where a 48 ft. semi-truck carrying the 1,298,301 signatures in 1,502 boxes collected will be unloaded. The parade also included retired fire trucks, a drum line, bagpipes and loud motorcycles. It took about 15 minutes to pass.

Read more at: http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2011/06/29/sb-5-referendum-coalition-to-deliver-more-than-a-million-signatures.html?sid=101

200,000 from Cuyahoga County alone.

 

I hear a sampling done today confirms that no less than 60% (well above the needed quota) are indeed valid.

A parade of 6,000 is pretty impressive, too.

 

Maybe this is a sign that Ohio's great unwashed (this many sigs can't be all public workers or unionists) is still sympathetic to unions and havent swallowed enough of the "I hate unions" kool-aide thats being crammed down our collective throats.

 

 

'Rammed' down our throats I believe is the correct vernacular.  I get confused too as to which one to use.

I think Jackson's support is technically for the merit pay system included in the budget.  This is separate from SB5.  Personally, I have not heard terribly persuasive arguments one way or another for the teacher merit pay system.  I realize it has its drawbacks and there is some cause for concern that it could be used as a subterfuge for chronnyism and patronage, but it has undeniable benefits as well.  If SB5 merely contained this change and some other reasonable changes in the law, it would not likely face the same level of opposition.  But the drafters overreached into the realm of political retribution and that will be the death of it.  I'm not sure that a repeal of SB5 would also repeal this budget provision.  I don't think it will.

 

Let me preface this by saying: i'm the son of teachers and my dad was a union-rep, but i'm not in a union.

 

I have yet to find an argument that convinces me that merit based pay is a satisfactory solution to the "problems" in education. There are a lot of factors that come into play with individual students that are out of the hands of teachers. From how much sleep a student gets, to what they eat when they're at home, to the family life that surrounds them, to the teachers that the student had before...all these issues compound as the students progress through school. It's very difficult to take an 8th grade student (who reads at a 2nd grade level) and teach them enough to get them to pass a standardized test at grade level.

 

Personally, i'm on the fence about standardized testing. There need to be some standards for students in general, but on an individual level it's very difficult to apply that standard based on the specific situation of the student. NCLB is an absolute mess. It has an unreachable goal of 100% of students passing. That's not going to happen. It never has, it never will. 100% is perfection. It'd be like saying a pitcher is a failure because he only throws no-hitters and not perfect games.

 

Education needs reform, but unfortunately, teachers are taking the brunt of the anger. Administrators, superintendents and school boards are more likely the culprit. And for the record, it is possible to fire bad teachers. You just have to be consistent with your punishment (the same as anywhere else) in order for it to stick if it gets appealed...this is the same with cops, fire fighters and other union employees. The problems are frequently management and their application of discipline.

Good point in the last paragraph.  I don't know about teachers, but there are PLENTY of cops and firefighters that get fired.

 

As to the rest, I see your angles.  That is why I said I don't see 'terribly persuasive' arguments for either side.  It is a connundrum.  For certain, you can't hold all teacher up to one standardized test.  And, with a merit pay system, you have to worry about the teachers' needlessly brown-nosing superintendents and principals who may only last as long as the current political officials who control their job are in office.

 

Personally, I find the system used by most cops and firefighters to be an effective alternative to a true merit pay system.  Their base salaries are largely determined by rank (the Ohio constitution requires promotions within these civil service positions to be determined according to merit and fitness) but they also recieve what are called 'longevity payments' which corresponds to their senoirity. 

I do think that there needs to be some sort of reform in the binding arbitration process when it comes to some of these contracts. I don't agree with the process laid out in SB5, but the current one has management terrified to take it all the way through the process and frequently just accepting what comes out of fact finding.

 

It's a real tricky situation out there. Unfortunately, politics is going to get in the way of real reform. That's not to say that the service providers don't care about their jobs, they clearly do. It's just that the politicians will try and score as many cheap political points as possible and never really work to fix things. In the mean time we'll get words like "accountability" that end up having no meaning.

Standardized tests should have little or no part in determining teacher pay.  There are so many problems with those tests on so many different levels it would be absolutely unfair to use those as indication of how well a teacher is teaching.  I'm not opposed to merit pay, but it has to be fair and accurate, and as of right now, we don't have a system that does either in evaluating teaching ability.

All of these changes are predicated on the notion that management knows best -- an idea that is demonstrably flawed in this and any other society.

The binding arbitration process only applies to safety forces and only because those employees are strike prohibited.  Perhaps some tweaks could be made, but eliminating the process is a mistake because it is the best (albeit not ideal) manner of resolving impasse in negotiations.  Under the current system, the table was slightly titled towards the employer (given the management rights provision of the current law).  SB5 tilts the balance so heavily in favor of the employer that negotiating a CBA will be akin to having a hearing before the civil service commission - a waste of time and resources.

 

Also, I'm not sure why the public employers would be so terrified given the statistics I posted in Reply #46.  What they may be afraid of is being exposed.  All cities say they are broke.  All cities intentionally underestimate their revenues.  It gives the mayor and council more leeway to pick up random projects and/or tout a surplus at the end of the fiscal year.  Safety Force unions are very good at exposing this and effectively arguing to a 3rd party neutral that the City is not quite as broke as it claims to be.  But, regardless, these 3rd party neutrals have been routinely siding with the Cities recently in recognition of the economic realities at present.

All of these changes are predicated on the notion that management knows best -- an idea that is demonstrably flawed in this and any other society.

 

So is the idea that seniority equals ability.