DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk K-9 Consensus How Will You Vote On Issue Two?

Issue 2 single choice
	Yes
	No
Votes accepted starting: 11/02/11 07:18 AM You must vote before you can view the results of this poll.

I'm still on the fence here. I don't like how overpaid the teachers at my school are, but I also don't like the idea of eliminating collective bargaining. I need to sit down and do some more in depth research before deciding.

The PD has a pretty good article about Issue 2 in their endorsements section. They are hardly a conservative paper in a conservative area.

It's not a perfect law, but it would do away with binding arbitration, and that's a huge sore spot with me. It would enable cities and municipalities (taxpayers) to do what private employers can do right now, and that's make necessary changes to contribution levels on insurances and other benefits.

We simply cannot afford the status quo, and we have to make major changes in the way we conduct business in Ohio.

http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index.ssf/2011/10/the_law_will_need_adjustments.html

The law will need adjustments, but vote 'yes' on state Issue 2 to break Ohio away from an unsustainable status quo: editorial
Published: Saturday, October 15, 2011, 7:38 PM     Updated: Monday, October 17, 2011, 11:54 AM
By The Plain Dealer Editorial Board


ENDORSEMENT
Ohioans more vested in pragmatism than partisanship face a difficult and frankly unappetizing choice on Nov. 8:

They can vote "yes" on Issue 2, which not only diminishes the bargaining power of public-employee unions in the state but seems designed to antagonize the very people who perform some of the most important and dangerous jobs in our communities.

Or they can vote "no," thereby locking in a status quo so unbalanced that it has become a barrier to reforming schools, right-sizing local government and making Ohio more attractive to investment.

This issue fell to voters when a union-led petition drive stopped Senate Bill 5 from going into effect after it was passed by the Ohio General Assembly and signed by Gov. John Kasich.

Yet whatever voters decide, a middle road that enables needed change without trampling on the dignity of public servants will be hard to find once this bitter political fight ends.

That's why, whether Issue 2 passes or fails, legislators must re-enter the fray sooner rather than later. And they must do so in a more inclusive and broadly representative way than they did either this spring in passing Senate Bill 5 with only Republican votes -- or in 1983, when Statehouse Democrats shoved through a bargaining law tailored for their political allies.

Ohio law must not impede reform, and it won't if it creates a level playing field for public-sector workers and their employers.

Right now, that field is tipped in favor of the unions. Recognizing that reality does not mean we oppose public-employee unions or that we do not appreciate what their members do and the sacrifices some already have made. The most disturbing aspect of the effort first to pass Senate Bill 5 in Columbus and now to uphold it as Issue 2 on the ballot has been its frequent tone of disrespect toward public workers. You cannot treat any employees that way and expect them to work more efficiently and creatively.

That said, Ohio desperately needs to control the costs of government at all levels. It needs to send a clear message that the old, familiar ways of doing the public's business have to change.

In schools, the emphasis has to be on the progress of children, not the comfort of adults. In city halls and county offices, the impact on those who pay the bills -- and the sheer magnitude of those bills -- must be paramount.

Rules that made sense in 1983 do not make sense anymore. Ohio needs a fresh start.

Because of that, this editorial board -- after much soul-searching and vigorous discussion -- has decided to endorse the passage of Issue 2.

Imperfect though it may be, Issue 2 will give local governments and school districts more tools to control labor costs and protect taxpayers. It requires public employees to make the same kind of contributions toward their health and pension benefits that most private-sector workers do. It ends state-mandated wage step-ups, requires performance-based pay and permits layoffs based on more than seniority. Those factors are especially important to school districts such as Cleveland that need to transform themselves in the face of outmoded state rules that force them to toss aside newer -- and perhaps better -- teachers when money is tight.

Issue 2 also would revamp the current system of binding arbitration. Envisioned as a way to resolve deadlocks without strikes, such arbitration in practice can short-circuit bargaining because neither side has to put its real bottom line on the table and instead can roll the dice with an arbitrator who must pick between competing proposals. Mayors, including Akron's Don Plusquellic -- a Democrat who opposes Issue 2 -- have complained bitterly for years that arbitrators need not consider a city's finances in making their decisions. That has to change.

But Issue 2 ends binding arbitration in a way that also raises questions: It leaves the final decision on an impasse to the employer's legislative body -- that is the city council or school board. Unions and their allies say that lets the employer decide. Yet even skeptical supporters of Issue 2 wonder if elected officials will really make tough decisions regarding popular -- and politically active -- employees such as police officers, firefighters and teachers.

This is one component of Issue 2 that should be rethought if the measure passes. Another is the ban on public-employee strikes -- already rare in Ohio -- that also would distort bargaining. Finally, the General Assembly would need to excise provisions -- notably a ban on collecting "fair share" dues from bargaining unit members who refuse to join the union, but reap the benefits of representation -- that organized labor views as a threat to its existence. Such a ban is needless -- and needlessly provocative.

Unions can be important advocates for their members, and a measure sold as restoring balance ought to do just that -- not shift power decisively to the other side.

Once the votes are tallied, Kasich must take the lead in suggesting these changes.

And should Issue 2 fail, Ohio will still need a more efficient and competitive public sector -- at the very least, the governor should make another run at performance pay, an end to restrictive seniority rules and greater flexibility on employee benefits.

Either way, this page will continue to push for the balance that should have been struck months ago.

Kasich hinted at a willingness to compromise in August when he invited opponents of Senate Bill 5 to negotiate and head off this referendum. The offer was months overdue, but by refusing it, labor and its allies signaled their zest for a fight, not a resolution. Even now, they court incredulity by clinging to the idea that the status quo is just fine, despite the high cost of local government in Ohio.

Polls consistently show that Ohioans like many aspects of Senate Bill 5, but not the nasty tone behind it. When this campaign ends, Kasich has a chance to be a healer. He must not pass it up.

Nor should Ohio pass up this opportunity to break with an unsustainable status quo. Yes, change is scary. But look around: Not changing is even scarier.

When they mark their ballots, Ohioans cannot worry about what is best for any political party or interest group -- on either side of this debate. They need to consider what's best for the
future of their children, their communities, their state.

They need to pass Issue 2.

I will vote no on it.. Not because I think it doesn't have merit...I actually think it was a good bill..

I don't like how it was done. Much like nobody (including me) liked having the Healthcare reform bill shoved down out throats..

Kasich tried to take a shortcut that was bound to fail eventually (just like the Healthcare reform will)

Instead of sitting down with these groups and hashing it out, he decided to just blow it past them..

Good idea, poor execution... it will go down..

Wow .... do you have any idea how insane that sounds?

Does it sound as insane as:

We're going to negotiate on a contract. If we can't reach a deal, we get to decide which contract goes into effect, yours or ours.

I said that the law wasn't perfect.

I would much rather have the local government decide than the union though.

Quote:

---

Instead of sitting down with these groups and hashing it out, he decided to just blow it past them..

Good idea, poor execution... it will go down..

---

That's the whole problem. Many of the people who sit down to "hash it out" with the unions had their campaigns financed by those same unions. No government entity shoud be permitted to unionize for this very reason. It's a conflict of interest.

Fair enough.

I will say this. I know several teachers and police officers who were so gung-ho for Kasich, but now think he's the devil.

It really comes across as the old "I want you to cut things from the budget, but nothing that affects me" line of thought.

JMHO

That is exactly what it is ..... but unfortunately, the biggest line items to cut in a state or local budget are wages and/or benefits for public workers. If someone is a public worker, I don't think that they should expect to make much more than the private sector workers who pay their salaries make. I find it ridiculous that there are some turnpike toll collectors making over $100K. Even with overtime, that is ridiculous. I find it appalling that certain public sector employees start working every bit of overtime they can in their final 2-3 years on the job to drive up their retirement because the formula is based off of that time frame, at least in part. It is idiotic that a worker at damn near any private enterprise should have t pay 15% of their wages in healthcare ..... but some public sector employees get away with far less.

No one making a living off of the taxpayers should do better than most of those taxpayers who pay their wages/benefits. If the average wage for Ohio is under $50,000, then no one in the public sector should be making more than that ..... unless their job puts their life in direct jeopardy. Then I could see a premium paid for those jobs .... but even then, people in the private sector work dangerous jobs too.

The average income in the US is just under $50,000. Should a toll collector make that, or more? They are a glorified cashier. They take the ticket, punch it, and make change. This isn't rocket science. I bet that those jobs would go away if a private enterprise were to take over the turnpike. They would probably pay $10-$12/hour, and have a line of people 10 miles long to apply.

People say "Well, what happens when those good paying jobs go away?" What does happen? Prices start to drop for the rest of us, for starters. Artificially inflated wages for unskilled labor in the public sector does very little to "help the rest of us" in the larger scheme of things. Even GM type jobs do little to influence wages. We have a glutted workforce for employers to choose from. They aren't going to overpay. If private sector wages are stagnant, or drop, why should public sector wages remain the same, or increase? If the private sector loses more and more of their income picking up more and more of the tab on their healthcare and other benefits, why should they be forced to pay more to make sure that public sector employees don't make the same "shared sacrifice"?

This is the problem I have with the whole thing. There is this sense of entitlement among many public sector employees and unions that says that they should be above that particular fray. Well I'm sorry, but when it's my tax dollars paying the bills, I want a voice in it, and I want my local governments to have every possible tool to use to keep the bills in line.

Two no votes here. Having been on the side which needed arbitration (and they are not all binding), I see the need to talk. The Kasich approach is wrong, the numbers are wrong, and it could be done differently than his tactics. Not an enemy; I also am a taxpayer. Wife and I contributed beyond the figures they are repeating frantically. What taxpayers can't afford are politicians like this who have joyously hurt Ohio. Hope it goes down. We are professionals, not serfs.

Really? I didn't know that.

My belief is that employees should be able to band together to strengthen their position. That's just what I believe.

Just like many believe that employers should be able to do whatever they want because, after all, they're the ones in charge. I don't believe in that system, but I understand there are some who do. And that's fine.

JMHO

If my employees start a union, I'm closing my shop. Seriously, though...if someone doesn't like something about their job, it's their right to find another. Employees should not make decisions about a business, imo.

Not that anyone will care ..... but I early voted today as I am having some more work done at my house next Tuesday .... and I voted against issue 1, (extending the mandatory retirement age for judges) for issue 2, (keeping Senate Bill 5) and against issue 3. (the bill supposedly to repeal Obamacare, which I agree with, but the bill itself is so badly written (much like Obamacare) that I worry what could be done if it passes)

What the hell are you talking about?

Humor me ..... let's pretend that I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about ......

I'm waiting.

It's like the gay marriage amendment, that was so badly written that there are tons of unintended consequences that have nothing at all to do with gay marriage. People just saw "gay marriage ban" and voted for it, no matter how badly written the law was. I fear that this will go the same way.

It is an amendment, which means that many of the provisions will be incredibly difficult to overturn later .... and if the federal government successfully defends Obamacare. (which I believe to be unlikely as they have gone out of their way to NOT characterize it as a "tax", and a tax is the only way that could make it constitutional. On appeal, they cannot add new evidence, just ask for a review based on admitted evidence, and a ruling that feel is not constitutional) If Obamacare is approved, then federal law would trump stats law, and this amendment would be moot ..... except for the unintended consequences.

Issue 2 makes sense and does what people wanted done .... so people are voting against it .... and issue 3 is a cluster of a mess ..... but people are going to vote to pass it. No wonder this country is so screwed up. No one actually reads the stuff they vote on .. or even take the time to investigate the issues at all.

Yeah, issue 3 is a throw in in an attempt to get people out who will vote in favor of issue 2. Just like gay marriage was a throw in in order to get people out who are generally more conservative.

below are some results about collective bargaining in Ohio since 2008

Among the findings:
• Public union workers have saved taxpayers $1,059,881,500 billion
through collective bargaining concessions since 2008.
• Teachers and support staff accepted wage freezes in more than 90
percent of collective bargaining agreements this year – concessions
not tallied in this report because they are not yet available.
• Last year, at least 65 percent of public employee contracts included at
least 1 year of wage freezes, some furlough days, reduced
compensation, rollovers or economic re-openers.
• Some of the lowest-paid public employees – non-teaching personnel
such as custodians – have gone up to eight years without a pay
increase in exchange for stable health care costs.
• A Warren police officer blames cuts in safety forces for the injuries he
sustained while rescuing people from a burning building in which one
person died.
• More than two-thirds of all teachers’ contracts increased employee
insurance premium contributions or significantly changed their health
plans, with the savings often used to improve educational
opportunities for students.
• More than 93 percent of public workers already pay for their own
pension contribution, with no pick-up from their employers.
• On average, county and state employees pay more than 15 percent for
their health care plans.
• A sample review of concessions in a half dozen Ohio cities shows that
employees and safety forces have saved their towns nearly $10 million
since 2008.

After the governor came out and said that that the public workers have not given up anything and need to and also that senate bill 5 does not apply to any elected leaders. VOTE NO

Quote:

---

Public union workers have saved taxpayers $1,059,881,500 billion
through collective bargaining concessions since 2008.

---

Based on what? Wages? Benefits? Job concessions? What?

Quote:

---

• Some of the lowest-paid public employees – non-teaching personnel
such as custodians – have gone up to eight years without a pay
increase in exchange for stable health care costs.

---

And many of the lowest paid private sector employees have gone years without raises, and with no health care, or huge annual increases each and every year. I know that my health care costs ate up my raises plus for the last 2 years.

Quote:

---

• A Warren police officer blames cuts in safety forces for the injuries he
sustained while rescuing people from a burning building in which one
person died.

---

Cuts in safety forces, and all sectors of public employment are going to be under pressure when there is no money. Unfortunately, the popular thing today is to cut safety services while refusing to cut administrative and other staffing to "show voters" that they have to pass huge levies.

Quote:

---

• On average, county and state employees pay more than 15 percent for
their health care plans.

---

And I pay 50%. So what.

Since Issue 2 would make it mandatory for public employees to pay at least 15% of their health care and make certain retirement contributions mandatory as well ....... then public employees should have no problem with Issue 2 (SB5) making these mandatory.

Quote:

---

Public union workers have saved taxpayers $1,059,881,500 billion

---

So, you saved us taxpayers over a megatrillion dollars?

This sounds like one of those BS commercials. Do you have a link to back up these stats?

Yes!

Perhaps if the unions where not so greedy in the past, then we wouldn't be having this conversation and vote today.

I haven't seen 1 vote (no) add talk about the actual issues ... Like paying something in on their retirement<(a dream for many) and their health insurance.

They know that they have a good scam going and that's why they have spent so much on their propaganda adds.

They would rather we raise taxes and that's not going to fix our economy.

They claim that there will be jobs lost, but their has been plenty of that with the current system already.

A couple of years ago here in Ashtabula County, the sheriffs wanted voters to pass a levy, so they would not have to layoff any officers.

The levy failed and they laid off a boat load of officers, but here's the kicker.

They mysteriously found enough money to hire them back after only a short time.

They thought that we could be hoodwinked.

weareohio.com/Downloads/ssreport.pdf

Repealed.

Yep.

No surprise there.

Voters: "We need to get spending under control in this state! Every level spends too much money. Unions demand ridiculous benefits, and taxpayers pay for pay rates and benefits for public sector employees that we ourselves don't receive."


So .... when there is a measure to control these costs ..... of course, the voters repeal it because it's "mean".

No wonder this country is in the mess it's in.

Next time a city or county hits up the voters for a tax increase or threatens to lay off police, fire, and/or close libraries ..... remember this vote. If people pay attention to the binding arbitration system currently in use in Ohio that takes so many factors into account ..... except whether or not the city/county/municipality can actually afford to pay the arbitration awards.

I don't know a single person who voted to repeal it because it was 'mean'.

I know many who wanted to repeal it because it took away benefits given to military veterans who entered civil service, or because it would cause the depletion of already thin police and fire units or because it's essentially union-busting.

But I haven't heard anyone say they voted against it because it's mean.

Personally, I think if the state wants to cut it's budget, it should start by slashing subsidies to private business first, then get into what it's actually supposed to fund.

Ohio gave out $162.9 million in subsidy money to private farming businesses in 2010.

Over the last 15 years we've given $3.4 billion to corn subsidies, $1.5 billion for soybean subsidies, $594 million to wheat subsidies. $177 million to dairy. $15 million to tobacco.

That's just farming.

Quote:

---

I don't know a single person who voted to repeal it because it was 'mean'.

---

Really? Read this thread and you'll find one. There have been a lot here in Youngstown, hotbed of union/government intimate relations ........

I don't know of a single person or ad that stressed the military aspect. Further, I don't know that we need to unbalance civil service tests for veterans. I feel that civil service tests should be given, and the person who scores the highest should get first opportunity. What is the purpose of testing if not to get the most qualified candidate .... not the "most qualified and belonging to a certain group or groups .....

Accept those candidates who score the best. Expect that only the best are accepted into these jobs. Eliminate all of the bonus points for race, creed, color, gender, sexual orientation. military status, and so on. Make exams matter by making the scores the determining factor ..... not the score ... weighted on so many factors that a person can be far less qualified than another person ..... and still gets the job because of all of the other factors.

At the local level, binding arbitration is killing local governments. People are so afraid of strikes that we have locked in this idiotic system where the budget of the local government is not a factor in the slightest. The employee comes up with a number, the government comes u with a number, and the arbitrator decides. This automatically sets the government number higher than it would otherwise be because they don't want to "lowball" someone and lose the arbitration case. It's moronic. The rights of the taxpayers have to come into play somewhere. We have people working the toll booths on the Turnpike making $60,000 or more per year. They are cashiers .... without the sidework. Think about that for a minute. The state of Ohio has a site where you can check the wages and salary of every state and local employee. It's appalling the disparity between the private and public sectors for similar work. Now, if a private employer wants to pay crazy wages and benefits, they can do so and take a shorter profit margin, or raise prices. If they do that too much they will go bankrupt. (Like GM, Chrysler, etc) In the public sector it doesn't matter .... just get the taxpayers to pony up again.

For everyone who voted against this issue ... they have no right to complain at all if their next election includes a local tax increase or levy .... and police, firemen, libraries, and all of the usual targets are employed to blackmail voters into raising their own taxes. This bill would have eliminated seniority as the main factor in layoffs. It would have created an avenue for cities, counties and municipalities to control costs, and to force public sector employees to pay for their benefits in a structure that almost all private sector employees would still trade theirs for. It would put the power in the hands of the governments instead of the unions in several areas. Not all, but several. Right now the unions have most of the power. Given that many local governments, like those in Youngstown, are arms of the unions anyway ..... it's really over the top. This is why a poor city like Youngstown has one of the highest local income tax rates in the state. Given that there is little business moving into the city, taxes will have to go up in the future again ..... because the public sector costs continue to rise .... and the taxpayer base continues to shrink. Then we'll get that lovely "choice" of increasing our taxes again ...... or laying off police and firemen ............

It is like Dante's 10th circle of hell.

As far as subsidies .... I don't agree with those either. Just because "A" is wrong doesn't make "B" right.

This went a lot of places it didn't need to go. Bad bill. Now get to work on jobs. We have many outspoken folks who seemingly know the price of everything and value nothing much beyond themselves. We can be better than this as a state and a country, but the attack dogs will need to give it a rest. Hard to ignore the message it sends.

Quote:

---

Government should not be funding private business. At all.

---

I'm just curious Phil, how do you feel about tax concessions? If Business X wants to build a factory that will employ 1000 people and they are deciding where to build it, Ohio, South Carolina or Texas, do you feel Ohio should participate in a "bidding war" to try to lure that factory to Ohio even if it means giving tax concessions or do you feel they should just say go somewhere else if you get a better deal...

And would you consider that a subsidy?

Quote:

---

As far as subsidies .... I don't agree with those either. Just because "A" is wrong doesn't make "B" right.

---

Bravo!

There are 30 million reasons why this bill failed.



Edit: self professed rant below;

Hitler showed the world what the power of propaganda can do and society has been following his lead thereafter.
Even in the face of it's consequences.

I consider this to be a repeating of our mistakes and the consequences are that end the end we have come no farther then the Roman Empire in the evolution of our society and how we put people into classes of the privileged and at the expense of the unprivileged, yet lead to believe that it is in our best interest.

You bet your britches I am.

Baah!