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.

 

I don't think anyone would argue that seniority is determinative of ability.  I think the issue is whether pay should be determined by objective measures or subjective beliefs.  It seems that finding a balance between those two is nearly impossible in this context or someone, somewhere would have proposed it.  The unions want pay determined objectively, and seniority is the best way to do that.  They inherently distrust management.  And, you always have to remember, that the primary purpose of unions is and always has been to protect seniority.  Management, of course, wants as much discretion and autonomy as it can get.

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.

 

I don't think anyone would argue that seniority is determinative of ability.

 

And while I'll concede that some people, particularly when forced to talk in sound bytes, might advocate that management knows best.  Most, however, don't.  What we do advocate is that (a) trusting management is better than trusting lockstep to reward good teachers and get rid of bad ones, (b) trusting management is better than trusting the union itself to get rid of bad teachers, © trusting management is better than trusting the government to do so, and (d) to the extent that management cannot be trusted, it is easier to expose management to democratic accountability (because you can vote out the school board) than it is to expose individual teachers to the same.

 

Perfection is an impossible standard.  What pro-management-rights advocates really argue is that it's better than proposed alternatives (particularly lockstep compensation and automatic tenure protection), i.e., that a pro-management system will be "less imperfect," to use a perhaps-emotionally-unsatisfying but accurate term.

I am the son of a public school teacher, my mother was in the teachers union growing up. I am in favor of SB5. I understand how teachers feel but we all have to take a cut sometimes, it is nothing personal. Look at Greece. The people are rioting because their way of life is getting cut but at the end of the day, they will be better off for it, albeit not it is a bitter pill to swallow.

I am the son of a public school teacher, my mother was in the teachers union growing up. I am in favor of SB5. I understand how teachers feel but we all have to take a cut sometimes, it is nothing personal. Look at Greece. The people are rioting because their way of life is getting cut but at the end of the day, they will be better off for it, albeit not it is a bitter pill to swallow.

 

I think i know what you intend with your comments, but it's incredibly patronizing to suggest that you know better than an entire nation of people with a different culture.

That is not what i was suggesting at all. I was simply referring to the fact that they had no choice over there. If they did not accept the austerity measures, the consequences would have been much worse.

Oh, okay. You are talking in general terms not necessarily individuals.

 

Back on topic...sorry for the detour.

The amount of time someone has been taking up space in a job has nothing to do with "performance".  Like with virtually other job, performance should be based off of performance in the classroom, office, factory, etc..  If a school district has four 3rd grade teachers, and one of the four teachers has been there a decade or more longer than the other three, but her classes repeatedly score lower on standardized tests, she should go first in the case of a layoff.  She certainly shouldn't be kept around, while another teacher of lesser tenure (but with superior, repeated results in the classroom) is let go, to go find a job in another state that rewards performance, (and punishes underperformers).

 

The amount of oxygen someone has inhaled while in a position has absolutely nothing to do with "performance", and in many cases, are probably opposite of each other.

As long as that is coupled with some other ways if evaluating. In your scenario that older teacher may be given the more difficult students that she has the experience to deal with.

 

One thing that is forgotten about tenure is that it protects older (more expensive) employees from being laid off merely because of budget trouble. Those employees then have a much harder time finding work elsewhere.

Just a thought but - Could a short run pay cut lead to a long term pay gain in the future? Would you be willing to take that risk that by taking a 10% pay cut now, there is a 90% chance that you will be better off earning much more than you do today sometime in the next 10 years. would you take the risk or would you prefer the certainty?

 

Please this is a hypo and is not meant for social commentary but mainly to see about risk tolerance?

I'd hope i'd be earning much more in 10 years than i am now anyway. I'm relatively risk averse and seek out stability where i can find it. If someone could promise me that by taking a cut now i'd be better off 10 years from now than i would have been otherwise, i'd have to give it serious consideration.

I am the son of a public school teacher, my mother was in the teachers union growing up. I am in favor of SB5. I understand how teachers feel but we all have to take a cut sometimes, it is nothing personal. Look at Greece. The people are rioting because their way of life is getting cut but at the end of the day, they will be better off for it, albeit not it is a bitter pill to swallow.

 

But that's not what SB5 is about.  It's about punishing and destroying the unions for political purpose.  If government is too bloated, teachers, firefighters, and police officers should be the last to face cuts.  These people actually make direct contributions to society.

 

The amount of time someone has been taking up space in a job has nothing to do with "performance".  Like with virtually other job, performance should be based off of performance in the classroom, office, factory, etc..  If a school district has four 3rd grade teachers, and one of the four teachers has been there a decade or more longer than the other three, but her classes repeatedly score lower on standardized tests, she should go first in the case of a layoff.  She certainly shouldn't be kept around, while another teacher of lesser tenure (but with superior, repeated results in the classroom) is let go, to go find a job in another state that rewards performance, (and punishes underperformers).

 

The amount of oxygen someone has inhaled while in a position has absolutely nothing to do with "performance", and in many cases, are probably opposite of each other.

 

Standardized tests scores have very little to do with teacher ability.  It would be unfair to use that as a main part of a merit pay program.  We were kinda talking about that earlier.

(b) trusting management is better than trusting the union itself to get rid of bad teachers,

 

Not really. One of my biggest gripes about unions is that they don't police their own ranks. I don't trust them right now to get rid of bad teachers, even though good union teachers are hurt by bad union teachers. But I don't trust management to make the decision either. Management already promotes too many bad teachers to be principals and fails to get rid of other bad teachers. (Yes, teachers can be fired. There is a process, but they can be fired. But a lot of managers let them slide too long.) And if the firing process is weakened, and there is much greater discretion on the part of  managers to fire people, they will -- as they always have done, in the public sector as well as the private -- fire people they don't like or they perceive as a threat, rather than for just cause or on the basis of quality. And they will fire more-experienced, higher-quality teachers in order to reduce budgets.

I am the son of a public school teacher, my mother was in the teachers union growing up. I am in favor of SB5. I understand how teachers feel but we all have to take a cut sometimes, it is nothing personal. Look at Greece. The people are rioting because their way of life is getting cut but at the end of the day, they will be better off for it, albeit not it is a bitter pill to swallow.

 

Yes, we all have to take a cut sometimes. But Senate Bill 5 is not and has never been about cutting salaries or benefits. Public employees, for the most part, are willing to take cuts. All over Ohio they already have. The backers of SB5 never came to the unions and asked for cuts. Instead, they pushed a sweeping bill to take away rights that already had been granted to public employees. Why? Because they wanted to hurt the unions, which usually support Democrats. Why do the unions support Democrats? Because so many Republicans are hostile to unions.

(b) trusting management is better than trusting the union itself to get rid of bad teachers,

 

Not really. One of my biggest gripes about unions is that they don't police their own ranks. I don't trust them right now to get rid of bad teachers, even though good union teachers are hurt by bad union teachers. But I don't trust management to make the decision either. Management already promotes too many bad teachers to be principals and fails to get rid of other bad teachers. (Yes, teachers can be fired. There is a process, but they can be fired. But a lot of managers let them slide too long.) And if the firing process is weakened, and there is much greater discretion on the part of  managers to fire people, they will -- as they always have done, in the public sector as well as the private -- fire people they don't like or they perceive as a threat, rather than for just cause or on the basis of quality. And they will fire more-experienced, higher-quality teachers in order to reduce budgets.

 

I always see all these allegations that this happens all the time in the private sector.  I always wonder, what makes education so unique in this regard?  Or is this the first step in an argument to unionize all industries?

 

Apple, Google, Netflix, Amazon, and other outstanding private sector success stories of the past 20 years do not have highly unionized workforces.  Even if the management of those companies secretly *is* doing all these things you say must be prevented, it hasn't seemed to have any ill effects on the final product.  Also, so far, the people I have seen dismissed from my own private employer's workforce have been dismissed on the pretty clear basis of performance, even though there were qualitative judgments involved in such performance evaluations.  There is a difference between qualitative and subjective.  Therefore, I don't believe that the phenomenon you describe is as widespread as you imply, and second, it wouldn't matter if it were--that is not a sufficient argument for impeding the hand of management.  Nor is the fact that managers paying attention to budgetary constraints might choose to lay off higher-paid employees rather than lower-paid ones if they don't feel that they're getting appropriate value out of the more senior teachers.  I repeat what I said above: experience and quality are not the same thing.

I am the son of a public school teacher, my mother was in the teachers union growing up. I am in favor of SB5. I understand how teachers feel but we all have to take a cut sometimes, it is nothing personal. Look at Greece. The people are rioting because their way of life is getting cut but at the end of the day, they will be better off for it, albeit not it is a bitter pill to swallow.

 

But that's not what SB5 is about.  It's about punishing and destroying the unions for political purpose.  If government is too bloated, teachers, firefighters, and police officers should be the last to face cuts.  These people actually make direct contributions to society.

 

I actually agree with this, but many, many other things are getting cut as well in this state budget.  That was how the administration was able to close an $8 billion budget hole without raising taxes:

 

http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/editorials/stories/2011/06/30/historic-achievement.html?sid=101

 

Granted, SB5 is only indirectly related to that because the actual cuts, to the extent any are actually made, will have to be made by local governments, which in turn are seeing their state subsidies reduced.  If their taxpayers are willing to support the existing levels of pay and benefits for these government workers, then they can consent to higher taxes at the local level to make up the shortfall.  That is an improvement over the previously ever-expanding state subsidy system, which allowed for no escape other than leaving the state.

 

SB5 is a long-term budget savings measure, not a short term one.  It will prevent special interest groups from holding municipal governments hostage as soon as the immediate budgetary crisis has passed, allowing budgets to be held under control for years to come, not just in the very short term when the fiscal situation is forcing unions to be temporarily realistic.

I'm going to have to read up more on the details of Kasich's budget.  Seems like he's putting the screws to some very important things and rewarding some of his close idealogical associates.  I voted for him, FYI, but I think he's gone too far, especially in what I can only describe as his attack on education.

With respect for Kasich's cronyism, I agree with you 100%, and I voted for Strickland based in part on my anticipation of that.  I also thought that Kasich was significantly more motivated by personal self-aggrandizement than Strickland was, though of course this is a matter of degree whenever you're talking about candidates for serious executive offices.

 

Nevertheless, I'll give credit where credit is due.  Kasich made a lot of hard choices.  We'll see how well it sticks after this November's referendum on SB5, of course, but just like SB5 itself was more a long-term cost trajectory control measure than a short-term budget balancing measure, the repeal of SB5 will not immediately blow a hole in the state budget again, either.

One problem I'm beginning to see with the repeal of SB5 is that some of the measures may still exist because the Republicans snuck these measures into the budget that was just passed.  So the citizens may directly, through a vote, say that we don't like what SB5 is going to do to education, yet the legislature and governor have preempted what seems like the inevitable by essentially saying that they know what's best for us.

One problem I'm beginning to see with the repeal of SB5 is that some of the measures may still exist because the Republicans snuck these measures into the budget that was just passed.  So the citizens may directly, through a vote, say that we don't like what SB5 is going to do to education, yet the legislature and governor have preempted what seems like the inevitable by essentially saying that they know what's best for us.

 

Which measures are those?

 

 

I am the son of a public school teacher, my mother was in the teachers union growing up. I am in favor of SB5. I understand how teachers feel but we all have to take a cut sometimes, it is nothing personal. Look at Greece. The people are rioting because their way of life is getting cut but at the end of the day, they will be better off for it, albeit not it is a bitter pill to swallow.

 

But that's not what SB5 is about.  It's about punishing and destroying the unions for political purpose.  If government is too bloated, teachers, firefighters, and police officers should be the last to face cuts.  These people actually make direct contributions to society.

 

The amount of time someone has been taking up space in a job has nothing to do with "performance".  Like with virtually other job, performance should be based off of performance in the classroom, office, factory, etc..  If a school district has four 3rd grade teachers, and one of the four teachers has been there a decade or more longer than the other three, but her classes repeatedly score lower on standardized tests, she should go first in the case of a layoff.  She certainly shouldn't be kept around, while another teacher of lesser tenure (but with superior, repeated results in the classroom) is let go, to go find a job in another state that rewards performance, (and punishes underperformers).

 

The amount of oxygen someone has inhaled while in a position has absolutely nothing to do with "performance", and in many cases, are probably opposite of each other.

 

Standardized tests scores have very little to do with teacher ability.  It would be unfair to use that as a main part of a merit pay program.  We were kinda talking about that earlier.

Fine, then find *ANY* other measure than tenure to measure performance, because performance and longevity have absolutely nothing in common, especially if it is virtually impossible to fire a poor teacher (or fireman, or policeman, or .....), while they keep piling on the years.

SB5 itself was more a long-term cost trajectory control measure than a short-term budget balancing measure, the repeal of SB5 will not immediately blow a hole in the state budget again, either.

 

SB5 was not a long-term cost trajectory control measure. It was a political measure to defang the unions and create an unlevel playing field. You could make the case that it might control costs in the long-term, but I don't think our General Assembly is capable of thinking beyond short-term political gain. At the same time, good, firm, fair negotiation could also lead to long-term cost control, but without the acrimony that will linger for years. But that's not Kasich's style. He got it done, but at what cost?

One problem I'm beginning to see with the repeal of SB5 is that some of the measures may still exist because the Republicans snuck these measures into the budget that was just passed.  So the citizens may directly, through a vote, say that we don't like what SB5 is going to do to education, yet the legislature and governor have preempted what seems like the inevitable by essentially saying that they know what's best for us.

 

Which measures are those?

 

Merit pay, I think.

 

I am the son of a public school teacher, my mother was in the teachers union growing up. I am in favor of SB5. I understand how teachers feel but we all have to take a cut sometimes, it is nothing personal. Look at Greece. The people are rioting because their way of life is getting cut but at the end of the day, they will be better off for it, albeit not it is a bitter pill to swallow.

 

But that's not what SB5 is about.  It's about punishing and destroying the unions for political purpose.  If government is too bloated, teachers, firefighters, and police officers should be the last to face cuts.  These people actually make direct contributions to society.

 

The amount of time someone has been taking up space in a job has nothing to do with "performance".  Like with virtually other job, performance should be based off of performance in the classroom, office, factory, etc..  If a school district has four 3rd grade teachers, and one of the four teachers has been there a decade or more longer than the other three, but her classes repeatedly score lower on standardized tests, she should go first in the case of a layoff.  She certainly shouldn't be kept around, while another teacher of lesser tenure (but with superior, repeated results in the classroom) is let go, to go find a job in another state that rewards performance, (and punishes underperformers).

 

The amount of oxygen someone has inhaled while in a position has absolutely nothing to do with "performance", and in many cases, are probably opposite of each other.

 

Standardized tests scores have very little to do with teacher ability.  It would be unfair to use that as a main part of a merit pay program.  We were kinda talking about that earlier.

Fine, then find *ANY* other measure than tenure to measure performance, because performance and longevity have absolutely nothing in common, especially if it is virtually impossible to fire a poor teacher (or fireman, or policeman, or .....), while they keep piling on the years.

 

How do you know that a teacher is ineffective?  And you're arguing that there is a no correlation at all between teaching experience and effectiveness?  Until we absolutely find something better that we know is more fair and accurate, it makes no sense to rush through changes to the system.

 

There is a myth floating around that there is some crisis of bad teachers, but there is little evidence to support such a claim.  It's a red herring in the education discussion.  It seems to be presumably being pushed by education outsiders with the goal of completely destroying public education in this country for their own idealogical reasons.

SB5 itself was more a long-term cost trajectory control measure than a short-term budget balancing measure, the repeal of SB5 will not immediately blow a hole in the state budget again, either.

 

SB5 was not a long-term cost trajectory control measure. It was a political measure to defang the unions and create an unlevel playing field. You could make the case that it might control costs in the long-term, but I don't think our General Assembly is capable of thinking beyond short-term political gain. At the same time, good, firm, fair negotiation could also lead to long-term cost control, but without the acrimony that will linger for years. But that's not Kasich's style. He got it done, but at what cost?

 

The Republicans are trying to create a one party country and a big part of that effort is at the state level. We've seen Republicans in state after state  try to abolish union rights, pass "right to work" legislation, usurp local governments and agencies (Wisconsin and Michigan), among other things.

 

They are also pushing voter ID bills under the guise of protecting against voter fraud (a phony issue since there is little evidence to support that), when the real intent is a power grab by disenfranchising minorities and the poor, who tend to vote democratic.

 

In short, these efforts are nothing more than a cynical attempt to eliminate Democrats' base of support in an effort to create a Republican "permanent majority." If they get away with this, we are well on our way to a one-party state. 

 

Today's Republicans are dangerous and are all too willing to destroy our democracy to get their way. I fear for our country.

SB 5 outlook looks grim in latest poll

Thursday, July 21, 2011 - 03:09 AM

By Darrel Rowland, THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH

 

Ohio's collective-bargaining law would be crushed out of existence if the vote were today, a new poll shows.

 

Senate Bill 5 trails by 24 points (56 percent to 32 percent) in the Quinnipiac Poll released yesterday.  The measure, which limits collective bargaining by government employees, is losing big among all demographic groups except Republicans, and across all regions of the state.

 

READ MORE: http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2011/07/21/sb-5-outlook-looks-grim-in-latest-poll.html?sid=101

^I suspect that gap will close a bit, but that is a lot to make up between now and November.

 

I would suggest that the GA start working on a new bill which can properly be viewed as reasonable reform and not political retribution.  Sit down at the table with all sides.  Get something passed that people can support.

I can't wait to see what kinds of inflammatory ads the pro-SB5 crowd is going to come up with to try to close that gap.

Oh.... it is going to get inflammatory on both sides.  You probably know well how much of an a-hole a cop can be when you challenge him/her.  That is why I said I think it is time for a real, genuine, good-faith sit-down.  Let's not divide the state more than it already is.  I think it is fairly clear the referendum will succeed, even if the gap will close.  I don't see them making up THAT much ground between now and November.

Secretary of State approves referendum on SB 5

More than 900,000 petition signatures are certified

Updated: Thursday, July 21, 2011 - 02:20 PM

By Joe Vardon, The Columbus Dispatch

 

As expected, a referendum on Senate Bill 5 will appear on the Nov. 8 ballot.

 

Secretary of State Jon Husted certified a state-record 915,456 valid signatures collected by a coalition seeking to repeal the Republican-backed law that weakens collective bargaining for public employees.  Only 231,147 were needed to place a referendum on the ballot.

 

On June 29, We Are Ohio, the coalition opposed to Senate Bill 5, delivered nearly 1.3 million signatures to Husted's office for validation -- smashing the previous state record.  Those signatures were shipped to their respective county boards of election for initial validation, and Husted was responsible for final certification.

 

READ MORE: http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2011/07/21/secretary-of-state-approves-senate-bill-5-for-ballot.html

SB5 will be on the ballot as Issue 2.  They decide on the ballot language tomorrow.  No entirely related, but Issue 3 signatures are being challenged currently by progressOhio.  They expect to have some type of announcement soon on whether they had enough signatures thrown out to remove it from the ballot. 

 

For the the political nerds:

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Ohio_2011_ballot_measures

I suppose this is on-topic here

 

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/actor-matt-damon-defends-teacher-tenure-testy-exchange-211042801.html

Supposedly Issue 3 was placed on the ballot in large part to generate voter turnout to help in voting down Issue 2.

 

As for that clip with Damon, I think he's right.  The idea that the principles of the business world are applicable everywhere, especially education, is a bit ridiculous.  There are undoubtedly some good ideas that the business world can lend to education, but to completely model education after a small or medium sized business is not going to work.

Supposedly Issue 3 was placed on the ballot in large part to generate voter turnout to help in voting down Issue 2.

 

Issue 3 is two years in the making, most of the signatures were actually from 2010.  A group out of cincy worked to get this on the ballot, and most were collected from paid petitioners.  I can say with a high degree of certainty that it had nothing to do with Issue 2.

SB 5 foes get ‘no’ they wanted on ballot issue

Issue 2 to ask voters if new state collective-bargaining law should be OK’d

Thursday, August 4, 2011 - 7:18 AM

By Jim Siegel, The Columbus Dispatch

 

Voting “no” on state Issue 2 in November will be a vote to kill Ohio’s new collective-bargaining law, the Ohio Ballot Board decided yesterday.

 

Agreeing with those who are fighting to overturn the law that would significantly weaken collective-bargaining power for public workers, the bipartisan Ballot Board voted 5-0 that the question to be posed to voters for Issue 2 will read: “Shall the law be approved?”

 

READ MORE: http://www.dispatchpolitics.com/content/stories/2011/08/04/sb5-foes-get-no-they-wanted.html

^That is what I like to call a creatively disingenuous argument.  Can't blame them (the pro-SB5 folks) for trying.... I suppose.

Ohio's largest business group backs Senate Bill 5

 

http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2011/08/ohios_largest_business_group_t.html

 

The Ohio Chamber of Commerce, which claims more than 6,000 Ohio businesses as members, said it was supporting the effort to keep SB 5. Voters will see the question as State Issue 2 on November's ballot. Issue 2 is a proposal brought by opponents of SB5 who want to see the law repealed.

 

The chamber's endorsement is the largest and first statewide endorsement for the Building a Better Ohio campaign, which is behind SB5. The chamber's endorsement follows that of the Greater Cleveland Partnership and from local chambers in Cincinnati and Dayton.

 

"By committing the chamber's resources, financial and otherwise, to this important endeavor, Ohio's job creators are reiterating the message that Ohio must be open for business," said Andrew E. Doehrel, president and CEO of the Ohio Chamber.

 

Huh?  I don't get the connection.

 

 

Here's all you need to know: the businesses will pool their money and spend whatever it takes to win the battle of campaign ads versus the anti-SB5 groups.

Which businesses?  And, once again, why?

Here's all you need to know: the businesses will pool their money and spend whatever it takes to win the battle of campaign ads versus the anti-SB5 groups.

 

Out of the gate, the anti-SB5 side already has more support.  Both sides will likely spend a lot of money, but I don't see the pro-SB5 side outspending their opposition by some huge margin.

 

I think the reason for the Chamber of Commerce to back the anti-SB5 campaign is because it would (in an indirect, long-term way) weaken the Democratic Party, which usually does not enact policies friendly to the CoC.

^And do a favor for Kashich and Co.  A scratch my back and I'll claw yours type scenario.

^And do a favor for Kashich and Co.  A scratch my back and I'll claw yours type scenario.

 

Yup, this bill was all about politics to begin with, so no surprise that the repeal vote is going to be incredibly divisive along typical political lines.

Supposedly Issue 3 was placed on the ballot in large part to generate voter turnout to help in voting down Issue 2.

 

Issue 3 is two years in the making, most of the signatures were actually from 2010.  A group out of cincy worked to get this on the ballot, and most were collected from paid petitioners.  I can say with a high degree of certainty that it had nothing to do with Issue 2.

 

I stand corrected.  I heard such an idea floated last Sunday morning on Tom Beres' local round table on WKYC.

 

Out of the gate, the anti-SB5 side already has more support.  Both sides will likely spend a lot of money, but I don't see the pro-SB5 side outspending their opposition by some huge margin.

 

What makes you say that the anti-SB5 side has more support already?  Because of some polling information the PD posted?  How about a poll of likely voters?  You think the results would be the same? 

 

I think the business crowd will outspend the anti-SB5 crowd on campaign ads by a large margin and win because of it. 

They will outspend.  But they won't win.  There have been multiple polls and all show a nearly insurmountable gap.  'Likely voters' is a factor these polling agencies take into account.  Sorry.

 

 

We have now had a series of polls, from different polling firms that all confirm Ohioans overwhelmingly support the repeal of SB5 by double-digit margins.

 

http://anthonycaldwell.com/?p=271

 

 

Add in Kasich's approval rating and SB5 is in all likelihood toast come November.  Which is why I suggest a compromise now.  Let's not divide the state on such a partisan issue.  I don't see how the GOP is not pushing for this.  Maybe they don't realize how many voters in this crucial swing state they have turned off.  The national GOP party would be wise to inform Kasich and Co. that no Republican Presidential Candidate has EVER won the general election without winning Ohio.

For backup you post a link to a liberal blogger and a union teacher's support webpage? 

 

ok, well there you have it folks nothing left to see here. 

The only ray of light for Kasich is that this complete loser of a bill is going to be on the ballot this Fall, and not next Fall, when it would have directly wreaked havoc on the Republican effort to win Ohio's electoral votes for the Presidency.

For backup you post a link to a liberal blogger and a union teacher's support webpage? 

 

ok, well there you have it folks nothing left to see here. 

 

If you put your visceral to the side for a minute, you might notice the reason for that link.  Check the context of the conversation we were having.  Hit the link and..... abracadabra.... you have links to four polls conducting by national polling firms.  I would have thought you might have done that before doing that research on the background of the blogger or the website, neither of which I knew.  It was simply the first site that I found which had links to all four polls.

 

Here.... I will make it more elementary for you:

 

 

 

PPP Mar 15th

31% for SB5

54% against SB5

http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2011/03/brutal-numbers-for-kasich-sb-5.html

 

Wenzel Apr 12th

38% - for SB5

51% - against SB5

http://www.wenzelstrategies.com/blog/polls/wenzel-poll-majority-favors-repeal-of-senate-bill-5-2/

 

Quinnipiac May 18th

36% - for SB5

54% - against SB5

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1322.xml?ReleaseID=1601

 

PPP May 25th

35% - for SB5

55% - against SB5

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_OH_0525.pdf

 

Better?

 

Oh yeah.... here is one from July that was not posted in that link

 

Quinnipiac July 20th

35% - for SB5

56% - against SB5

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1322.xml?ReleaseId=1625&ss=print

 

The numbers on the proposed effort to repeal SB5 limiting collective bargaining in a November referendum are similar to those on Kasich personally. Republicans oppose repeal 56 - 35 percent, while repeal wins 75 - 14 percent support from Democrats and 52 - 33 percent support from independent voters.

 

On further review, maybe I should revise my earlier statement about the gap closing...... it appears to be getting wider! :p

Interestingly enough, a few individual aspects of SB5 actually poll very well.  Kasich overreached and made it political, however, and it's going to cost him (and the state).

Well.... they are firefighters, definitely not actors....

 

Responding To The Call - For A Safer Community - STOP SENATE BILL 5- VOTE NO on Issue 2 in November

 

 

Kasich now wants to bargain on SB5.  Wonder if that has anything to do with the polls signaling embarrassing defeat in the fall?