Protestors on both sides of restricting collective bargaining bill

[calfoxwc]

I like the part at the end, where the dimwit Dem says that nobody was forced to make those agreements...

 

No, just coerced by threats of doom if there was a strike, etc.

 

These states MUST and WILL start kicking these leech unions to the curbs.

 

I'm not anti-union. I'm anti-greedy-socialist activist-take it all if you can unions.

 

Those kind of unions are killing our state economies. It must stop, and stop now.

 

The outrageous gravy train is going to have to suck it up and stop leeching

 

excessive funds that keep going up every year.

***************************************

 

http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local...se.html?sid=101

 

Collective bargaining protesters, supporters clash at Statehouse

Vociferous throngs attend hearings on Senate Bill 5

Thursday, February 17, 2011 10:48 AM

Updated: Thursday, February 17, 2011 02:57 PM

By Jim Siegel

 

The Columbus Dispatch

 

JONATHAN QUILTER | DISPATCH

Supporters of Senate Bill 5 rallied today outside the Statehouse . . .

 

JONATHAN QUILTER | DISPATCH

. . . as the bill's opponents rallied inside.

Photo Slide Show

Thousands gather for Senate Bill 5 hearing

More than 3,000 enthusiastic supporters and opponents of the Senates proposed collective-bargaining overhaul enveloped the Statehouse this morning with cheers of kill the bill and yes on 5, prior to the latest hearing on Senate Bill 5.

 

The spacious Statehouse atrium was packed mostly with public union workers outraged at efforts to end collective bargaining for state workers and significantly weaken the ability for local workers to bargain for their pay, benefits and working conditions.

 

Unions made a strong showing for the bill's first two hearings, and they were joined today by more than 200 red-shirt clad tea party activists pushing for the bill's passage. The mix verbally clashed in the Statehouse rotunda, where each side did its best to drown out the other.

 

Meanwhile, the atrium had the feel of a rock concert or an Ohio State football game, as union supporters cheered loudly when Senate sergeants-at-arms led their leaders across the balcony and into the hearing room.

 

More than 50 witnesses are scheduled to testify today. The first dozen or so will be supporters, and then opponents, including police, firefighters and Ohio Highway Patrol troopers' union leaders.

 

"This is a true test of democracy," said Sen. Kevin Bacon, chairman of the committee hearing the bill, during his opening comments.

 

The bill is not an attack on the middle class, public workers or jobs, Mike Wilson, head of the Cincinnati Tea Party, told a crowd gathered outside the Statehouse. "This bill is about math. Government has grown bigger than our taxpayers' ability to support it."

 

Rick Barry, a tea party member from Akron, said of public unions: "Their benefits are so much better than mine and their pay is so much better than mine, but they are still crying."

 

Wearing stickers that read "Taxpayer defender" and holding signs including those that read, "We're broke. Support SB 5," tea party activists said they wanted to show lawmakers that while they cannot compete with union numbers, there is support for changing collective-bargaining laws.

 

The group is transitioning from holding politicians accountable to showing support for their actions, said Tom Zawistowski, executive director of he Portage County Tea Party. "We want them to know that if they do it, we will work to keep them in office."

 

He added: "We don't have any more money. We have to make some hard decisions."

 

The Highway Patrol did not report any incidents during the morning, though some women standing in the atrium were heard saying they were moving out because things were getting heated.

 

Union leaders have characterized Senate Bill 5 as an attack on middle-class workers who need the ability to bargain in order to maintain a fair livelihood and uphold standards for safety and education. They also argue that Ohio's economic downturn, combined with tax cuts phased in over the past six years, are to blame for the state's troubling budget situation, not them.

 

Mark Sanders, president of the Ohio Association of Professional Firefighters, said a review of the law may be justified, and he does not object to attempts to make bargaining more transparent.

 

"It is our fear that his legislation will destroy 27 years of public safety labor peace," he said. "Collective bargaining has been the only means for firefighters to gain safety standards."

 

Jay McDonald, president of the Fraternal Order of Police of Ohio, stressed that police departments, including his own in Marion, have made concessions in recent days and years to help deal with declining budgets.

 

"Collective bargaining and our rights to binding arbitration are fundamental," he said. "We strongly believe the state made a covenant to police in 1983 when the right to strike was eliminated."

 

McDonald spoke of the work he and his family members have done as police officers, saying they earned their wages. He also questioned how a merit-based system could apply to police officers, who, in part, are "paid to run toward gunfire."

 

McDonald also couldn't pass up the chance to bring up the controversy over Gov. John Kasich's recent criticism of a Columbus police officer. "Occasionally we enforce a traffic law, and somebody might call a police officer an idiot."

 

Neither McDonald nor Sanders faced much tough questioning from the committee.

 

The committee also heard from Kristen Treadway, director of human resources for the city of Gahanna, who was critical of recent binding arbitration the city went through with one of its safety forces unions. She said "we have extreme concerns with the collective bargaining process."

 

Treadway talked of the struggle to get pay freezes and changes to health insurance as city tax revenue declined 13 percent from 2007 to 2009.

 

"The cost of bargaining and the cost of continual wage and benefit increases when the city is not growing are not sustainable," she said.

 

Jeff Berding, a Cincinnati councilman since 2005, urged lawmakers to "make this insanity stop."

 

He said Cincinnati's personnel costs are growing 18 percent annually. The city's contract with police gives officers an average of $87 an hour for working holidays and can let workers retire with six-figure sums for unused leave, totaling $93 million.

 

Over the years, Berding said, the collective bargaining law has tilted in favor of the unions. He said once more generous benefits or work conditions go into a contract, "they never come out."

 

"People are hurting and they are outraged to see these kinds of abuses of their hard-earned tax dollars," Berding said. He added, "I must share with you my disappointment to realize that the union leaders and their members prioritize pay and benefits above averting layoffs."

 

Sen. Tom Sawyer, D-Akron, told Berding that collective bargaining was implemented to avoid the numerous public worker strikes that were occurring, and it has worked. While things need refining, "clearly this is not a system that is as broken as the system that preceded it."

 

Addressing a prior witness who also referred to Cincinnati's union contracts, Sen. Eric Kearney, D-Cincinnati, noted that "you make it sound like it just happens miraculously. These things are bargained for. No one was forced to make these agreements."

 

jsiegel@dispatch.com

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Mr. T]

The problem is that nobody who works for the government wants to suck in their gut and take a little less or contribute a little more to help get us through this recession that is now as long as Obama's tenure as president.

 

 

 

Most government Union workers feel like they are privilaged and the rest of us should be happy they show up for work on time.

 

 

Can we get someone to show them a little reality?

 

Just what the doctor ordered.

[Westside Steve]

Seems like a good time to deal with the teachers union like we did with airline traffic controllers.

Shouldn't be hard to find replacements in this economy.

WSS

[calfoxwc]

"sniff... don't you want to make us rich? What about the kids? What about the clean streets? sniff..."

 

It's an excellent move to stop it now. We can't afford it anymore, and that is an understatement.

 

Out of control self interest and GREED (and wanting to win the lottery by any means necessary) is

out of style now.

 

Sorry liberal marxists. You lose. We want our country back.

[Mr. T]

It wouldn't suprise me if the unions had received their marching orders from the Community Organizer and Chief. First you have New York and New Jersey with the unions not wanting to take any concessions and now we have Wisconsin on prime time tv. Up next is Ohio.

 

 

[Westside Steve]

It wouldn't suprise me if the unions had received their marching orders from the Community Organizer and Chief. First you have New York and New Jersey with the unions not wanting to take any concessions and now we have Wisconsin on prime time tv. Up next is Ohio.

Not much doubt about that.

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

Anyone want to explain why this affects public employee and teachers unions, but not public safety unions?

 

Anyone want to guess?

[Westside Steve]

Anyone want to explain why this affects public employee and teachers unions, but not public safety unions?

 

Anyone want to guess?

 

I'm sure you have a point to make so go ahead.

 

But a cop and firefighter strike would be a lot more dangerous that a teachers strike.

 

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

Is there anything to your posts on this issue other than you do not like unions? It doesn't seem like it.

 

Steve wants to see all teachers who make a fuss about losing their collective bargaining rights fired and replaced by ....that giant pile of qualified unemployed teachers in Wisconsin. There's a great idea.

 

This is your Republican Party in a nutshell - driven by spite, offering one sentence solutions to complex problems without even a basic understanding of them, and yet completely self-satisfied with themselves and their rage. You've got guys in here who are suddenly livid - and experts - about an issue they only learned about 30 minutes ago.

 

Jeez.

 

Again, does anyone want to explain to me why some public employee unions are the problem and must be stripped of their bargaining rights, but not other employee unions? Anyone?

 

Is this really about the budget? After all, this guy came into office with a budget surplus.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Come on, Steve. Where that "non-partisan, clear-thinking realist who cuts through all the bullshit" when we need him? Seems he's taken the day off.

 

Again, if this guy was asking the teachers unions to kick in more for their health benefits, as Chris Christie did in New Jersey, I'd be all for it. But that's not what he's doing.

 

And if this were really all about the budget, I'd be all for listening to his offer. But that's not what this guy is doing. He made his own deficit, and now he's pretending the cause of his problem is the public employee unions. Well, it's the recession, not the unions. And if the problem really were the public employee unions, he'd be after all of them, not the ones who didn't back his campaign and generally vote Democratic, and not touching the ones that did back his campaign and generally vote Republican.

 

Workers deserve a spot at the table along with management. That's basic stuff. You can believe that workers should have no voice other than quitting their job and finding another, but most people don't think that. Maybe you guys in here do.

 

[Westside Steve]

Come on, Steve. Where that "non-partisan, clear-thinking realist who cuts through all the bullshit" when we need him? Seems he's taken the day off.

 

Again, if this guy was asking the teachers unions to kick in more for their health benefits, as Chris Christie did in New Jersey, I'd be all for it. But that's not what he's doing.

 

And if this were really all about the budget, I'd be all for listening to his offer. But that's not what this guy is doing. He made his own deficit, and now he's pretending the cause of his problem is the public employee unions. Well, it's the recession, not the unions. And if the problem really were the public employee unions, he'd be after all of them, not the ones who didn't back his campaign and generally vote Democratic, and not touching the ones that did back his campaign and generally vote Republican.

 

Workers deserve a spot at the table along with management. That's basic stuff. You can believe that workers should have no voice other than quitting their job and finding another, but most people don't think that. Maybe you guys in here do.

 

 

Hey as I said why don't you make your point?

 

It has a lot to do with teachers ponying up.

50K is a lot of dough for a fairly easy gig.

Retiring at 55 on the backs of the taxpayers is just not something we can afford.

 

Do cops get SS?

Firemen?

 

And I think the public would rather home school than man the bucket brigade or take turns at neighborhood security.

 

But you say it's about punishing teachers for voting Dem?

That's an effect not a cause.

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

Jesus. How moronic. How utterly moronic. I don't even know where to start with that it's so dumb.

 

Let's start here: do you think workers have a right to bargain for their benefits - health insurance, pension, etc - with their employers, in this case the state government? Yes or no.

[Westside Steve]

Jesus. How moronic. How utterly moronic.

Well, your response certainly is.

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

Steve, talk about the actual issues here - collective bargaining, the budget, the deficit, its causes, possible cuts, etc. As soon as you start bring up firing all the teachers who - gasp - don't want to give up their seat at the table, and bucket brigades, and all the other nonsense that will never happen, you sound like a shithead in a bar.

[Westside Steve]

Jesus. How moronic. How utterly moronic. I don't even know where to start with that it's so dumb.

 

Let's start here: do you think workers have a right to bargain for their benefits - health insurance, pension, etc - with their employers, in this case the state government? Yes or no.

 

 

I see you re thought your post. Good for you.

 

OK lets say yes.

 

Now did someone suggest they should have asolutely no rights in that regard?

Yes or no?

 

WSS

[Westside Steve]

And rather than to waste time later I have no gripes with anybody unionizing and demanding whatever thgey want.

I also think that emploter oughta be able to hire somebody else who wants the job.

 

What's unfair about that?

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

So then you're against what the governor is doing. He's wants to remove all collective bargaining rights for state union workers - except, of course, those that supported his campaign - for all benefits or anything not related to salary. And for salary, he's stripping their right to negotiate a raise greater than simply keeping up with inflation.

 

So yes, he's essentially removed the ability for workers to negotiate their compensation. Clearly.

 

You're for this? Really?

[Westside Steve]

So then you're against what the governor is doing. He's wants to remove all collective bargaining rights for state union workers

 

 

Well I doubt your characterization is accurate but yes Heck, only in the case as you describe itI'd not be supportive of taking away all rights.

 

And if you read my other post I'd not be opposed to replacing them all if their demands became excessive.

How about you?

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

You doubt my characterization is correct? Huh? Usually when you do that, you have to supply evidence to the contrary, don't you? Otherwise you run the risk of looking like a dick when you're wrong.

 

And you are. Here's from the Wisconsin paper.

 

"Walker wants to remove all collective bargaining rights except for salary for all of Wisconsin's roughly 175,000 public employees starting July 1. Police officers, firefighters and state troopers would be exempt. Any requests for a salary increase higher than the consumer price index would have to be approved by referendum, and public employee contracts would be limited to one year."

 

 

Listen to you be unthinking and unreasonable. A Governor proposes something you discover you're not for either. But before you discover what it is he's proposing, you post about your wish that he fire all the teachers for this.

 

Then, after learning what he's proposing, you say they should be fired if their demands are excessive. And what's their major demand? To not do that thing that you just discovered you don't want them to do either.

 

Another lovely case of unthinking, unyielding partisanship from the self-proclaimed clear thinker.

[Westside Steve]

Listen to you be unthinking and unreasonable. A Governor proposes something you discover you're not for either. But before you discover what it is he's proposing, you post about your wish that he fire all the teachers for this.

 

Then, after learning what he's proposing, you say they should be fired if their demands are excessive. And what's their major demand? To not do that thing that you just discovered you don't want them to do either.

 

Another lovely case of unthinking, unyielding partisanship from the self-proclaimed clear thinker.

 

That might be a gotcha if you were in the ballpark.

But as usual...

 

I have no gripe wit6h teachers bargaining.

However if they choose to strike they should do so with the knowledge someone else might be glad to take the job.

That's bargaining Heck.

Two sides.

I realize you can't grasp that idea.

 

Lets try again...

Is that fair or not?

WSS

[Westside Steve]

PS I'd hardly call it "firing" to replace someone who refuses to go to work.

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

Steve's favorite tactic. We're not talking about that thing we were just talking about - we're talking about something else!

 

This isn't about collective bargaining - it's about striking!

 

But hey, what the hell? Let's walk through this: in the negotiation about whether or not to give up their collective bargaining rights, you'd like the government to have the power to fire people who strike in order to get their way.

 

What power would you like the workers to have in their negotiation? You'd like them to have the power to not strike and get fired if they do.

 

So: one side can fire you and hire someone else under the conditions they set in order to get their way. The other side can...

 

Explain to me what right you'd like the workers to have to back their side if not striking.

 

[Westside Steve]

Steve's favorite tactic. We're not talking about that thing we were just talking about - we're talking about something else!

 

This isn't about collective bargaining - it's about striking!

 

But hey, what the hell? Let's walk through this: in the negotiation about whether or not to give up their collective bargaining rights, you'd like the government to have the power to fire people who strike in order to get their way.

 

Replace them if they refuse to work.

If these people are irreplaceable then what's the problem?

 

What power would you like the workers to have in their negotiation? You'd like them to have the power to not strike and get fired if they do.

 

So: one side can fire you and hire someone else under the conditions they set in order to get their way. The other side can...

 

Explain to me what right you'd like the workers to have to back their side if not striking.

 

 

What's the dif?

You aren't going to answer honestly anyway.

 

What power does an employer have if he can't hire people who want to work?

 

Should I be able to ask for three times my salary knowing they can't get someone else?

WSS

[VaporTrail]

Let's screw over the people that actually give a shit about our state's youth, then give their jobs to the lowest bidder. Great idea! 10/10

[heckofajobbrownie]

Answer the question. Or get the point. If you give employers the right to fire, which they have, but take away the worker's right to strike, how is this a fair negotiation? What card do the workers have to play if they can't negotiate, and strike if they can't get an agreement them like?

 

Or have you simply not thought this through?

 

And striking doesn't equal "I don't want to work." That's ridiculous. If they didn't want to work, they wouldn't have 25 years of teaching under their belt, 18 years as a public employee. This has nothing to do with that.

 

I get tired of your misunderstandings.

[Westside Steve]

Let's screw over the people that actually give a shit about our state's youth, then give their jobs to the lowest bidder. Great idea! 10/10

So you don't believe there are caring concerned people out there who would love to teach if they got less?

Or that there aren't plenty of mediocre teachers working now?

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

Oh, God. Here we go again.

 

We've gone from what Gov. Walker proposed to you talking about bad teachers. Retreat and try to find some high ground - it's what you do.

 

I guess we'll take that as an admission you'd rather not talk about things you're suddenly realizing you haven't thought through.

 

I particularly like your theory that workers should get a seat at the negotiating table, but that only one side should hold all the cards.

 

You should be on the side of the people in the Capitol. The governor is proposing what is essentially the destruction of the union's ability to represent its workers in the one arena where it counts. And it's no mystery why - Republicans don't like unions because they don't vote for Republicans. (I wonder why.) Of course, they're not touching the public safety unions, which are more filled with waste and unnecessary perks than teachers unions by a long shot. (I wonder why.)

 

And we're all supposed to think this is just a governor who wants to balance his budget and stand up for fiscal conservatism.

 

 

[Westside Steve]

Answer the question. Or get the point. If you give employers the right to fire, which they have, but take away the worker's right to strike, how is this a fair negotiation? What card do the workers have to play if they can't negotiate, and strike if they can't get an agreement them like?

 

Or have you simply not thought this through?

 

And striking doesn't equal "I don't want to work." That's ridiculous. If they didn't want to work, they wouldn't have 25 years of teaching under their belt, 18 years as a public employee. This has nothing to do with that.

 

I get tired of your misunderstandings.

 

 

Oh and we all get tired of your bullshit but lets try again.

 

Here's your leverage, no matter what service or product you provide.

Is our service valueable to those who hire us?

If we believe it is then if we think it wopuld be more cost effective for that employer to give us more then we are free to ask.

If that service is worth enough to the employer (that is he'd have more problems replacing that group than it was worth) he can give you more.

 

Now if your service is easily replaced at equal quality for lower cost then I suppose you have nothing to bargain with.

Where in real life is that not the case Heck?

 

If the service a brick and mortar store provides is worth paying a dollar more for a widget I'll buy my widget there.

If that isn't the case I'll buy my widget online and pay less.

 

So that's my answer.

If you're product or service isn't worth more than someone elses you don't have much to bargain with.

No more than if the guy across the street offered your employee more than you did.

Should he be barred by law from accepting?

 

Man up and tell me how one is fair and not the other.

But you're just mad because it seems Dems are being targeted.

 

WSS

[Westside Steve]

Oh, God. Here we go again.

 

We've gone from what Gov. Walker proposed to you talking about bad teachers. Retreat and try to find some high ground - it's what you do.

 

I was talking to Vappr, you dunce.

His post was before yours.

Look at the previous one.

 

I guess we'll take that as an admission you'd rather not talk about things you're suddenly realizing you haven't thought through.

 

I particularly like your theory that workers should get a seat at the negotiating table, but that only one side should hold all the cards.

 

You should be on the side of the people in the Capitol. The governor is proposing what is essentially the destruction of the union's ability to represent its workers in the one arena where it counts. And it's no mystery why - Republicans don't like unions because they don't vote for Republicans. (I wonder why.) Of course, they're not touching the public safety unions, which are more filled with waste and unnecessary perks than teachers unions by a long shot. (I wonder why.)

 

And we're all supposed to think this is just a governor who wants to balance his budget and stand up for fiscal conservatism.

[VaporTrail]

So you don't believe there are caring concerned people out there who would love to teach if they got less?

Or that there aren't plenty of mediocre teachers working now?

WSS

 

I think that they should have the option to be able to make more than just what inflation dictates.

 

Think about it. It's not unlike how I feel about how I feel about medical doctors. But with teachers, these people are barely making enough as is. Now you want to restrict the money that they make!?! Jesus christ, I could think of better ways to save money. Take money out of the Ohio National Guard. Hell, take it away from the doctors getting paid by federal buck. I'm sorry, but teachers just don't make enough money as it is, and now they're trying to take it away.