Jump to content

Senate Bill 5 - Thoughts?


Bengals1181

Recommended Posts

[quote][size="5"][b]Ohio Senate Republicans move to wipe out collective bargaining for all state workers[/b][/size]

Wednesday, February 9, 2011 12:50 PM
BY JIM SIEGEL

The Columbus Dispatch


COURTNEY HERGESHEIMER | DISPATCH
It is standing room only in the Senate Finance Hearing Room as lawmakers consider repeal of the state collective-bargaining law. More than 800 public-employee union members showed up at the Statehouse to protest.
Arguing that state and local governments need the ability to adjust to the new economic paradigm, Senate Republicans today unveiled details of the most sweeping attempt in 27 years to limit the power of public unions to negotiate terms of employment.

The measure attracted a large group of union supporters to the Statehouse. The crowd inside spilled into the atrium, where a sound system was set up so they could hear testimony. Outside, several protestors clad in yellow shirts and carrying signs that urged a no vote demonstrated on the sidewalk.

The stakes are huge.

Collective bargaining would be wiped out for all state workers, including those at institutions of higher education. Local police officers and fire fighters who cannot strike would see weakened binding arbitration. Local workers would no longer bargain for health insurance, automatic pay increases would be stripped from state law, and teachers would not get a say in which buildings they teach in.

While Sen. Shannon Jones, R-Spingboro, insists she is not trying to punish state workers, her Senate Bill 5 is expected to ignite a war with the unions the likes of which this state has not seen in decades.

"I believe the vast majority of government workers are good people who work hard every day," she said. "But I don't think that everybody, by virtue of showing up every day, should be entitled to the same increase in salary."

Jones and Senate GOP leaders say this is about reshaping government in a way that gives managers from the biggest state agencies to the smallest school districts the flexibility to deal with economic pressures and accomplish specific goals.

Unions see it differently. "This is a blatant attack on working people in this state," said Anthony Caldwell, spokesman for SEIU District 1199. "This appears to be nothing more than political payback for organizations that did not support Sen. Jones or (Gov.) John Kasich."

Michele Prater of the Ohio Education Association said collective bargaining "helps pursue the classroom conditions, the tools and the support we need for high-quality education. Any legislation that would curb collective bargaining rights would upset Ohio's balanced framework."

Jones said a key goal of her bill is to provide more transparency to local contract negotiations so people understand the exact issues that have led to an impasse, and realize all of the compensation changes that come out of a new agreement.

Proposals in the bill:

[b]State workers[/b]

-Eliminates collective bargaining for state workers, including higher education employees.
-Requires the Department of Administrative Services to develop a merit-based system of pay.

[b]Local workers[/b]

-Removes the requirement that deadlocked safety forces go to binding arbitration, instead extending the prior union contract for one year.
-Requires mediators to consider wages of employees who are not members of the union and does not allow them to consider future tax increases as part of an entity's ability to pay.
-Allows employers to hire permanent replacement workers during a strike.
-Removes health insurance from collective bargaining. Management will pick insurance policies, and employees must cover at least 20 percent of the cost.
-No longer requires that once a subject is included in a contract that it becomes a mandatory subject of future bargaining.
-Defines an "impasse" as a lack of agreement after 90 days. After that point, it requires each side to make public its last, best offer.
-Prohibits public employers from picking up extra employee pension contributions.
-Eliminates from state law automatic pay increases for experience and education.
-Eliminates from state law leave policies and automatic 15 sick days for teachers.
-Prohibits school districts from bargaining away certain management powers, such as the ability to deploy teachers to certain buildings.
-No longer makes longevity a deciding factor when management is deciding to make layoffs.
-Requires a public employer to publish on its website any changes in the union contract that impacts compensation of workers, including wages, length of service payments, and insurance coverage.
-Requires the employer and the State Employment Relations Board to publish the parties' offers on their websites before and after fact-finding is complete.
-Allows schools or local governments in fiscal emergency to terminate or modify a collective bargaining agreement.
-Sen. Kevin Bacon, R-Minerva Park, chairman of the Insurance Committee that is hearing the bill, said he has heard from local government officials that collective bargaining needs to be changed, but he is not sure if the bill goes too far or not far enough.

"I don't yet know if this is the proposal that will address those concerns," he said. "There is a lot I have to learn and try to balance everyone's concerns."

As a former township trustee, Bacon said, collective bargaining was helpful in many respects. "Although I can see the concern that elected officials have about going to fact-finding or arbitration because there is a resistance to go there because of the sheer expense and uncertainty."

A Dispatch analysis found that since 2008, fewer than 2 percent of contract negotiations have been resolved by an outside arbitrator. Ruling were split, 10 wins for unions, and an equal number for public employers.

In arbitration cases, unions demanded an average annual wage increase of 3.12 percent, while public employers offered an average of 1.22 percent. Arbitrators nearly split the difference, imposing an average award of 2.06 percent.

"But what you have to look at is the impact it has on the negotiation process before going to fact-finding," Bacon said. "Oftentimes it's the threat of fact-finding, arbitration or strikes that has a big impact on the negotiation process."

Local officials will need flexibility, Bacon said, as state officials eye millions in cuts to local government funds and the elimination of the estate tax.

"Without a doubt, something can and should be done," he said.

jsiegel@dispatch.com[/quote]


http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2011/02/09/senate-republicans-negotiate-limiting-unions-power.html
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Bengals1181' timestamp='1297797769' post='970684']
http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2011/02/09/senate-republicans-negotiate-limiting-unions-power.html
[/quote]

It's royally fucked up!

Kasich is an arrogant prick!

Binding arbitration has worked. It has only been used 2 to 3 percent of the time in 27 years....
Link to comment
Share on other sites

the more I find out about this, the more this sounds like utter bullshit.


Can't speak for firemen or cops, but basically this bill would all but abolish the teacher's union in Ohio and give full control to the board of education. They're taking away teachers' sick days, taking an even larger chunk of their retirement than they already had.

Further, they can fire teachers or reduce their pay for any reason they deem fit. They could cut my wife's salary by $20K in June without cause, and there's not a damn thing she can do about as the Bill takes all power from the union.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Bengals1181' timestamp='1297811121' post='970738']
the more I find out about this, the more this sounds like utter bullshit.


Can't speak for firemen or cops, but basically this bill would all but abolish the teacher's union in Ohio and give full control to the board of education. They're taking away teachers' sick days, taking an even larger chunk of their retirement than they already had.

Further, they can fire teachers or reduce their pay for any reason they deem fit. They could cut my wife's salary by $20K in June without cause, and there's not a damn thing she can do about as the Bill takes all power from the union.
[/quote]

so like every other job ever, then?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote][size="5"][b]GOP looks to strip unions of collective bargaining[/b][/size]
Feb 10, 2011 |


Written by
JON CRAIG, HOWARD WILKINSON AND BARRY M. HORSTMAN

The Cincinnati Enquirer

COLUMBUS -- Ohio's unions saw this coming.

The Republican-led Ohio Senate -- with strong support from new Republican Gov. John Kasich -- detailed Wednesday how they plan to overhaul the state's collective bargaining laws to weaken what they see as costly union clout.

Economic times are too hard, and the stakes too high, for Ohio taxpayers to continue to do business as usual, according to Senate leaders.

But union leaders who jammed the Statehouse cried foul, charging that the GOP agenda is to weaken decades of protection for organized government employees, a move they say would hurt middle-class communities.

Senate Bill 5 would:

• Wipe out, or severely limit, collective bargaining for all state workers -- including unionized faculty and staff at Ohio colleges and community colleges.

• Ban public employee strikes.

• Weaken binding arbitration for police and firefighters, who cannot strike.

• Limit a local union's right to bargain for health insurance.

• Eliminate automatic pay increases for public employees.

• Strip teachers of the right to pick their classes or schools.

To help state and local governments, Senate President Tom Niehaus argues new limits must be placed on public unions.

But Niehaus, R-New Richmond, cautioned that by the time a final bill is agreed upon, it may not be as severe as union leaders fear.

With an $8 billion state budget gap forecast this year, cutbacks and hardship must be shared by Ohio's union workers, according to Kasich.

Republican leaders of the Ohio House and Senate, who must pass Kasich's first two-year budget by June 30, generally agree.

But spokesmen for the state's largest unions say public workers already gave up $100 million in health benefits and $250 million in pay to help balance the current budget, passed in July 2009 when Ted Strickland was governor.

Union concessions included four weeks of unpaid furloughs -- 80 hours each year -- no pay raises and the loss of five personal days.

Anticipating even tougher times in a Kasich administration, nearly all of the unions' campaign contributions went to Strickland before the Democrat's loss on Nov. 2.

Political experts said Strickland's strong union support helped keep the election close. That's why, on Nov. 3, Kasich warned state teachers' and labor unions they should have been talking to him about their concerns.

In fact, Kasich joked after his victory that school unions should take out full-page newspaper ads apologizing for what they said about him during the campaign.

[b]PAYBACK TIME[/b]

Nearly 1,000 union members, including police, firefighters, prison guards, teachers and laborers, crowded the Statehouse atrium, hallways and four hearing rooms Wednesday to listen to details of legislation sponsored by Sen. Shannon Jones, a southwest Ohio Republican.

Outside, dozens of protestors in yellow shirts carried signs urging legislators to vote against Jones' bill.

Jones' bill is a starting point for "gutting" current laws protecting the rights of organized workers, according to Ohio AFL-CIO President Tim Burga.

"This bill is a partisan assault on working families and does nothing but punish workers and hurt the middle class, plain and simple," Burga said.

The Ohio Education Association, which represents about 130,000 teachers, professors and other school and college workers, is equally unnerved that Jones' bill could gain steam, as has anti-union legislation in a half dozen other states led by new Republican governors.

Education Week, in its Tuesday edition, concluded: "Lawmakers in several states are challenging collective bargaining, the foundation of teacher unionism."

In Idaho and Indiana, Republican leaders are proposing bills that would limit collective bargaining for wages and benefits, according to the national publication. Newly introduced legislation in Tennessee would eliminate teachers' rights to bargain altogether, Education Week reported.

Ohio Civil Service Employees Association President Eddie L. Parks joined leaders of a dozen other unions to say Senate Bill 5, if passed and signed into law by Kasich, would hurt local communities while stifling job growth.

"No economic problem was ever solved by cutting the middle class," Parks said.

"How does cutting jobs create jobs?" asked John A. Lyall, president of Council 8 of the American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees. AFSCME Council 8 has more than 41,000 members in local unions representing city, county, hospital, and university employees along with boards of education, nonprofit workers and other public service employees.

[b]DECADES-OLD DISPUTE[/b]

Ohio's law allowing collective bargaining for state employees only dates back to the early 1980s, but the argument over whether public employees have the right to organize had been going on for decades before that.

The 1983 law gave state employees the right to organize and required the state to bargain with their unions.

The law told police and fire unions that they had no right to strike. Instead, the law gave them arbitration in deadlocks over contracts.

The arbitration system in the 1983 law was upheld by the Ohio Supreme Court six years later.

But if the GOP-controlled legislature does away with the 1983 law, police and fire unions would not only have no right to strike, but no guarantee of arbitration.

Instead, if contract talks with a government body were at a deadlock, members of police and fire unions would work under their prior union contracts for a year.

From local and state governments' perspective, one of the law's major flaws is that it requires an arbitrator to choose one side or the other, instead of seeking a middle ground.

Kasich has repeatedly criticized the part of the law allowing an arbitrator to come in from another state to rule on an Ohio dispute.[/quote]

http://www.zanesvilletimesrecorder.com/article/20110210/NEWS01/102100305/GOP-looks-strip-unions-collective-bargaining
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Out of all the unions, ones I'd like to see protected are the ones that support teachers, law enforcement and emergency service workers. They are already subject to performance reviews and such in order to advance or even keep their jobs but they are already underpaid (particularly teachers) and I like to think that a strong union for those particular workers helps to guarantee their benefits and pay.

There are plenty of other unions, though, where the power pendulum has swung too far in the other direction...like the MLB player's union for instance, or autoworker's unions where unskilled laborers earn $20 an hour for turning a wrench...or even for not working at all.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Bunghole' timestamp='1297819727' post='970771']
Out of all the unions, ones I'd like to see protected are the ones that support teachers, law enforcement and emergency service workers. They are already subject to performance reviews and such in order to advance or even keep their jobs but they are already underpaid (particularly teachers) and I like to think that a strong union for those particular workers helps to guarantee their benefits and pay.

There are plenty of other unions, though, where the power pendulum has swung too far in the other direction...like the MLB player's union for instance, or autoworker's unions where unskilled laborers earn $20 an hour for turning a wrench...or even for not working at all.
[/quote]


as someone who has upwards of 10 relatives who are teachers, I'd even be ok with them freezing raises, which for some are likely unearned.


However, to cut their pay, raise their health insurance, cut their retirement, and then give them no power to defend themselves? That's way overboard. Not to mention giving yourselves full authority to fire a teacher without just cause and replace them with a cheaper, less experienced option.


The least productive way to fix this country is to cripple the educational system further and make major cuts to the people who protect you (police and fire).

Of course, the ones championing this bill are the ones who have the money to do whatever they want.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Bengals1181' timestamp='1297825311' post='970796']
as someone who has upwards of 10 relatives who are teachers, I'd even be ok with them freezing raises, which for some are likely unearned.


However, to cut their pay, raise their health insurance, cut their retirement, and then give them no power to defend themselves? That's way overboard. Not to mention giving yourselves full authority to fire a teacher without just cause and replace them with a cheaper, less experienced option.


The least productive way to fix this country is to cripple the educational system further and make major cuts to the people who protect you (police and fire).

Of course, the ones championing this bill are the ones who have the money to do whatever they want.
[/quote]

I hear you. Not sure as to the going forward part.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Bengals1181' timestamp='1297825311' post='970796']
as someone who has upwards of 10 relatives who are teachers, I'd even be ok with them freezing raises, which for some are likely unearned.


However, to cut their pay, raise their health insurance, cut their retirement, and then give them no power to defend themselves? That's way overboard. Not to mention giving yourselves full authority to fire a teacher without just cause and replace them with a cheaper, less experienced option.


The least productive way to fix this country is to cripple the educational system further and make major cuts to the people who protect you (police and fire).

[color="#FF0000"]Of course, the ones championing this bill are the ones who have the money to do whatever they want.[/color]
[/quote]

ding ding ding

the plutocracy wins again
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='CincyInDC' timestamp='1297841702' post='970818']
Ohio put these clowns in the legislature. What did you expect from representatives held hostage by (or who wholeheartedly embrace) an anti-gub'mint platform?
[/quote]


Along those lines...

http://www.npr.org/2011/02/16/133783606/balancing-the-budget-the-problem-might-be-you?sc=fb&cc=fp

[quote]Balancing The Budget: The Problem Might Be You
by SCOTT HORSLEY

The federal government's mounting debt is often blamed on a failure of leadership. But the leaders may not be the only ones at fault.

As unhappy as Americans claim to be about the government's red ink, surveys show most voters want more government than they're willing to pay for.

If We Build It, Who Will Pay?

Even as he proposes budget cuts in some areas, President Obama wants to spend more federal money to update and improve the country's overstretched roads and bridges.

Traffic-weary commuters can only honk in support when the president calls for stepped-up investment in infrastructure, as he did in Michigan last week.

"If we want new jobs and businesses here in America, we've got to have the best transportation system. And the best communication network in the world," he said. "It's like that movie Field of Dreams. If we build it, they will come. But we've got to build it."

A survey for the Rockefeller Foundation found overwhelming support for infrastructure investment. Pollster Jay Campbell, who conducted the survey, says that backing cuts across party lines.

"In a time and place when Republicans almost pride themselves on disagreeing with everything that President Obama stands for," Campbell says, "66 percent of Republicans said that they agreed with this approach."

But even the most ardent supporters of highway spending hit the brakes when pollsters started asking if they would be willing to help pay for it.

"Where support did start to drop off — and did so quite dramatically — is when voters themselves are asked to help foot the bill," Campbell says.

Survey respondents rejected the idea of paying for roads with higher gasoline taxes by a better than 2-to-1 margin. Additional toll charges were almost as unpopular.

In other words, if you build it, Americans will come, so long as they don't have to pay for it.

Change But No Change, Please

"The overarching problem is people want everything to change, and they want nothing to change at the same time," Campbell says. "It puts elected leaders in a really tough position."

For years now, elected leaders have dealt with that challenge by indulging Americans' desire for services, without trying to collect. That's one reason we're now staring at a $1.6 trillion deficit.

While congressional Republicans are proposing dramatic cuts in discretionary spending, most Americans are hard-pressed to identify specific parts of the government they are willing to do without. A survey by the Pew Research Center found the only government program that got anything close to a cutting consensus was foreign aid.

"Foreign aid is the least popular aspect of the budget typically. And you see that in this survey as well," says Carroll Doherty of the Pew Research Center. "But even here, you still get less than 50 percent saying, 'Cut it.' It's not overwhelming. Even though that's the largest area on our list."

Foreign aid accounts for about 1 percent of the budget.

Doherty says for the most popular programs, like Medicare and education, only about 1 in 10 people favors cuts.

'Sinking In'

Still, there are some signs the growing deficit is making people more careful about what they wish for. Fewer survey respondents now ask for more government spending in areas like defense and health care than they did just two years ago.

"I think it's a recognition that the government can't spend as it has been," Doherty says. "I think that's sinking in on the public. But taking that next step and really applying the knife to these programs is a more difficult thing."

So when political leaders seem timid about cutting the biggest government programs or asking people to pay more for them, they're simply taking their cues from the people who elected them.[/quote]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What part of "Draft Bill" is not understandable?

Parts will change. They always do.

I work in a support organization for a public sector association. I have seen many of these proposals being discussed for a lot of years. They really are of no surprise. It will also be of no surprise when the compromise comes. But they won't be due to union-fed demonstrations...more simply to the political process. Wish that could sound more Sandinista, but welcome to government.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Le Tigre' timestamp='1298125900' post='971651']
What part of "Draft Bill" is not understandable?

Parts will change. They always do.

I work in a support organization for a public sector association. I have seen many of these proposals being discussed for a lot of years. They really are of no surprise. It will also be of no surprise when the compromise comes. But they won't be due to union-fed demonstrations...more simply to the political process. Wish that could sound more Sandinista, but welcome to government.
[/quote]

I think part of the bigger problem is the pompous arrogance of Kasich saying whatever he does not get out of the bill that he wants that he will somehow get it out of the budget process.....

Kasich is becoming a modern day Moussolini... all he needs to do is fold his arms and shake his head up and down at the cameras and crowd.....
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Le Tigre' timestamp='1298125900' post='971651']
What part of "Draft Bill" is not understandable?

Parts will change. They always do.

I work in a support organization for a public sector association. I have seen many of these proposals being discussed for a lot of years. They really are of no surprise. It will also be of no surprise when the compromise comes. But they won't be due to union-fed demonstrations...more simply to the political process. Wish that could sound more Sandinista, but welcome to government.
[/quote]


the creators of the Bill were trying to get it passed as soon as yesterday. Thankfully, there's enough against it that its in a stalemate at the moment.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given the personal implications, 1181, opposition to a bill of this type is understandable. If I might pose a question, however, what would be an alternative that would achieve the universally desired results: reduction in state spending overall--hence reducing deficits/taxes and encouraging business growth?

I am not debating any points...just more curious than anything. In my profession, one is virtually apolitical and non-partisan as a matter of necessity.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Le Tigre' timestamp='1298135998' post='971680']
Given the personal implications, 1181, opposition to a bill of this type is understandable. If I might pose a question, however, what would be an alternative that would achieve the universally desired results: reduction in state spending overall--hence reducing deficits/taxes and encouraging business growth?

I am not debating any points...just more curious than anything. In my profession, one is virtually apolitical and non-partisan as a matter of necessity.
[/quote]

I know this... If I am a teacher and this passes I am fleeing the state...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Le Tigre' timestamp='1298135998' post='971680']
Given the personal implications, 1181, opposition to a bill of this type is understandable. If I might pose a question, however, what would be an alternative that would achieve the universally desired results: reduction in state spending overall--hence reducing deficits/taxes and encouraging business growth?

I am not debating any points...just more curious than anything. In my profession, one is virtually apolitical and non-partisan as a matter of necessity.
[/quote]


I'm not opposed to them making cuts in education, or in freezing pay raises as suggested above.

However, its incredibly ballsy (and I question legal) to try and abolish unions.


Funny how the higher ups in education never get cut or their pay affected. To further strip teachers of their retirement, take away their sick days, increase their health insurance costs, AND cut their pay and give yourself sole discretion to hire/fire anyone you want is ludicrous. Not to mention you're taking away their union's ability to do anything about it.

This bill will cripple the education system in ohio, and it takes away any incentive for a college kid to go into the teaching profession.


Most teachers have never been paid well, but at least they had decent benefits. Now, their pay is getting worse, and they're losing their benefits.


The shitty thing is, I know many teachers who voted for Kasich because he claimed he was committed to education in his platform. Now he's about to kill it.



Then of course there's how it will affect firemen and police officers and other public workers.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait, we were told that the high paying manufacturing jobs HAD to go south or overseas. We were told the US needs to focus on technology to remain a strong economic company. Now rather than invest in technology and increase education, we speak of cuts to education. I guess we can always fall back on manufacturing jobs...oh wait.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Jim Finklestein' timestamp='1298211614' post='971743']
Wait, we were told that the high paying manufacturing jobs HAD to go south or overseas. We were told the US needs to focus on technology to remain a strong economic company. Now rather than invest in technology and increase education, we speak of cuts to education. I guess we can always fall back on manufacturing jobs...oh wait.
[/quote]


This
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...