5 minutes ago, Lazarus said:

 

JD Vance didn't do squat and he won.  He didn't even put his own campaign sign in his own front yard.  

 

He got Trump's endorsement and had an R next to his name. That's all that mattered to his voters. Only the left of center voters need actual reasons to vote, I guess. 

24 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

 

That seems kind of unfair, though. Just because local Democratic leadership hasn't solved all problems at all times in every place doesn't mean things wouldn't have been tangibly worse with the alternative. Democrats at the national level have produced better economic results than Republicans across the board, but that doesn't mean there were no economic issues under their leadership, and I think that's not a reasonable expectation. Bad things happen sometimes and there aren't easy fixes regardless of leadership, just like now with inflation. Besides, it's not always about you personally being materially better off. It's about all the other people that may end up much worse with the wrong people in charge.  Democrats, for their flaws, won't generally make things worse. Republicans will. 

I mostly agree with this (there a few democratic policies that I think will have pretty negative long-term effects; no need to get into that now). My point is just that the magnitude of these effects isn't as big as people want to believe.

Here’s a great idea that could help Democrats deliver for constituents. Let’s adopt this in other cities. 

 

1 hour ago, Boomerang_Brian said:

Here’s a great idea that could help Democrats deliver for constituents. Let’s adopt this in other cities. 

 

 

Could anyone imagine Republicans doing something like this? 

Probably not since the only cities over 50k people with Republican leadership are military towns where that wouldn't be an issue so much.

 

Taking more and more of our freedoms, you malignant b@stards

 

 

Ohio is a political sh!thole of such unimaginable depth

 

 

 

On 11/16/2022 at 10:00 PM, KJP said:

Taking more and more of our freedoms, you malignant b@stards

 

 

I know this and the 60% requirement for voter approved constitutional amendments are being thrown around directly in response to abortion and redistricting reform, but the more time I’ve had to think about it, the more okay I am with the 60% requirement. And that’s precisely because I don’t trust Ohio voters. I don’t trust urban voters to show up, and I don’t trust rural voters to not vote in support of  cruel, hateful amendments. So while, if this amendment were to be approved by voters, it could make it more difficult to pass abortion rights, I think it could also make it more difficult to pass harmful amendments as well, so it could end up coming back to bite the Ohio GOP in the ass.

35 minutes ago, amped91 said:

I know this and the 60% requirement for voter approved constitutional amendments are being thrown around directly in response to abortion and redistricting reform, but the more time I’ve had to think about it, the more okay I am with the 60% requirement. And that’s precisely because I don’t trust Ohio voters. I don’t trust urban voters to show up, and I don’t trust rural voters to not vote in support of  cruel, hateful amendments. So while, if this amendment were to be approved by voters, it could make it more difficult to pass abortion rights, I think it could also make it more difficult to pass harmful amendments as well, so it could end up coming back to bite the Ohio GOP in the ass.

 

A Constitution that can be amended by a simple majority vote isn't really a Constitution, it's just another law.

32 minutes ago, amped91 said:

I know this and the 60% requirement for voter approved constitutional amendments are being thrown around directly in response to abortion and redistricting reform, but the more time I’ve had to think about it, the more okay I am with the 60% requirement. And that’s precisely because I don’t trust Ohio voters. I don’t trust urban voters to show up, and I don’t trust rural voters to not vote in support of  cruel, hateful amendments. So while, if this amendment were to be approved by voters, it could make it more difficult to pass abortion rights, I think it could also make it more difficult to pass harmful amendments as well, so it could end up coming back to bite the Ohio GOP in the ass.

 

Republicans currently hold a super majority in the state house and have been passing their agenda into laws for years. What conservative issue do you think voters would bring to a referendum that our government hasn't already passed?

 

Sounds like you'd be willing to restrict everybody's freedom for a hypothetical, and entrench Republican control even further. Or maybe that's your goal though. Sounds anti democracy to me.

48 minutes ago, Mendo said:

 

Republicans currently hold a super majority in the state house and have been passing their agenda into laws for years. What conservative issue do you think voters would bring to a referendum that our government hasn't already passed?

 

Sounds like you'd be willing to restrict everybody's freedom for a hypothetical, and entrench Republican control even further. Or maybe that's your goal though. Sounds anti democracy to me.

Ohio voter base is slightly >50% Republican. So their 50%+1 can easily restrict everybody else’s freedom if they want. While this ploy’s intent is to shut down abortion and redistricting amendments, I can see this eventually backfiring on state conservatives in limiting their ability to pass extreme measures on the ballot (although you’re right in that they have a supermajority in the legislature, so there’s not much they can’t do already). And that’s only if this proposal is actually approved by voters. I will be voting no if it winds up on the ballot, but I am just trying to think about possible outcomes. 
 

Thank you very much for your dull attempt at character assassination though 🙂

Conservatives don't need your help playing devils advocate. They've have had no trouble passing their agenda until this point. Why restrict our ability to initiate and pass important constitutional amendments on the hypothetical they might turn around and do the same down the road. There are important issues that need to be dealt with now. 

 

And your faux outrage is duly noted. 

 

3 hours ago, Mendo said:

Conservatives don't need your help playing devils advocate. They've have had no trouble passing their agenda until this point. Why restrict our ability to initiate and pass important constitutional amendments on the hypothetical they might turn around and do the same down the road. There are important issues that need to be dealt with now. 

 

And your faux outrage is duly noted. 

 

Lol okay. Sad that different points of view from your own are apparently so threatening to you 🤷🏼‍♂️

I tend to agree with @amped91in general, that in the long term a 60% requirement to pass constitutional amendments would be good policy, because it protects from a simple majority from taking away fundamental rights 

 

But I also agree with @Mendothat in the shorter term its net effect will be negative, by making it harder to pass our immediate needs to protect abortion rights and fix the broken redistricting process

 

Concurrently, IMO the most important thing in state government right now is redistricting reform. We have got to get that on the ballot and passed as soon as possible, because until we do, as you both noted we have an unrepresentative anti-democratic GOP super-majority reigning in power in the general assembly completely unchecked from passing laws at whim. They have effectively moved to eliminate any threat to their tenure to date (require 60% statewide isssue majority, place party affiliations on ballot for supreme court, restrict early and mail in voting, strip power from board of education, etc), continuing to narrow the available paths and timeframe to dislodge them

 

I'm concerned that we've not heard more about the next steps on redistricting reform. It's been clear for months, way before the election results, that the ohio redistricting commission was incapable of fulfilling its duties, and that republicans would act in bad faith and grossly exploit the process as it exists now in their favor

 

Those months have gone by, we've now also seen the fruit of the efforts come to bear, yet we still haven't heard any organized group come forward with its intention or a proposal to get additional reform on the statewide ballot. Petitions should be circulating now (and should have been during the campaign as well, based on the well-evidenced shenanigans of the state GOP all year long)

 

To me, this is the root issue and keystone that needs to be in place if we're going to get anywhere at all on a number of other issues in this state for the foreseeable future. I hope that movement is well underway, and perhaps just being kept under wraps. If that movement has not started, or is only just coalescing, I hope that we can hear more soon on how we can get involved to support it. And it will be infinitely helpful for this initiative specifically, in the near future, if it only needs to pass at 50%+1

 

Edited November 21, 20222 yr by NW24HX

9 hours ago, amped91 said:

I know this and the 60% requirement for voter approved constitutional amendments are being thrown around directly in response to abortion and redistricting reform, but the more time I’ve had to think about it, the more okay I am with the 60% requirement. And that’s precisely because I don’t trust Ohio voters. I don’t trust urban voters to show up, and I don’t trust rural voters to not vote in support of  cruel, hateful amendments. So while, if this amendment were to be approved by voters, it could make it more difficult to pass abortion rights, I think it could also make it more difficult to pass harmful amendments as well, so it could end up coming back to bite the Ohio GOP in the ass.

This is only for citizen petitions for the constitution. Legislative amendments only need 50% to pass, so there's no practical impediment to amendments that could further tilt things in the GOP's favor.

It's really hard to get a petition on the ballot as it is, so a higher threshold is entirely unnecessary.

16 minutes ago, Dev said:

This is only for citizen petitions for the constitution. Legislative amendments only need 50% to pass, so there's no practical impediment to amendments that could further tilt things in the GOP's favor.

It's really hard to get a petition on the ballot as it is, so a higher threshold is entirely unnecessary.

Fair point. 
 

Also important to note that it sounds like they are trying to get it on the ballot for the May 2023 election, when there is likely to be low turnout. So it’s gonna be important to actually show up for this. 

11 hours ago, amped91 said:

Also important to note that it sounds like they are trying to get it on the ballot for the May 2023 election, when there is likely to be low turnout. So it’s gonna be important to actually show up for this. 

It will be interesting to see if it drives liberal turnout. Conventional wisdom says no but few predicted the current election cycle so never say never I guess.

Proposed Ohio Gun Laws See New Revisions

 

In a last-minute change, Ohio state Sen. Matt Dolan, R-Chagrin Falls, has stepped back from his plan to establish a so-called red flag law in Ohio. In its place, Dolan proposed a restriction on future gun purchases after a person is deemed a threat to themselves or others.

 

Dolan described the changes as a way to better tailor the bill’s impact.

 

“Talking with the advocates, both on the mental health side law enforcement side, a couple of things became clear. One is that we’re stigmatizing mental illness,” Dolan explained. “Number two is we weren’t capturing the right people.”

 

More below:

https://columbusunderground.com/proposed-ohio-gun-laws-see-new-revisions-ocj1/

Ohio GOP Plans Major Overhaul to Education Department

 

A new bill introduced by Ohio Senate Republicans last week seeks to “restructure” Ohio’s State Department of Education, create a new administrative division under the governor’s office, and dramatically reduce the state Board of Education’s duties.

 

This comes after two board members were unseated earlier this month, one a governor-appointed member before he sought election to the board, and another who was part of a movement on the board to rescind an anti-racism resolution that mired the state board in controversy.

 

Senate Bill 178, introduced in the Senate Primary and Secondary Education Committee last week by state Sen. Bill Reineke, R-Tiffin, seeks to “improve the academic achievement and workforce skills of our students, to drive better outcomes in their education, and to prepare for more effective career readiness,” the senator told the committee.

 

That will include creating a “state cabinet-level agency,” the Department of Education and Workforce, with the Division of Primary and Secondary Education and the Division of Career Technical Education under its umbrella.

 

More below:

https://columbusunderground.com/ohio-gop-plans-major-overhaul-to-education-department-ocj1/

Ohio GOP Wants New Restrictions on Citizen-Led Amendments

 

Lawmakers raised two ideas last Thursday with massive implications for Ohio voters. One is an initiative requiring citizen-led constitutional amendments gain a 60% supermajority at the ballot for passage, the other is a House bill aimed at rewriting the underlying infrastructure of how the state conducts elections.

 

The amendment

 

State Rep. Brian Stewart, R-Ashville, joined Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose to introduce their plan to “safeguard Ohio’s constitution from special interests,” by proposing the supermajority for passage.

 

“We have repeatedly watched as special interests buy their way onto the statewide ballot and then spend millions of dollars drowning the airwaves to secure fundamental changes to our state by a vote margin of 50% plus one vote,” Stewart argued.

 

Their plan singles out the citizen-led process for amending the state constitution and raises threshold for passage to 60%. The signature threshold for making the ballot would remain unchanged. LaRose argued lifting that benchmark would give the same interest groups a relative advantage.

 

“If a special interest group can afford to pay, you know, million dollars to hire people with clipboards,” LaRose reasoned, “they can afford to pay a million and a half dollars to hire more people with more clipboards.”

 

The stakes are high for any groups whose ideas have fallen on deaf ears in Columbus. The prospects for abortion protection, recreational marijuana, minimum wage increases, gun violence prevention, or further redistricting reform provisions are effectively non-existent in the GOP-controlled Statehouse. LaRose and Stewart’s proposal would move the goal posts for any of those ideas.

 

The proposal itself, of course, will need to go to voters and get just 50% plus one to alter the Ohio Constitution. It will follow a different process, too. Stewart’s resolution would make the ballot through a General Assembly vote rather than the citizen signature-gathering process.

 

That lawmaker-led process won’t see any changes in the threshold for passage, either. LaRose and Stewart dismissed any suggestion their approach is unfair. Lawmakers have to meet a supermajority benchmark, too, they argued. It’s on “the front end” where they have to clear a 2/3 supermajority to make the ballot.

 

Under maps declared to be unconstitutional gerrymandering by a bipartisan majority on the Ohio Supreme Court, Ohio Republicans once again won rock-solid supermajorities in the Ohio House and the Ohio Senate earlier this month.

 

LaRose and Stewart highlighted how 11 of 16 citizen-led amendments have failed since 2000, so it wasn’t clear exactly why they want to raise the bar higher as they also noted of the five measures that passed, three cleared 60% at the ballot box.

 

Way more below:

https://columbusunderground.com/ohio-gop-wants-new-restrictions-on-citizen-led-amendments-ocj1/

 

5 hours ago, ColDayMan said:

Ohio GOP Plans Major Overhaul to Education Department

 

A new bill introduced by Ohio Senate Republicans last week seeks to “restructure” Ohio’s State Department of Education, create a new administrative division under the governor’s office, and dramatically reduce the state Board of Education’s duties.

 

This comes after two board members were unseated earlier this month, one a governor-appointed member before he sought election to the board, and another who was part of a movement on the board to rescind an anti-racism resolution that mired the state board in controversy.

 

Senate Bill 178, introduced in the Senate Primary and Secondary Education Committee last week by state Sen. Bill Reineke, R-Tiffin, seeks to “improve the academic achievement and workforce skills of our students, to drive better outcomes in their education, and to prepare for more effective career readiness,” the senator told the committee.

 

That will include creating a “state cabinet-level agency,” the Department of Education and Workforce, with the Division of Primary and Secondary Education and the Division of Career Technical Education under its umbrella.

 

More below:

https://columbusunderground.com/ohio-gop-plans-major-overhaul-to-education-department-ocj1/

 

Real headline: One of the most anti-education, anti-science, anti-reality political parties in generations wants to remove more control over public education from educators after seeing their power slip through voter results. 

 

 

5 hours ago, ColDayMan said:

Ohio GOP Wants New Restrictions on Citizen-Led Amendments

 

Lawmakers raised two ideas last Thursday with massive implications for Ohio voters. One is an initiative requiring citizen-led constitutional amendments gain a 60% supermajority at the ballot for passage, the other is a House bill aimed at rewriting the underlying infrastructure of how the state conducts elections.

 

The amendment

 

State Rep. Brian Stewart, R-Ashville, joined Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose to introduce their plan to “safeguard Ohio’s constitution from special interests,” by proposing the supermajority for passage.

 

“We have repeatedly watched as special interests buy their way onto the statewide ballot and then spend millions of dollars drowning the airwaves to secure fundamental changes to our state by a vote margin of 50% plus one vote,” Stewart argued.

 

Their plan singles out the citizen-led process for amending the state constitution and raises threshold for passage to 60%. The signature threshold for making the ballot would remain unchanged. LaRose argued lifting that benchmark would give the same interest groups a relative advantage.

 

“If a special interest group can afford to pay, you know, million dollars to hire people with clipboards,” LaRose reasoned, “they can afford to pay a million and a half dollars to hire more people with more clipboards.”

 

The stakes are high for any groups whose ideas have fallen on deaf ears in Columbus. The prospects for abortion protection, recreational marijuana, minimum wage increases, gun violence prevention, or further redistricting reform provisions are effectively non-existent in the GOP-controlled Statehouse. LaRose and Stewart’s proposal would move the goal posts for any of those ideas.

 

The proposal itself, of course, will need to go to voters and get just 50% plus one to alter the Ohio Constitution. It will follow a different process, too. Stewart’s resolution would make the ballot through a General Assembly vote rather than the citizen signature-gathering process.

 

That lawmaker-led process won’t see any changes in the threshold for passage, either. LaRose and Stewart dismissed any suggestion their approach is unfair. Lawmakers have to meet a supermajority benchmark, too, they argued. It’s on “the front end” where they have to clear a 2/3 supermajority to make the ballot.

 

Under maps declared to be unconstitutional gerrymandering by a bipartisan majority on the Ohio Supreme Court, Ohio Republicans once again won rock-solid supermajorities in the Ohio House and the Ohio Senate earlier this month.

 

LaRose and Stewart highlighted how 11 of 16 citizen-led amendments have failed since 2000, so it wasn’t clear exactly why they want to raise the bar higher as they also noted of the five measures that passed, three cleared 60% at the ballot box.

 

Way more below:

https://columbusunderground.com/ohio-gop-wants-new-restrictions-on-citizen-led-amendments-ocj1/

 

 

Real headline: State GOP, seeing citizen-led success stories against their regressive agenda in other states, seeks to limit the power of citizens do anything about it locally.

 

Both of these stories are just more examples of how Republicans are fascists who will do everything they can to limit the democratic process so that they can run the state unchallenged and insert fringe religious and moral viewpoints into more and more people's lives. 

Edited November 22, 20222 yr by jonoh81

 

Interesting, looks somewhat promising, thoughts?

 

https://www.cleveland.com/news/2022/11/ohio-senate-passes-sweeping-criminal-justice-reform-bill.html

23 minutes ago, Ethan said:

Interesting, looks somewhat promising, thoughts?

 

https://www.cleveland.com/news/2022/11/ohio-senate-passes-sweeping-criminal-justice-reform-bill.html

 

Looks pretty good, but really they should eliminate jail time for underage drinking.  Sixty days for having a beer for a legal adult is ridiculous.

I'm not a prosecutor, but I'm going to bet that even now, as a first-degree misdemeanor that could result in 6 months/$1000, underage drinking almost never results in sentences above the third-degree level (60 days/$500) unless the underage drinker also caused damage of some kind on top of the mere act of underage drinking, or there was some other aggravating factor.

 

I shouldn't admit this as a licensed attorney, but when I was in undergrad at OSU, I did witness this law being violated at least once.

1 hour ago, Gramarye said:

I'm not a prosecutor, but I'm going to bet that even now, as a first-degree misdemeanor that could result in 6 months/$1000, underage drinking almost never results in sentences above the third-degree level (60 days/$500) unless the underage drinker also caused damage of some kind on top of the mere act of underage drinking, or there was some other aggravating factor.

 

I shouldn't admit this as a licensed attorney, but when I was in undergrad at OSU, I did witness this law being violated at least once...

 

...a day.

4 hours ago, Gramarye said:

I'm not a prosecutor, but I'm going to bet that even now, as a first-degree misdemeanor that could result in 6 months/$1000, underage drinking almost never results in sentences above the third-degree level (60 days/$500) unless the underage drinker also caused damage of some kind on top of the mere act of underage drinking, or there was some other aggravating factor.

 

I shouldn't admit this as a licensed attorney, but when I was in undergrad at OSU, I did witness this law being violated at least once.

 

Perhaps, but why allow such a stiff penalty at all?  If some other sort of damage was caused, then the charges related to that damage per se should carry an appropriate penalty.

Just now, X said:

 

Perhaps, but why allow such a stiff penalty at all?  If some other sort of damage was caused, then the charges related to that damage per se should carry an appropriate penalty.

 

Plea bargains.  Assuming underage drinking follows a similar pattern to drug cases, the charges are brought when there's underage consumption/possession (A) + B + C + D (the things that really attracted their notice, quite possibly), and then the prosecution says they'll drop B, C, and D if you plead guilty to underage consumption/possession.  Maybe buying/using a fake ID, for example (also an M1, I think).

 

But yes, an appropriate follow-on question would be "OK, when someone plea-bargains down to just underage consumption/possession, what's the max that person should be signing up for?"  (Because plea bargains may come with a recommended sentence, but the judge can still impose up to the statutory maximum for the pled offense, so lowering the ceiling changes the risk for the defendant.)

Survey: Majority of Ohioans Want to Tax the Rich

 

A new survey shows support from likely Ohio voters for more taxes on richer residents, a higher minimum wage, and renewal of the child tax credit.

 

The survey, conducted in September through a partnership between Ohio thinktank Policy Matters Ohio and California-based polling firm Data for Progress, showed 71% of the nearly 1,400 Ohio voters polled supported a new tax bracket for residents making more than $250,000, and another for those making more than $500,000.

 

“Urban voters show the strongest support at 78%, compared to suburban voters (68%) and rural voters (69%),” the groups said in announcing the poll on Dec. 1.

 

More below:

https://columbusunderground.com/survey-majority-of-ohioans-want-to-tax-the-rich-ocj1/

 

New Push for $15 Minimum Wage in Ohio

 

A new push for a $15 minimum wage was introduced in the Ohio House last week, attempting to speed up the progress of a constitutional amendment passed nearly two decades ago.

 

Democratic state Reps. Dontavius Jarrells and Brigid Kelly said their new bill not only addresses criticisms of quick implementation of a minimum wage increase, but also make a difference for struggling Ohioans.

 

“We heard concerns of colleagues and made a longer runway for the increases,” Kelly told the House committee on Commerce and Labor. “But the longer we wait to act, the less impactful this action will be.”

 

House Bill 69 would phase in those increases to reach $15 per hour by 2027.

 

Since the bill never received a hearing after it was initially filed in February of 2021, an amendment would be needed to change the language, which set the first increase to happen on Jan. 1, 2022.

 

More below:

https://columbusunderground.com/new-push-for-15-minimum-wage-in-ohio-ocj1/

 

Racism Could be Considered a Public Health Crisis in Ohio

 

An Ohio Senate resolution to declare racism a public health crisis is back on the table.

 

Democratic state Sen. Hearcel Craig of Columbus introduced the legislation last Wednesday, matching a measure he pushed in the last General Assembly.

 

“This problem requires attention from every level of government,” Craig told the Senate Health Committee. “In Ohio, 32 city and county governments, boards of health and mayors have officially declared racism a public health crisis.”

 

In touting support for the legislation as bipartisan, Craig quoted Gov. Mike DeWine, who said himself in a 2020 press conference that racism stands a public health crisis, a crisis that was exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic.

 

More below:

https://columbusunderground.com/racism-could-be-considered-a-public-health-crisis-in-ohio-ocj1/

 

Ohio Senate votes to redefine ‘green energy’ to include fossil fuels and drilling in state parks

House Bill 507 was originally called “the chicken bill,” aimed at regulating the number of poultry chicks that can be sold in lots. But this week, during a frenzy of lame-duck legislating, Republicans in the Ohio Senate amended the bill to change a scientific definition and approve oil and gas drilling in state parks for basically anyone who applies...

 

Full article is here.

Bad news for the Perry State Forest I bet.

Separate groups announce pursuit of abortion rights amendments in Ohio constitution

 

"COLUMBUS, Ohio – Two separate groups announced Monday that they are working to get constitutional amendments passed to enshrine abortion rights in Ohio, setting up a possible vote as soon as November 2023."

 

https://www.cleveland.com/news/2022/12/ohio-physicians-for-reproductive-rights-to-pursue-constitutional-amendment-protecting-abortion-rights-in-2023.html

 

Anti-Vax Bill Proposed to Ban COVID-19 Vaccine Mandates in Ohio Colleges

 

A bill that would specifically ban mandates for COVID-19 vaccines at colleges and universities in Ohio was introduced last week in a House committee.

 

House Bill 747’s messaging, authored by Republican state Rep. Scott Lipps, promotes bodily autonomy when it comes to refusing vaccinations, even in medical school programs.

 

“By requiring vaccines and discriminating against individuals who choose not to receive one, we are not only making very intimate health decisions for our students, but we are showing them that their education, choice, and autonomy are less meaningful and not of their own control,” Lipps told the House Higher Education and Career Readiness Committee.

 

More below:

https://columbusunderground.com/anti-vax-bill-proposed-to-ban-covid-19-vaccine-mandates-in-ohio-colleges-ocj1/

 

Ohio may let kids as young as 14 work late on school nights to help with 'staffing problems'

 

https://www.beaconjournal.com/story/news/politics/2022/12/14/ohio-might-let-1415-year-olds-work-past-7-p-m-on-school-nights/69724757007/

 

Fourteen and 15-year-olds across Ohio could be allowed to work until 9 p.m. on a school night if a bill moving its way through Ohio's statehouse passes.

 

Current Ohio law prohibits kids under 16 from working past 7 p.m. ...

 

But Ohio's new law would only apply to businesses that are exempted from the Fair Labor Standards Act. The FLSA says children between the ages of 14-16 can only work past 7 p.m. during the summer, and it applies to enterprises with an annual gross volume of sales above $500,000 or those engaged in interstate commerce.

 

Basically, federal law would prohibit national chains from letting kids work later but not your local deli.

 

================================

 

I'm casually but not deeply in favor of this, simply because I don't think it will change all that much.  Not that many 14- and 15-year-olds work at all; and those that do could already work until 7 p.m. on school nights, so this is really just about the hours between 7 and 9 p.m. at non-FLSA businesses.

 

Note that there are separate safety rules in effect for dangerous occupations, so it's not like 14- and 15-year-olds were out being ordnance disposal technicians even before 7 p.m. under existing law.

Does this affect kids working for family businesses, or are they already exempt from these rules like most other laws? 

 

I imagine that's the biggest group of kids under 16 who would want to work late

If someone under 18 works for their folks there are no rules unless they pipe up and say they're not doing it.

I employ about 90 people. We need this!!!!  My last round of hiring in October saw the youngest pool of applicants we have ever had. Lots of 14-16 year olds. I was shocked. They want to work, but the rules make it difficult for me to provide hours for them during the week, which leaves only weekends open to utilize their labor. Then at that point, I can only utilize one or two at a time. Additionally, the $500k threshold is pretty low, so this proposal wouldn't help us anyway.

Let parents decide if the kid can work til 9.

How about an Ohio attracting immigrants program to fill some of our job openings instead of chasing them all away to the coastal cities?  

20 minutes ago, Cleburger said:

How about an Ohio attracting immigrants program to fill some of our job openings instead of chasing them all away to the coastal cities?  

 

Why do that when we can rely more on child labor?

20 minutes ago, Cleburger said:

How about an Ohio attracting immigrants program to fill some of our job openings instead of chasing them all away to the coastal cities?  

 

Hey now.  Immigrants are expensive.  You want my wife to roll out of bed, that's $1000 a day. 🤑 😎

 

Also, it's not like those coastal cities have some attracting-immigrants government programs, either.  Immigrants are attracted there by ties of family and community, and of course by job opportunities.  That applies in Ohio, too; we just don't have quite as many such anchor communities.

 

13 minutes ago, X said:

Why do that when we can rely more on child labor?

 

I've seen some 15-year-olds that were definitely capable of being more productive members of an office team than some 50-year-olds.

49 minutes ago, Cleburger said:

How about an Ohio attracting immigrants program to fill some of our job openings instead of chasing them all away to the coastal cities?  

I would not say Ohio chases them away (or other Midwestern states and areas) chase them away, a lot prefer to cluster in larger cities especially on the coasts and are not willing to consider smaller markets, or rural markets. Look at all the rural hospitals that struggle to find doctors. These jobs pay $200k+ per year depending on the specialty. There are a lot of J-1 Visa holders who refuse to consider these positions even though it guarantees their entrance and work in the US in their stated profession. Once they are in, they can transfer to an H-1 program and even Green Card in a few years, but they have to start out as J-1. Hospitals around the country are begging for these professionals. There are a lot of professionals who will not go to a rural hospital on a J-1. Most suburban and city hospitals cannot take J-1 Visas. The demand is there but the supply is refusing to work there. 

Hopefully it’s fully dead

 

7 hours ago, Boomerang_Brian said:

Hopefully it’s fully dead

 

 

Hmmm....did they have a permit to be there or were they trespassing?

11 minutes ago, E Rocc said:

 

Hmmm....did they have a permit to be there or were they trespassing?

Seeing as how they rely on wildly gerrymandered districts to build unearned super-majorities, I’d say they were definitely trespassing. Or were you talking about the Ohio citizens asking their politicians to actually listen for a change? 😀

1 hour ago, Boomerang_Brian said:

Seeing as how they rely on wildly gerrymandered districts to build unearned super-majorities, I’d say they were definitely trespassing. Or were you talking about the Ohio citizens asking their politicians to actually listen for a change? 😀

 

It's easy to cry "gerrymandering" but the fact is they are effectively compelled to concentrate Democratic votes, and this is a Republican majority state to begin with.