A little bit of that.  But it probably more is about getting some good campaign material.  While I think you should never refuse a sit-down, which is what I think the unions will do, the only way to do this is to start from scratch.  The bill is so flush with foul intentions, even the provisions that will be up for discusiion will need to be rewritten.  And you have a couple deal breakers on both sides, involving merit pay for teachers and seniority protection for all public employees.  The merit pay issue is a tricky one and they may be able to fracture off the safety forces if that was their main target.  But the seniority issue is not something the unions will budge on, mainly the preference given in layoffs and RIFs.  So... point is, I think it may be a bit of an empty invitation.  I think it is going to be stupid of the unions to turn it down and that will give Kasich the material he wants, but let's face it... looks like we are in for a bitter battle.

They are even offering to repeal the whole thing!  (DDN front page story this morning).

There's a catch, of course.  Kasich and Co will insist a deal be in place before any vote on repeal occurs.  The unions on the other hand, will probably insist upon repeal before they start talking.  And I'm sure the national interests are getting involved with the GOP wanting it resolved and the Dems wanting it to go to referendum.  The Dems, frankly, don't have anything to lose and will only gain support from otherwise consistently conservative voters (especially from the safety force community)

Well that didn't take long.  In letters exchanged today by both sides, it couldn't be any clearer that it is all about posturing for the campaign and there is very little desire to have GOOD FAITH negotiations.

 

We Are Ohio feels that it has the bear by the tail, and Kasich and Co are merely looking for campaign ad material.

Too bad, even if this is defeated at the ballot box, they will just put a new one in next year that accomplishes much of the same thing and the fight will start all over again. This was the union's chance to put politics aside and achieve some meaningful reforms (albeit they would still give up a lot), they ultimately are fighting a losing battle anyway. Time to negotiate, a win in November is nothing more than a phyrric victory.

Not true at all.  Why is it not the Governor and GOP reps chance to put politics aside?  That is what got the first bill passed, so putting politics aside should lead to the conclusion that the bill must be repealed before negotiations can start.  Otherwise, there is no baseline that they can start with.

 

Further, you can count on the fact that if this gets wiped out during the election by a vote of the people, any effort to simply duplicate the bill will be met with even more fervent backlash.  That is the whole purpose of a referendum.... to tell the GA that the electorate does not agree with what it has done.

 

That said, your take is exactly what I was saying uptread is what Kasich is gunning for here with his rather empty invitation... particularly the "this was the union's chance to put politics aide and achieve some meaningful reforms."  In fact, you might want to submit that line to BBO for one of their ads.

 

"BBO"...... I just realized that acronym :D

Further, you can count on the fact that if this gets wiped out during the election by a vote of the people, any effort to simply duplicate the bill will be met with even more fervent backlash.  That is the whole purpose of a referendum.... to tell the GA that the electorate does not agree with what it has done.

 

The Republicans barely got it passed the first time, including using some questionable tactics along the way and having dissent within the ranks.  I doubt they're going to be able to pull it off again, especially after a crushing defeat at the polls.  Moderate Republicans in swing districts (though this will be changing with gerrymandering) would have a hard time justifying to their constituents voting for such a bill a second time.

It will not be the same bill but a more watered down version that would get passed. The unions will still hate it which is why it is in their interest to negotiate now.

It will not be the same bill but a more watered down version that would get passed. The unions will still hate it which is why it is in their interest to negotiate now.

 

Maybe.  Or maybe it will be something that the legislature and governor decide not to even touch again in an election year.  Either way, the next time the discussion is held, you can bet that the unions are going to have their say regardless of when it happens.  At this point it's probably better for Ohio that Kasich's gigantic ego goes through a humbling defeat this fall.

I think you're missing the overwhelming support for this reform from the business community.  Kasich isn't pushing this issue because he is some anti-union guy, he's pushing the issue becaus the people that helped him get elected have told him to make it a priority.  That isn't going to change.

It will not be the same bill but a more watered down version that would get passed. The unions will still hate it which is why it is in their interest to negotiate now.

 

So you are saying if Kasich and Co. get smacked at the polls this fall, then they would make the same mistake of locking the unions out of negotiations for a 'watered down' bill?  I doubt they are that ballsy or stupid.  Once the voters reject this law (or the GA repeals it), then we will be at an acceptable starting point for the unions and Kasich to have a sit down.

I think you're missing the overwhelming support for this reform from the business community.  Kasich isn't pushing this issue because he is some anti-union guy, he's pushing the issue becaus the people that helped him get elected have told him to make it a priority.  That isn't going to change.

 

I see the "overwhelming support for this reform from the business community" (and they always support Republican causes, even blatant losers such as this one) and with the rest of the support for the bill coming from the most extreme conservatives, we're looking at about 35-40% of the electorate at most.  Mostly everyone else correctly sees through the political nonsense that Kasich brought to reform process and they're rejecting it.

 

I haven't seen a poll for this, but I'd love to see a breakdown of how those who voted for Kasich in 2010 feel about this issue.  I think you'll find that such numbers would show a revealing split on the issue among those who supported him.  People like Bill Cunningham and traditionally conservative police and firefighters who all threw their support behind Kasich have big issues with how far this law goes.

I think you're missing the overwhelming support for this reform from the business community.  Kasich isn't pushing this issue because he is some anti-union guy, he's pushing the issue becaus the people that helped him get elected have told him to make it a priority.  That isn't going to change.

 

FYI, the chamber of commerce supports nearly all GOP initiatives.  They are a package deal.  But SB5 and its actual reforms are of minimal concern to the 'business community'.  Think about it for a minute.... what incentives does SB5 offer the business community?  It does not apply to the private sector and neither does the Act it reforms.  It was a priority because Kasich had to get it passed in time to avoid the inevitable referendum from being placed on the 2012 ballot.  Read it.  It is a union busting bill, plain and simple.  There really is no logical means to debate that point if you actually read the amendments and understand their intended application.  For every alleged cost saving provision, there are easily 10 provisions that have nothing to do with costs.... and many which will actually increase costs in the long run.  How quickly people forget that the Collective Bargaining Act is intended to "promote orderly and constrctive relationships between public employers and their employees"......... OH WAIT..... THAT'S RIGHT...... SB5 REPEALS THAT LANGUAGE.  Now why would they want disordely and unconstructive relationships?

I'm not trying to argue the merits of the bill, I'm just pointing out that the business interests are the ones that will be paying for all the pro-SB5 ads as this vote gets closer.  If they are going to spend millions to counteract the public employee union crowd and their supporters, they must have some vested interest.

they must have some vested interest

 

"Business interests" always have a vested interest in taking away employees' rights and benefits.  Duh.

Man, good point.  I never thought of that.  Damn those businesses and their selfish capital seeking interests... 

I'm not trying to argue the merits of the bill, I'm just pointing out that the business interests are the ones that will be paying for all the pro-SB5 ads as this vote gets closer.  If they are going to spend millions to counteract the public employee union crowd and their supporters, they must have some vested interest.

 

If these alleged business interests will be footing the bill, then why in sam hell does BBO and Kasich's office keep emailing me asking for donations?  Each time, they say how critical it is that people like me contribute to their cause.  The truth is that these supposed 'business interests' will more likely than not either be donating with the anticipation of political favors in return and/or will simply be funneling money into the BBO campaign that comes from more traditional conservative PACs.

 

And there is no real way to argue for the merits of this bill, so I don't blame you for wanting to avoid that debate.

Man, good point.  I never thought of that.  Damn those businesses and their selfish capital seeking interests... 

 

I'm just saying that it's a struggle.  Business wants cheap labor, labor wants to get paid more.  Of course businesses are going to support something that erodes workers' leverage.  I'm not sure what your point was.

I'm not sure I'm following your point either JJ.  We are not dealing with the private market labor force.  Or are you implying that public sector pay and benefits somehow set the tone for the private market?  Judging from the most repeated talking points from BBO, it certainly doesn't seem like the pro SB5 people would agree.

Employers compete for labor just like they compete for customers.  The less another employer offers to their employees or prospective employees (and in this case a huge employer, the government), the better it is for all employers (and thus "business interests"), as they don't have to offer as much themselves to convince those people to work for them instead.  I know private schools often push to compete with public schools to attract or retain quality educators, and if benefits and/or rights are taken away from public school teachers, that indirectly benefits the private schools as well.  The same principle would apply in other industries.  As a corollary, this means that SB5 also is bad for both public and private sector labor.

Ok.  I follow you now, although I will say that the correlation applies better to teachers than it does to safety force workers.  And even for teachers it isn't that strong IMO because being a private school teacher has many perks which make up for the decreased pay. It may be the strongest with service dept employees.  But regardless, why do the conservatives care?..... it is not like they want to hire any of these lazy leaches.... I mean dedicated public servants.... for their businesses anyway.

I think you're missing the overwhelming support for this reform from the business community.  Kasich isn't pushing this issue because he is some anti-union guy, he's pushing the issue becaus the people that helped him get elected have told him to make it a priority.  That isn't going to change.

 

That isn't going to change, perhaps, but the political situation will.  If they pass another bill like this next year and have to repeat this exercise, the second referendum will be on the ballot in the 2012 presidential election, and Ohio is a nationally critical state.  Signing up to fight this battle again in 2012 will not raise Kasich's standing with the national GOP.

 

Instead, what is likely to happen is a politically safer bill--i.e., a watered down one, as noted above--that keeps those parts of SB 5 that polled well and eliminates those that did not.  The unions probably know this as well.  However, even knowing that, it is still in their interests to restore the status quo ante.  That will restore the dynamics of the debate to Kasich being the one trying to change the law (again) rather than preserve it in an environment in which his offensive leverage will be lower.

Ok.  I follow you now, although I will say that the correlation applies better to teachers than it does to safety force workers.  And even for teachers it isn't that strong IMO because being a private school teacher has many perks which make up for the decreased pay. It may be the strongest with service dept employees.  But regardless, why do the conservatives care?..... it is not like they want to hire any of these lazy leaches.... I mean dedicated public servants.... for their businesses anyway.

 

I think the other interest of the business community is a bit simpler than that: containing local tax burdens.  Personnel costs are the dominant influence in local government budgets.  The notion that they want to make it easier to cut public employee salaries to make it easier to attract workers away from the public sector (or harder for the public sector to attract workers away from them) doesn't seem to have a great deal of force.  For one thing, there are plenty of job-seekers out there right now for all the hiring needs of both the public and private sectors.  Second, as noted above, in many fields, there are many fields in which state and local governments and the private sector do not compete.  (The one possible significant exception may be teachers, as also noted above.)  Yes, the government also hires attorneys, accountants, and so on, but not in large enough quantities (especially outside the federal government) to really drive the debate.

Maybe, but you are also assuming that SB5 will contain local tax burdens.  For many reasons I could probably write a book about, it won't have any significant effect that any individual or business will notice on a local tax bill.  In certain respects, it will actually increase costs.  That's what happens when you remove a streamlined process and replace it with a complicated, bureaucratic system.  And also, probably 95% of SB5 doesn't even aim to control costs.

What streamlined process would SB 5 replace with a complicated bureaucratic system?  Negotiating with unions is a complicated process.  SB 5 streamlined that by giving the school administrators the power to do what private employers do: make their offer and see who accepts.

Not really.  They still have to negotiate or could be found guilty of an unfair labor practice.  There is no "make their offer and see who accepts."  If that were true, I would love to know what section of the bill allows them to do that.  But I was speaking more towards the new impasse resolution system and the butchering of the grievance process.  The former has been mutated from a streamlined final and binding arbitration process to a political one which will make city councils the 'neutrals' and open the door for voter petitions.  The latter will have the effect of opening the courthouse doors to lawsuits by public employees whereas the former system deprived the courts and appellate process of nearly all jurisdiction...... probably not an intended effect of its drafters but a consequence of poor drafting.

The first "Issue 2/SB 5" tv ads hit the airwaves this weekend.  I saw it several times, the ad has a fireman saying reduced staffing will result in slower responses, etc.  The tone was civil and didn't really attack the other side of being unfair or greedy.  We'll see how long this civility remains and how long before the other side launches their ads.

Ohio Farm Bureau recommends voting "yes" on Issue 2

 

http://ofbf.org/news-and-events/news/1814/

 

Of course..... they want to keep their subsidies and will side with the GOP on about any issue in order to do so

^Typical response from someone who doesn't know much about farming or farm subsidies and probably doesn't even know any farmers.  If you did, they would likely tell you they are sick of school levies being put on the ballot time & time again and do not want to pay higher property taxes for schools they don't have children in, police & fire departments that don't support their rural locations, etc.  My family still owns several farms and this is the overwhelming sentiment in these rural locations.  Subsidies have nothing to do with it.

Typical response from someone who is commenting on a law he knows next to nothing about.  How exactly will SB5 prevent school levies from "being put on the ballot time & time again"?  And SB5 will only exasberate any issues with response times to rural areas for safety forces.  Looks like the lambs are being led right into the slaughter.... again.  Misinformation run amuck.

 

The Ohio Farmers Union supports repeal of SB5, btw.

Let's recap:

- Politicians who support SB5 are just greedy fatcat FoxNews watching SOB's.

- Business owners who support SB5 are just greedy SOB's who are interested in taking away people's rights. 

- Farmers who support SB5 are just greedy SOB's who are interested in keeping subsidies.  Except the members of the Ohio Farmer's Union, they are good people.

- Individuals who support SB5 just don't understand the bill or law in general.

 

Honestly I don't think the law is too difficult to understand. 

 

Predicting the impact that passage of SB5 would have on state & local budgets is another issue that Hts121 claims to fully understand.  I have no comment on that.

As far as farmers whining about paying taxes; they need to educate themselves.  They receive far more back than they pay into the system.  I have seen many studies supporting this, such as this one:

 

http://www.ibj.com/study-urban-tax-money-subsidizes-rural-counties/PARAMS/article/15690

Let's recap:

 

Let's not.  Better people read my posts and not your misrepresentations.  Let's get back to SB5.  You say you understand the law, so let's debate it.  What do you think it will accomplish and specifically how do you think it will do that?

As far as farmers whining about paying taxes; they need to educate themselves.  They receive far more back than they pay into the system.  I have seen many studies supporting this, such as this one:

 

http://www.ibj.com/study-urban-tax-money-subsidizes-rural-counties/PARAMS/article/15690

That may be true with state taxes, but when you look at local taxes, farmers subsidize sprawl. Even with agricultural-use valuation, farms pay more in taxes than they receive in local services. I'm sure that Indiana study includes far more than farmland. Those rural counties have inefficient rural subdivisions hopscotching across the landscape and newly widened roads to subsidize the travel of exurbanites to jobs in the urban areas. Those are hindrances to farmers, not benefits.

 

American Farmland Trust has studied farmland and local taxes & services:

 

http://www.farmlandinfo.org/farmland_search/index.cfm?function=article_view&articleID=28415

 

Ohio Farm Bureau recommends voting "yes" on Issue 2

 

http://ofbf.org/news-and-events/news/1814/

 

 

Seemingly against the wishes of their membership.  Read some of the comments below the news release.  The OFB looks like it's going to lose some of its membership in the coming year because of this endorsement.

Personally, it is a little demeaning that the repeal issue 5 campaign thinks that by voting for it you feel that teachers, firefighters and other public service providers are lazy and do not work hard.

 

That has never been the point of SB5 and if you ask most people who are in favor of the bill, they will probably agree that these individuals are probably should be compensated much more if we lived in that ideal world.

 

Problem is, in the real world we do have to make tough choices, and have limited resources. As much as we value these individuals, the money is no longer there to pay them. That means, we can offer them less money and hope they take it, or have fewer people in the position and have a harder time filling the positions. This is the tradeoff. Now many of these individuals will likely grin and bear the cuts because their short term options are limited but long term EVERYONE has options.

 

1) Even though I have family that would personally be affected by SB5, I am voting to keep it because it will force us to get creative and come up with better options than the simple "pass a levy" method we have used in the past. IT is too easy to always ask the taxpayers to pay more.

 

2) Secondly, repealling SB5 does not accomplish anything but delay the inevitable. We live in a global economy now and down the line, economic pressures will likely force many of the economic changes that legislation is trying to stop. Essentially, you are sticking your finger in a dam to stop a leak only to have 3 other leaks spring up around you. 

Personally, it is a little demeaning that the repeal issue 5 campaign thinks that by voting for it you feel that teachers, firefighters and other public service providers are lazy and do not work hard.

 

That has never been the point of SB5 and if you ask most people who are in favor of the bill, they will probably agree that these individuals are probably should be compensated much more if we lived in that ideal world.

 

Problem is, in the real world we do have to make tough choices, and have limited resources. As much as we value these individuals, the money is no longer there to pay them. That means, we can offer them less money and hope they take it, or have fewer people in the position and have a harder time filling the positions. This is the tradeoff. Now many of these individuals will likely grin and bear the cuts because their short term options are limited but long term EVERYONE has options.

 

1) Even though I have family that would personally be affected by SB5, I am voting to keep it because it will force us to get creative and come up with better options than the simple "pass a levy" method we have used in the past. IT is too easy to always ask the taxpayers to pay more.

 

2) Secondly, repealling SB5 does not accomplish anything but delay the inevitable. We live in a global economy now and down the line, economic pressures will likely force many of the economic changes that legislation is trying to stop. Essentially, you are sticking your finger in a dam to stop a leak only to have 3 other leaks spring up around you. 

I don't have a problem with asking public employees to take a pay/benefits cut. I have problem with asking them to take a cut in their ability to negotiate. Most of the cities/counties in Ohio were already negotiating with their employees and getting them to accept the consequences of the fiscal situation that we find ourselves. Cutting their ability to negotiate doesn't directly help our fiscal situation so it seems like an unneeded hinderence put in place specifically to hobble the unions. Had that portion of the bill been left out, I would guess the uproar would probably still be pretty loud, but a lot of moderates on the issue like me wouldn't be so opposed to SB5.

Let's face it SB5 is simply sugared coated union busting.  The Republicans just saw a new "marketing ploy"  with the current economy to attempt their age old tatic of attacking organized labor any way they can (please can anybody deny with a straight face that the Republicans nation wide have opposed labor at every turn for the past 100 years).  It is amazing they can say half the stuff they do with a straight face.  Be a man and just say we hate unions.

"We hate unions." 

 

There, does that make me a man?  Consider this:

 

The average private sector worker retires at age 62 with less than $200,000 set aside in 401k or other retirement accounts.  The average public sector worker retires at age 57 with an annual pension of just over $40,000 a year.  Extend both those numbers for an average of 30 years of retirement life and you tell me what the difference in value is?  Short answer, a million dollars.  Even more when you factor in "COLA" or Cost Of Living Adjustments which private sector employees have no idea about.

 

The prospect of outliving your money is a very real scenario for the vast majority of people who are close to retirement age and I would expect trend to get worse when you consider how many people in 20's 30's & 40's have had to cash out retirement accounts to pay bills since the job market sucks.

 

But no amount of defecit projections or unfunded pensions or municipalities on the verge of bankruptcy matter because Hts and others are convinced that SB5 will not save taxpayers any money.

 

So yes, it's just a union busting bill.

So you think that SB5 gets rid of PERS and OP&F?  Wow.  The fish are biting.

 

On a related note, have you done any research on whether "the average private sector worker" has retirement account contributions taken out of his/her paycheck at the end of each pay period on top of social security?  If not, then you are comparing apples and oranges.  Did the average private sector workers previously agree to concessions in wages and hours for their benefits?  Did they allow their employer to defer compensation for hours worked in exchange for added benefits?

no I didn't think that at all, i pointed it out to show why people might "hate unions" as the poster above me indicated.  A million bucks is alot of money, wouldn't you agree?

Over 30 years?  Its a decent, middle class living.

 

But thanks for the clarification.  I always sensed this might be more about jealousy and vindictiveness than it is about good policy.... even if the bill doesn't really do anything to quell those feelings.

The fight over SB5/Issue 2 was probably the worst partisan brawl I've seen since....well, since Celeste-Branstool in 1983.

 

I ended up opposing SB5, pretty much for the same reasons Tim Grendell did.  Had the antis focused on the arguments of Grendell/LaTourette et al instead of playing the "Solidarity Forever" game when they didn't have the votes, and/or if the GOP hadn't taken the FU We Won (forgetting they didn't win as much as Strickland *handed* them the election), we might have gotten some real, and badly needed, reform.

 

Now we're stuck between a choice of two bad laws that were forced through on a purely partisan basis.

The fight over SB5/Issue 2 was probably the worst partisan brawl I've seen since....well, since Celeste-Branstool in 1983.

 

I ended up opposing SB5, pretty much for the same reasons Tim Grendell did.  Had the antis focused on the arguments of Grendell/LaTourette et al instead of playing the "Solidarity Forever" game when they didn't have the votes, and/or if the GOP hadn't taken the FU We Won (forgetting they didn't win as much as Strickland *handed* them the election), we might have gotten some real, and badly needed, reform.

 

Now we're stuck between a choice of two bad laws that were forced through on a purely partisan basis.

 

 

This is a very good way to sum it up. Neither option is ideal, but we need changes to the system. By Keeping SB5 we are making progress and reforms at a time our state desparately needs them. When the economy recovers, people's incomes naturally improve.

 

This bill is about jobs. If we keep SB5 we can save a lot of jobs of hard working middle class people. If we vote no on Issue 2, the union leaders win but many of their members suffer because it will mean layoffs and cuts in services.  If it were about protecting the middle class, then we should be trying to save as many jobs as possible. unfortunately, the only people who will benefit are the union leaders and a few people at the top of the union heirarchy.

 

I am voting to keep SB5 in place because I want to preserve middle class jobs.

There may be some very good, very needed aspects of SB5 that could help communities as they move forward in these economically uncertain times.  The problem is that the law is loaded with other unnecessary political crap that is there to strictly benefit the Republican Party.  The pro-SB5 crowd is being disingenuous in that they're promoting the idea that if Issue 2 fails that we'll be stuck with the status quo into perpetuity.  That's complete nonsense.  When SB5 is repealed, there will be opportunities for everyone to go back to the drawing board and compromise on implementing the most sensible and needed aspects of reforming public employee compensation.  This, as opposed to one side ramming through what they envision to be the necessary changes, which as we all know is what happened.

 

Here's a general idea that is only tangentially related to Issue 2/SB5.  Everyone keeps saying that the money is not there.  I tend to think that this is quite an exaggeration.  In my opinion, the money is most certainly there, it's simply a matter of priorities.  And right now, there are many people to whom education and public safety are simply not a priority.  There is no way to argue that it is good idea to pay employees in these fields less (thereby accepting that the cream of the crop will choose other professions) and still claim that you support strong schools and police/fire departments.  What I would propose is that rather than cutting the compensation of employees that work on the front lines in these incredibly important positions, that we do everything we can to make sure that we are first cutting out all of the bloat from support/bureaucratic/administrative staff.  That's of course if you truly buy the idea that "the money is not there."

The fight over SB5/Issue 2 was probably the worst partisan brawl I've seen since....well, since Celeste-Branstool in 1983.

 

I ended up opposing SB5, pretty much for the same reasons Tim Grendell did.  Had the antis focused on the arguments of Grendell/LaTourette et al instead of playing the "Solidarity Forever" game when they didn't have the votes, and/or if the GOP hadn't taken the FU We Won (forgetting they didn't win as much as Strickland *handed* them the election), we might have gotten some real, and badly needed, reform.

 

Now we're stuck between a choice of two bad laws that were forced through on a purely partisan basis.

 

 

This is a very good way to sum it up. Neither option is ideal, but we need changes to the system. By Keeping SB5 we are making progress and reforms at a time our state desparately needs them. When the economy recovers, people's incomes naturally improve.

 

This bill is about jobs. If we keep SB5 we can save a lot of jobs of hard working middle class people. If we vote no on Issue 2, the union leaders win but many of their members suffer because it will mean layoffs and cuts in services.  If it were about protecting the middle class, then we should be trying to save as many jobs as possible. unfortunately, the only people who will benefit are the union leaders and a few people at the top of the union heirarchy.

 

I am voting to keep SB5 in place because I want to preserve middle class jobs.

 

OK.  We've heard the company line.  But HOW exactly does SB5 accomplish what you said it does?  HOW does it "preserve middle class jobs"?  Which provisions?  I ask because I am of the opposite opinion.  Let me give you an example.  Fire unions fight tooth and nail to keep minimum manning at the levels recommended by national standards such as NFPA.  They often give up pay and benefits to keep shift staffing at what they consider safe levels.  How does taking away the ability of those unions to negotiate manning levels "preserve middle class jobs"?  Also, when the Cities do layoffs of police, fire, EMS, whatever, who fights to get those jobs back?  Who funds the legal battle like we saw in Cleveland when Mayor Campbell attempted (but ultimately failed) to gut the safety forces?

 

I also think there is a misconception that SB5 somehow creates money out of thin air.  But how do you take a streamlined process specifically designed to expedite the resolution of labor disputes by third party neutrals, replacing it with a lengthy process which relies heavily on politics, and expect to actually save money and resources?  Be specific.

 

SB5 does nothing to increase the ability of the employer to slash the workforce or slash the pay.  It simply changes the process for making such cuts.  And it changes it to a process that is so complex, confusing, and poorly drafted, that there will be countless lawsuits for years to come to interpret exactly what SB5 requires and does not require..... legal battles which were already waged and long-resolved with the former law.

 

When SB5 fails (yeah, I said "when") then the Republicans would be wise to go piece by piece.  If teacher merit pay is all they really want and need, which I assume because that seems to be the sole focus of their campaign, they could pass that with broad public support most likely.  But when you stack a 400 page 'up yours' to the middle class on top of that change, the people of Ohio are smarter than that and can see right through the political games being played in Columbus.

 

This was a bad, bad play for the Republicans.  There is probably not a week that goes by when I don't meet another formerly faithful Ohio Republican voter who has sworn off that party due to SB5.  This will not help in 2012.  I guess nobody informed them that no Republican candidate has EVER won the White House without winning Ohio.

When SB5 fails (yeah, I said "when") then the Republicans would be wise to go piece by piece.  If teacher merit pay is all they really want and need, which I assume because that seems to be the sole focus of their campaign, they could pass that with broad public support most likely.

 

I sure hope not.  If there is one issue Republicans have the worst understanding of, it's education.  There is mixed evidence that merit pay works they way it's supposed to work and there is, as of now, no fair and accurate system.

I didn't say it was a good idea.  It is a very debatable issue.  I just said it would be popular.  Why do you think it, as just one relatively minor needle in the haystack which is this bill, is being emphasized over and over again by the pro-SB5 group ads?  Why do you think it is an issue the anti-SB5 ads stay relatively silent on?