Go Back   CityProfile.com Forum - Local City and State Discussion Forums > United States City Forums > Ohio > Columbus
Click Here to Login

Reply
Old 03-01-2011, 09:25 PM  
Junior Member

Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 20 | Kudos: +12
Support for senate bill 5

Bottom line is Ohio has to balance a budget- we don't want to end up like IL- they are basically bankrupt. It's sad most people can't see the big picture. If the state can't pay it's bills, businesses close, healthcare facilities close, schools close, unemployment increases, people start to leave the state, tax revenue further dwindles, more cuts are made...which could mean their jobs disappearing FOREVER.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2011, 09:12 PM  
Junior Member

Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 10 | Kudos: +10
I need some help here amd maybe you can shed some light.

An Ohio state Senator, Shannon Brown, has introduced a bill, Senate Bill 5, that will drastically change the landscape of education and public service in Ohio (I am in education). Feel free to take a while and read the full text of the proposed bill if you wish. Then call OEA' action line to be connected directly to your Ohio senator's office.

One of the major pushes of the proponents of Senate Bill 5 is to help get Ohio out of its budget deficit because it will allow employers to slash the salaries of the overpaid members of that new entitled class: public employees.

The premise of this requires two things to be true:

First, public employees must be overpaid.
Eliminating collective bargaining must lead to shrunken budget deficits.
Today I offer two pieces of evidence to show that neither of those are true.

First up is the testimony of Amy Hanauer, Executive Director, Policy Matters Ohio. This testimony can be found in its entirety on the Policy Matters Ohio website, but I'm going to quote:

Upon taking office in 2005, Mitch Daniels in Indiana and Matt Blunt in Missouri eliminated collective bargaining agreements for state employees. Kentucky Governor Ernie Fletcher did the same in 2003. Yet according to data provided by the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, the budget shortfalls of these states in 2010 ranged from 10.6 percent of general revenue fund (Indiana) to 14.5 percent (Kentucky) to 22.7 percent (Missouri), mirroring the fiscal crisis of states across the nation.

The point is not to highlight the struggles of individual states; it is to illustrate that the right of public workers to bargain collectively is not the cause of the budget shortfalls and eliminating that right to collective bargaining has not fixed the problem in states that have tried it. Deeper issues –investment, capital markets, trade and currency – are what shape regional economies.

Some states that forbid collective bargaining for state workers – Arizona, North Carolina, Nevada – face some of the highest state budget deficits going into 2011, all exceeding 30 percent. And some states that allow and encourage collective bargaining – Montana, Massachusetts, New Mexico, South Dakota – are in better budgetary positions with deficits under ten percent.

In truth, states with and without collective bargaining rights faced similar budget deficits in 2010. States with no collective bargaining rights for any public employees saw an average budget shortfall of 24.8 percent in 2010 while states (including the District of Columbia) with collective bargaining for all public employees had an average budget shortfall of 24.1 percent. For the 42 states (and the District of Columbia) with some (or all) collective bargaining rights for some (or all) public workers, the 2010 budget deficit averaged 23 percent. These numbers are all very close. The right of public workers to unionize is not driving the state revenue or fiscal crisis. To summarize, eliminating collective bargaining does not lead to a decreased budget shortfall. If anything, collective bargaining slightly decreases the magnitude of the budgetary shortfall.

Second, I offer a position paper from the Economic Policy Institute, and it addresses something that is also covered in Hanauer's testimony: the overcompensation of the public employees:

Comparisons controlling for education, experience, hours of work, organizational size, gender, race, ethnicity and disability, reveal no significant overpayment but a slight undercompensation of public employees when compared to private employee compensation costs on a per hour basis. On average, full-time state and local employees are undercompensated by 3.7%, in comparison to otherwise similar private-sector workers. The public employee compensation penalty is smaller for local government employees (1.8%) than state government workers (7.6%).
...
Public-sector workers’ compensation is neither the cause, nor can it be the solution to a state’s financial problems. Only an economic recovery can begin to plug the hole in the states’ budgets. Unfortunately, the states' own current budget balancing efforts may prolong the economic downturn by increasing unemployment and reducing demand for products and services. Thousands of state and local public employees will lose their jobs, and their families will experience considerable pain and disruption. Others will have their wages frozen and benefits cut. Not because they did not do their jobs, or their services are no longer needed, nor because they are overpaid. They too will join the list of millions of hard working innocent victims of a financial system run amuck. They do not deserve bullying or our ridicule and condemnation by elected officials and the media looking for scapegoats.
According to the EPI, public employees are actually slightly underpaid when compared to like-educated, experienced private-sector employees.

So, if neither of these postulates are true, why then are legislatures choosing to attack the collective bargaining rights of public workers?

I am confused??
__________________

Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2011, 05:45 PM  
Junior Member

Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 20 | Kudos: +12
You say "According to the EPI, public employees are actually slightly underpaid when compared to like-educated, experienced private-sector employees." In regards to the EPI excerpt you quoted, the definition of ''compensation" can be quite broad, including or excluding many items people typically consider "benefits" (e.g. health, eye, dental insurances, short term and/or long term disability, 401k or retirement plans, sick, personal and vacation pay, etc) in addition to salary. Your excerpt doesn't include any sort of definition of the author's use of "compensation", but yet you feel you can accurately make a statement regarding the salary component(i.e. being underpaid) of compensation.

The budget deficit level comparison you show based off of collective bargaining states vs non is absolutely worthless. Anyone can easily see there is no true correlation between having a high deficit and not having collective bargaining provisions. Show me some P values and the data behind the report showing the only reason why the states with higher deficits have them ONLY because they don't have collective bargaining and I'll reevaluate my stance on the report. The reality is, it's simply a number put together by someone who obviously doesn't support eliminating collective bargaining to try to deceive others.

I do support Senate Bill 5 for some reasons, balancing the budget is only a small part of it. I do feel it will help with the budget to a small degree and anything Ohio can look at to help balance the budget is worth a shot looking at. Although it might not produce instant results, the long term results will help. I am curious why you don't support looking at it if, and I say if, it can help our state.

One personal issue I have with collective bargaining is that it protects low performing employees because of guaranteed salary increases. Low performing employees drain the system by performing minimum amounts of work simply to maintain their job, yet they get the same salary increases as the best performers. Fair? Fair to higher performing coworkers? Fair to our children who we rely on some of these individuals to teach them? Fair to me as a taxpayer? Increases in salary should be based off merit, not what your association or union can drum up for you. Do you not agree? Don't you want the state to run efficiently on the tax dollars you provide it to run? I do. I pay over 3k a year to Dublin schools and will never send a child there. I want to at least ensure the education my tax dollars is paying for can be as beneficial for the kids as it can be. We wonder why our county ranks so low in education comparisons to other countries - collective bargaining can't be helping.
Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2011, 02:13 PM  
Member

Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 30 | Kudos: +10
Quote:
Originally Posted by beesy View Post
You say "According to the EPI, public employees are actually slightly underpaid when compared to like-educated, experienced private-sector employees." In regards to the EPI excerpt you quoted, the definition of ''compensation" can be quite broad, including or excluding many items people typically consider "benefits" (e.g. health, eye, dental insurances, short term and/or long term disability, 401k or retirement plans, sick, personal and vacation pay, etc) in addition to salary. Your excerpt doesn't include any sort of definition of the author's use of "compensation", but yet you feel you can accurately make a statement regarding the salary component(i.e. being underpaid) of compensation.
I can only speak for my county, but here teachers and law enforcement both pay into their health care. Whether it is at a level comparable to similarly situated private sector employees, I can't say without doing some research. However, public sector employees across the state pay into their retirement funds (PERS, STRS, etc.), which thanks to some financial shenanigans under the Taft administration are currently fiscally challenged. By way of complete disclosure, I was a registered Republican since I first voted in 1988, for Reagan. For this election cycle, I registered Libertarian, for a number of reasons.

Quote:
The budget deficit level comparison you show based off of collective bargaining states vs non is absolutely worthless. Anyone can easily see there is no true correlation between having a high deficit and not having collective bargaining provisions.
Actually, I believe that was part of the point the previous poster was attempting to make. If there is no correlation, why demonize and attack teachers, law enforcement and firefighters, among others?

Quote:
Show me some P values and the data behind the report showing the only reason why the states with higher deficits have them ONLY because they don't have collective bargaining and I'll reevaluate my stance on the report. The reality is, it's simply a number put together by someone who obviously doesn't support eliminating collective bargaining to try to deceive others.
It seems pretty straight forward to me. It also seems that it would be incumbent upon the proponents arguing on behalf of an argued change to put forward such facts and figures regarding the benefits of the change. Thus far, I have heard and read a lot, but nothing truly factual or supported.

Quote:
I do support Senate Bill 5 for some reasons, balancing the budget is only a small part of it. I do feel it will help with the budget to a small degree and anything Ohio can look at to help balance the budget is worth a shot looking at. Although it might not produce instant results, the long term results will help. I am curious why you don't support looking at it if, and I say if, it can help our state.
I don't support SB5 for a variety of reasons. First and foremost is the attempts to do away with collective bargaining. Kasich has not attempted to negotiate with the unions in order to alleviate any of the problems that confront the state. In fact, he specifically stated he would not meet with the education unions unless they took out full page ads apologizing to him. He alienated law enforcement, calling one officer who simply did his job "an idiot." IF negotiations failed to bring about the needed changes, then perhaps I would be willing to look at more extensive actions, but not first.

Quote:
One personal issue I have with collective bargaining is that it protects low performing employees because of guaranteed salary increases. Low performing employees drain the system by performing minimum amounts of work simply to maintain their job, yet they get the same salary increases as the best performers. Fair? Fair to higher performing coworkers? Fair to our children who we rely on some of these individuals to teach them? Fair to me as a taxpayer? Increases in salary should be based off merit, not what your association or union can drum up for you. Do you not agree? Don't you want the state to run efficiently on the tax dollars you provide it to run? I do. I pay over 3k a year to Dublin schools and will never send a child there. I want to at least ensure the education my tax dollars is paying for can be as beneficial for the kids as it can be. We wonder why our county ranks so low in education comparisons to other countries - collective bargaining can't be helping.
I could give you a laundry list of things wrong with our education system in this state and elsewhere. Collective bargaining, if on the list at all, would be at the bottom. Inclusion. Inability to effectively discipline. Family apathy. Playing to the lowest common denominator (No Child Left Behind). Bureaucrats without any real educational experience or knowledge making not only policy, but implementing educational requirements.

I have no problem with merit pay, if a system can be put in place where it is fairly and evenly. As it stands, under SB 5 only certain grades would qualify for merit pay. Yeah, that makes sense. If you teach K-3, art, music or the like, too bad. Base it on standardized testing? Well, are you going to give substantially the same test at the beginning and end of each year? Otherwise you can't really tell how well a teacher has taught, can you? You can base a "passing rate" upon fixed parameters as we do now, but children are not piece work. Each comes to a teacher with a specific background, environment, and learning style and challenges that makes them unique in their abilities. When was the last time you heard that mentioned by anyone other than a teacher? I sure don't hear SB 5 proponents mentioning it. But right now, and more so under currently proposed merit pay systems I am aware of, teachers will be evaluated on where the children they teach are at the end of the year, without any consideration of these factors.

Finally, the Republicans have seemed to take their lead from Washington Democrats in how to force a bill through. Changing committee membership, not allowing for a full understanding of the proposals within the bill to be had, or even full and open debate upon the issue before bringing it to vote. I was outraged when the left forced ObamaCare through, I am just as outraged now, because these people got into office in large part because of the distaste the electorate had for such actions.
__________________
"Even my henchmen think I'm crazy,
I'm not surprised that you agree"
Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2011, 03:49 PM  
mohel
 
blucher's Avatar

Keizer, OR
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,383 | Kudos: +123
Images: 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Principal View Post
I am confused??
No Sir. The attacks are the Right trying to bust unions under the guise of budget cuts. The US is falling behind on education when it most needs educated talent to replace rust belt jobs long gone.
__________________
I'll believe corporations are persons when Texas executes one.: LBJ's Ghost
Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-2011, 11:22 PM  
Junior Member

Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 20 | Kudos: +12
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocWard View Post
I can only speak for my county, but here teachers and law enforcement both pay into their health care. Whether it is at a level comparable to similarly situated private sector employees, I can't say without doing some research. However, public sector employees across the state pay into their retirement funds (PERS, STRS, etc.), which thanks to some financial shenanigans under the Taft administration are currently fiscally challenged. By way of complete disclosure, I was a registered Republican since I first voted in 1988, for Reagan. For this election cycle, I registered Libertarian, for a number of reasons.
Exactly my point. Neither of you provide any facts in these arguments, but are adamant your views are correct based solely on opinion. You even admit you'd have to research it, so why make comments that are irrelevent and obviously based on opinion and that's it?
So now it's our ("our" being non-public employees) fault YOUR fund managers (that you elected, in part thanks to YOUR unions and groups) squandered your dollars, made poor investments or made otherwise poor decisions?? Right....

I could personally care less what political party you are affiliated with as I don't claim to be affiliated with any party. I vote different each election. I can see past party lines and vote for who I feel is the best candidate, or at least the one I see as least harmful.


Quote:
Originally Posted by DocWard View Post
Actually, I believe that was part of the point the previous poster was attempting to make. If there is no correlation, why demonize and attack teachers, law enforcement and firefighters, among others?
I took it as he was trying to prove, in some backwards, unfounded way that removing collective bargaining was actually detrimental to state budgets. State dollars are tight. Teachers, law enforcement and firefighters are paid with state dollars, hmmmm. Seems like a reasonable place to look to cut budget deficits if you ask me. I do however find it interesting this MUST be an excuse to demonize and attack the groups you list.



Quote:
Originally Posted by DocWard View Post
It seems pretty straight forward to me. It also seems that it would be incumbent upon the proponents arguing on behalf of an argued change to put forward such facts and figures regarding the benefits of the change. Thus far, I have heard and read a lot, but nothing truly factual or supported.
Glad you agree his response regarding this was totally not founded on any facts. It's interesting how easily people are taken in by reports like these when they don't have enough ambition to get to the bottom of them.


Quote:
Originally Posted by DocWard View Post
I don't support SB5 for a variety of reasons. First and foremost is the attempts to do away with collective bargaining. Kasich has not attempted to negotiate with the unions in order to alleviate any of the problems that confront the state. In fact, he specifically stated he would not meet with the education unions unless they took out full page ads apologizing to him. He alienated law enforcement, calling one officer who simply did his job "an idiot." IF negotiations failed to bring about the needed changes, then perhaps I would be willing to look at more extensive actions, but not first.
I see your point, but you and I both know the groups you outline were not willing to come to the table to negotiate just the same. Their stand was just as bullheaded as the other - doesn't make either of them right.



Quote:
Originally Posted by DocWard View Post
I could give you a laundry list of things wrong with our education system in this state and elsewhere. Collective bargaining, if on the list at all, would be at the bottom. Inclusion. Inability to effectively discipline. Family apathy. Playing to the lowest common denominator (No Child Left Behind). Bureaucrats without any real educational experience or knowledge making not only policy, but implementing educational requirements.
All valid points, I agree.


Quote:
Originally Posted by DocWard View Post
I have no problem with merit pay, if a system can be put in place where it is fairly and evenly. As it stands, under SB 5 only certain grades would qualify for merit pay. Yeah, that makes sense. If you teach K-3, art, music or the like, too bad. Base it on standardized testing? Well, are you going to give substantially the same test at the beginning and end of each year? Otherwise you can't really tell how well a teacher has taught, can you? You can base a "passing rate" upon fixed parameters as we do now, but children are not piece work. Each comes to a teacher with a specific background, environment, and learning style and challenges that makes them unique in their abilities. When was the last time you heard that mentioned by anyone other than a teacher? I sure don't hear SB 5 proponents mentioning it. But right now, and more so under currently proposed merit pay systems I am aware of, teachers will be evaluated on where the children they teach are at the end of the year, without any consideration of these factors.
Again, not disagreeing. However, without merit pay, there is little to motivate a teacher to excel except for self-motivation or self-fulfillment.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DocWard View Post
Finally, the Republicans have seemed to take their lead from Washington Democrats in how to force a bill through. Changing committee membership, not allowing for a full understanding of the proposals within the bill to be had, or even full and open debate upon the issue before bringing it to vote. I was outraged when the left forced ObamaCare through, I am just as outraged now, because these people got into office in large part because of the distaste the electorate had for such actions.
We all created the system that's in place because we voted for them, like it or not. I agree that forcing these things through with such haste, just like Obama did with healthcare, creates an environment of misunderstanding an mistrust. However, it is nice to see some action. Like I said, I'm for it for some reasons. We'll see what happens now I guess.
Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-2011, 11:33 PM  
Junior Member

Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 20 | Kudos: +12
Quote:
Originally Posted by blucher View Post
No Sir. The attacks are the Right trying to bust unions under the guise of budget cuts. The US is falling behind on education when it most needs educated talent to replace rust belt jobs long gone.
So we're falling behind under the current model but yet we should leave it alone? Great idea.
Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2011, 07:05 AM  
Member

Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 30 | Kudos: +10
Quote:
Originally Posted by beesy View Post
Exactly my point. Neither of you provide any facts in these arguments, but are adamant your views are correct based solely on opinion. You even admit you'd have to research it, so why make comments that are irrelevent and obviously based on opinion and that's it?
Well, the last I checked, it was called discussion. Looking at your original post it was nothing BUT opinion and non-supported. If you were just making a statement and not wanting to discuss it, you should have said so.

Quote:
So now it's our ("our" being non-public employees) fault YOUR fund managers (that you elected, in part thanks to YOUR unions and groups) squandered your dollars, made poor investments or made otherwise poor decisions?? Right....
Wrong. Noe was appointed by Taft, you know, the Republican governor? He created problems for the Bureau of Workers Comp as well as others with his rare coin scheme.

Quote:
I could personally care less what political party you are affiliated with as I don't claim to be affiliated with any party. I vote different each election. I can see past party lines and vote for who I feel is the best candidate, or at least the one I see as least harmful.
It should be you couldn't care less, otherwise it means that you care somewhat. A pet peeve of mine.

Beyond that, I am always amused by the person who claims to be "above" party affiliation. So, do you sit out the primaries, even though there are important things that end up on the ballots at those times, just so you can avoid having to pick a party affiliation? In the past, my leanings tended toward the principles espoused by Republicans. I have voted for Democrats, even campaigned for Democrats and let them put signs in my yard. I stated my background just to give some insight into how much this current mess has disgusted me.

Quote:
I took it as he was trying to prove, in some backwards, unfounded way that removing collective bargaining was actually detrimental to state budgets. State dollars are tight. Teachers, law enforcement and firefighters are paid with state dollars, hmmmm. Seems like a reasonable place to look to cut budget deficits if you ask me. I do however find it interesting this MUST be an excuse to demonize and attack the groups you list.
I think you read it wrong, but perhaps the original poster will come back and clarify. And as far as demonization, clearly you haven't listened to or read what Kasich has said. That, or you agree with it.

Quote:
Glad you agree his response regarding this was totally not founded on any facts. It's interesting how easily people are taken in by reports like these when they don't have enough ambition to get to the bottom of them.
When I say "proponents arguing on behalf of a change," I mean those wanting to make a change. That would not be a reference to the other person posting, but to the Republicans at the State level.

Quote:
I see your point, but you and I both know the groups you outline were not willing to come to the table to negotiate just the same. Their stand was just as bullheaded as the other - doesn't make either of them right.
I have heard numerous teachers, deputies and cops say that they would have liked the opportunity. If you are going to have to tighten your belt, it only makes sense that you tighten it in a way that you have some say over.

Quote:
Again, not disagreeing. However, without merit pay, there is little to motivate a teacher to excel except for self-motivation or self-fulfillment.
The good teachers I know won't do much different because of merit pay, but will be rewarded for doing so. The bad teachers, typically aren't capable. I am for a merit pay system that takes into account the factors I outlined, and is fair to all teachers.

Quote:
We all created the system that's in place because we voted for them, like it or not. I agree that forcing these things through with such haste, just like Obama did with healthcare, creates an environment of misunderstanding an mistrust. However, it is nice to see some action. Like I said, I'm for it for some reasons. We'll see what happens now I guess.
I will agree to disagree that it is nice to see some action. If the action were appropriately put forth, I might agree. you are right though, now it is time to sit back and see where it goes from here.
__________________
"Even my henchmen think I'm crazy,
I'm not surprised that you agree"
Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2011, 12:34 PM  
mohel
 
blucher's Avatar

Keizer, OR
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,383 | Kudos: +123
Images: 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by beesy View Post
So we're falling behind under the current model but yet we should leave it alone? Great idea.
I didn't suggest leaving it alone. I was just saying the intent in Indiana, Ohio & Wisconsin is to bust unions.
__________________
I'll believe corporations are persons when Texas executes one.: LBJ's Ghost
Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2011, 02:25 PM  
Junior Member

Lancaster, Ohio
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 5 | Kudos: +10
Quote:
Originally Posted by beesy View Post
So we're falling behind under the current model but yet we should leave it alone? Great idea.
That's my thought process on this. We have had Proficiancy tests, School System rating system, and all kinds of other test to hold the teachers' accountable, yet we are still falling behind...If the system of Tenure through Collective Bargining is such a good thing, why are we still falling behind

Education system in Ohio as it is now is broken, let's at least try something different.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply

Go Back   CityProfile.com Forum - Local City and State Discussion Forums > United States City Forums > Ohio > Columbus
Bookmark this Page!

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes


Suggested Threads

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.