- Advertisement -
  • Most Commentedmost commented up
  • Most Emailedmost emailed up
  • Popularmost popular up
- Advertisement -

« News Home

Mayors pander to union voters

Published: Thu, September 29, 2011 @ 12:00 a.m.

Mayors pander to union voters

There was an article in last Saturday’s paper reporting that area mayors are opposing Senate Bill 5, or Issue 2. If there has ever been a more blatant display of pandering for union votes, I haven’t seen it. These people ought to be ashamed.

In the world of labor/management relations, which is inherently adversarial, SB 5 is a tool to give public sector management a stronger hand. The fact that these politicians oppose the bill speaks volumes.

As an area politician, I have an opinion as to why they did this. First, they know that politicians in the Mahoning Valley who oppose the unions do not get re-elected. Secondly, they know that SB 5 does away with arbitration, putting the decisions in the negotiating process back in their hands. They can no longer claim that their hands were tied during negotiation by saying, “The arbitrator made me do it.” They also know that SB 5 provides for public scrutiny of the negotiating process and the ability for the taxpayer to participate through public hearings when there is a stalemate. Politicians who claim to have the taxpayers best interests at heart, but behind closed doors go along with union demands, will no longer have this cloak of secrecy.

If you sat on the board of directors of a corporation and you learned that your CEO attended a union meeting where a strike vote was taking place and encouraged a yes vote, what would your reaction be? The public actions of these mayors, and many other area politicians are no different. While they have a moral obligation to treat their employees fairly and to compensate them as best they can, their first obligation is to be a good shepherds of taxpayers’ dollars. When times are tough their duty is to stretch our tax dollars as far as possible in order to maintain public services, even if this means compensating each employee less in order to achieve it. SB 5 (Issue 2) provides the tools to do just that.

You should remember which politicians opposed SB 5 and send them a message come next election, that they were sent to represent you. Vote yes on Issue 2.

Daniel Moadus Jr., Girard


1VINDYAK(1799 comments)posted 2 years, 12 months ago

You have to understand where you live. This has been union and Democrat territory for many, many years because of the industry that operated here in the valley.

Valley industry required labor, and that labor became organized into unions. The unions enabled workers and families to improve their working conditions and lives from the 1930's through the 1960's. After WWII our local economy boomed with growth in industry, housing, schools and cities. Times were good, work was plentiful and industry continued to bend to union demands in order to keep production going.

Then in the 1970's, after many industries began leaving the Valley, unions began to organize workers in the public sector... those working for local and state governments. This created quite some controversy, as many folks felt that people working in government should not be allowed to be organized into unions, as striking against government would be harmful and dangerous. Public workers won out, after many emotional, legal battles.

Throuhout the 1980's, 1990's and into the new century labor issues settled down and most industrial workers found new jobs earning fair to good income with good working conditions and less unions. Then the recession hit in 2008 and people started loosing their jobs. Lay-offs, business shutdowns, industry closings and families losing their homes.

Unemployment is now at 9.1% and families are still hurting. Many have had to take lesser paying jobs just to keep food on the table. Broken families and divorces are up. Paying taxes to support massive state and local governments is overwhelming for many of us. Just about every state and local government entity is over-budget and needs to cut expenses. We elected new government officials, but we are not over the hump, yet.

We need to raise taxes across the board if we want to maintain our current pace because we have run out of areas to cut. This is not acceptable to most of us, as we cannot afford the additional tax burdeon. The next step is to cut government expenses even further by reducing employee costs. This can be accomplished thru laying off of employees, or adjusting their compensation packages.

I vote for adjusting compensation packages and keeping those employees working. Vote YES on Issue 2, keep SB5 in place and keep families working! Let's not put another family out onto the street looking for work they cannot find. Keep Ohio working, vote YES on Issue 2.

Suggest removal:

2piak(508 comments)posted 2 years, 12 months ago

The mayors mostly come from Demcratic party backgrounds. What would you expect them to do? You're right! They come down against Issue 2.

@ Vindyak: You are correct in what you've written and in your conclusion. I've been griping about the fact that there is no clause in these contracts that state "The ability to pay the promised benefits are contingent upon the population and general community income, based on median wage figures".

Either a loss of population (as has happened in the Valley) or a low median income (compared to the median incomes of the affected employees) will affect the community's ability to honor the contract. No one foresaw the economic disaster that has hit this area.

NO ONE wants to put people out of a job or "steal their food and impoverish" them as the ads imply. Those ads are nothing but blatant propaganda.

Suggest removal:

3SAVEOURCOUNTRY(470 comments)posted 2 years, 12 months ago

Something you all fail to understand is, Most public sector jobs around here require a college degree or degress. Most private sector jobs do not. Thus public sector pay will be higher.
Mayors locally as well as around the state, not just in our little valley here have spoken out against SB5.....YES republican mayors as well. Raed other newspapers from around the state.

If you want a right to work state, move to one and enjoy the increased poverty levels that are sure to follow. Thats a fact jack.

As for the ads, I've seen not one that isn't truthful. SB5 calls for all things and more they claim. Staffing levels are illegal to bargain for, what will stop a government from saying one firemen or police officer per shift? What will stop a school board from saying one teacher per grade level? NOTHING and it will happen. Look at Vegas, teacher shortage and no unions equal 50+ in a class. I don't want that for my child and I don't think you do either.

Suggest removal:

4Dan_Moadus(33 comments)posted 2 years, 12 months ago

Something "saveourcountry" fails to understand is the special nature of public service and public service jobs. Where the military serves the country, a police or fire department serves their community. It is not about the soldier in the military and it is not about the safety forces. If the general decides that five men is all he can spare to go on patrol, the soldiers don't get to decide that they need nine. And so it is with public service jobs. The employee is not supposed to be the primary concern, their task is. We have to trust that the legislators will strike a good balance between the employees interest and the public interest.

Suggest removal:

5theotherside(333 comments)posted 2 years, 12 months ago

This comment "...While they have a moral obligation to treat their employees fairly and to compensate them as best they can... is why you should vote No on Issue 2. To quote Ronald Reagan, "...trust but verify..." and that verification comes from real collective bargaining and binding arbitration. True checks and balances. To think that politicians should just be trusted to do the right thing is laughable.

Here is the best editorial to date on why you should vote No on Issue 2:


Suggest removal:

6Phil_Eng_Amer(10 comments)posted 2 years, 12 months ago

Clearly what politicians fear here is a loss of voting support. We’ve created a vicious cycle where unions throw millions of dollars at unions and in return give them back lucrative compensation packages (). The problem of course is that this model is unsustainable because it creates a system that continually awards state and local employees a total compensation package that far outstrips those found in the private sector (http://eng.am/pZofYR). Once these contracts get locked in, we run into massive problems. While the majority of the country has seen their compensation decrease during this recent economic downturn, the public sector has actually seen their compensation increase (http://eng.am/pn5weF).

Clearly this is an issue in Ohio (), and if it’s not SB5, then some piece of legislation must be enacted to bring the system in line.

Suggest removal:

7theotherside(333 comments)posted 2 years, 11 months ago

Phil, although I dispute the assertions of disparity between private and public employees, (the majority of professional public employees hold bachelor and master degrees and if comparing that, they make less than their private sector counterparts). In the present economy, it is reasonable for public employees to freeze wages (which they have been), pay more into their health care (which they have been) and pay their own share of their pension contribution (which 93% already do. It is management that enjoys the perk of pension pickups, not the rank and file union members). So some reasonable adjustments are justified. But SB 5 isn't the answer. SB 5 is nothing more than an over reaching power grab by the republicans to permanently make the democratic party a minority party in the state and country so they can consolidate power. This is the bigger issue. That is their real goal. Notice how they never refute that charge? This is about handing unfettered control to one political party who is presently being controlled by an extremist fringe that wants nothing more than to hold onto indefinite authority. Do we really want to enable them? I would just as soon pay for my police, firefighters, teachers, and others instead of that specter.

Vote No on Issue 2.

Suggest removal:

8northsideperson(365 comments)posted 2 years, 11 months ago

Well said, theotherside!

Suggest removal:

9VINDYAK(1799 comments)posted 2 years, 11 months ago

Today I saw a commercial on tv encouraging people to vote no on Issue 2. The speaker was supposedly a nurse who said that SB5 prevents her and her fellow nurses from negotiating the amount of nurses on staff, which hurts their ablility to help people.

This absolutely floored me. Nurses have the ability to negotiate the number of nurses on staff?!? What other industry allows their employees to negotiate the number of employees on their shift?

This reminds me of a time in my life when I lay in a hospital bed listening to my doctor and nurse discuss my case. The doctor recommends to the nurse that my bandages be changed. The nurse said "I'll have a nurses aide come in and do it. I don't change bandages" The doctor says " I don't have a union like you do". They both walked out and a nurses aide came in later to change my bandages.

This is compassionate health care at its best! Please don't get me started on health care! Vote YES for SB5 ... Vote yes on Issue 2!

Suggest removal:

10Dan_Moadus(33 comments)posted 2 years, 11 months ago

The problem with how the a current collective bargaining system works is that there is only one "stakeholder" at the negotiation table, the employee. Neither the politician nor the arbitrator has anything to lose as they are not negotiating for their incomes. And worse; In my town and probably many others the administration's compensation is based on what the employees get. It the employees get a better deal on health care, so does the administrators. Who's representing the taxpayer in that relationship?

Suggest removal:

11walter_sobchak(1910 comments)posted 2 years, 11 months ago

I have repeatedly made the same argument. In the private sector, there is an adversarial relationship between the union and management. The union wants more money that has to come out of the pockets of the owners. In the public sector, the money comes from the pockets of the taxpayer and we must hope that the government "management" will be good stewards of the tax dollars. Fat Chance! Their compensation will be based on what the union gets. Both sides win and the taxpayer loses. This is why govt offices don't use zero-base budgeting. Vote Yes on Issue 2 to restore some sanity in govt budgeting.

Suggest removal:

12theotherside(333 comments)posted 2 years, 11 months ago

Dan_Moadus, walter_sobchak, etc. your beef is with management. Where is it written in law that management must get the what the union rank and file negotiate? Nowhere. Zip. Zilch. Nada. So why do boards and politicians allow this to happen? They have the authority now to stop such practices without SB 5. They can easily say there is no "me too" clause. And if they did, they could then insist that management negotiate from that perspective instead of from the "me too" perspective. Boards and management simply think it's easier to allow "me too", and then blame the unions for the costs. Hilarious. This doesn't have anything to do with the union. This has to do with management and the politicians who control them. Take it up with them. This certainly is no reason to kill collective bargaining and binding arbitration, which are the true checks and balances that protect the taxpayers. Trusting politicians and management to just "do the right thing" (which is an argument made by pro-SB 5 supporters) is laughable. Ronald Reagan said it "...trust, but verify..." and that verification comes from the checks and balances that collective bargaining and binding arbitration provide to taxpayers. And as far as pensions, 93% of workers already pay their share. It is management who benefits from "pick ups", not the union. So that up with management as well. And when is you side going to respond to the charge that this effort is actually nothing more than a power grab by the republicans to permanently relegate the democrats to a permanent minority status by busting the unions to dry up the contributions that support democrats?

Vote No on Issue 2.

Suggest removal:

13commoncitizen(961 comments)posted 2 years, 11 months ago

Dan Moadus, EXCELLENT letter!!
otherside, if the mayors do not "go along" with the unions they would be targeted in the next election by the unions. They should all be voted out for not doing their jobs (trying to save the taxpayers money).
Vote YES on SB5

Suggest removal:

14theotherside(333 comments)posted 2 years, 11 months ago

commoncitizen, you mean that you fear a majority of voters would exercise their right to vote for the candidate of their choice? Really? Or is it more that you believe lobbies are only good for the political side you agree with?

Vote No on Issue 2.

Suggest removal:

15commoncitizen(961 comments)posted 2 years, 11 months ago

I'm all for the majority of all voters getting what they voted for. Are you saying that's it OK for the mayors to side with the union worker when they should be looking out for the people living in their cities and not pandering to a certain few?

Suggest removal:

16theotherside(333 comments)posted 2 years, 11 months ago

I want the mayors to side with what is best for all the citizens in their communities. They obviously feel that SB 5 is a bad deal for Ohio and their respective communities. I would find it hard to believe that they simply sided with the union influence. There are many more constituents in their communities than public employee union members. They see what SB 5 is really all about (something SB 5 supporters continue to refuse to respond to) and felt that it is bad law for their communities. What interest do the mayors have in supporting the "certain few" as you stated, over the majority of their constituents? None.

Suggest removal:

17ytown1(392 comments)posted 2 years, 11 months ago

Mainly because the few which are the Union employees, their family and friends are the voting few and the vast majority of their constituants are so disgusted with the politics of politics they stay away from the voting polls.

If you actually knew the makeup of the voting public and they are the unions and their familes and friends who would you pander too if it meant reelection or not.

Plain and simple, these mayors should be ashamed of themselves, they pandered to the unions and the know it. Vote them all out. We need mayors that will keep the costs in line and not give away the farm to these people.

Suggest removal:

18theotherside(333 comments)posted 2 years, 11 months ago

That is hyperbole and speculation. There are many, many more votes cast in elections than public employee union members and their friends. Actually, your logic smacks of desperation. In your mind, just because union members vote and others don't we should support SB 5? Really? And because union members exercise their right to vote is something politicians should fear? Wow. You simply can't fathom that the mayors are actually considering what is best for their communities and SB 5 isn't it.

Vote No on Issue 2

Suggest removal:

19VINDYAK(1799 comments)posted 2 years, 11 months ago

Vote YES for Issue 2. It is the only sensible way to solve our financial mess our Ohio governments are in.

Don't be intimidated by union retoric that sidesteps the issue and paints gloom and doom to their rank and file. This is only a ploy to win your vote. Vote YES for SB5, Vote YES on Issue 2.

Suggest removal:

20theotherside(333 comments)posted 2 years, 11 months ago

Vote No on Issue 2. It won't solve the financial mess the republicans put us in with their irresponsible tax cuts of 2005.

Don't be intimidated by the pro SB 5 rhetoric that sidesteps the issues and paints gloom and doom to all Ohioans. This is a ploy to win your vote. Vote NO on SB 5. Vote NO on Issue 2.

Suggest removal:

21VINDYAK(1799 comments)posted 2 years, 11 months ago

I see the otherside is coming over to my way of thinking...almost...Vote YES for Issue 2. It is the only sensible way to solve our financial mess our Ohio governments are in.

Don't be intimidated by union retoric that sidesteps the issue and paints gloom and doom to their rank and file. This is only a ploy to win your vote. Vote YES for SB5, Vote YES on Issue 2.

Suggest removal:

22theotherside(333 comments)posted 2 years, 11 months ago

VINDYAK, coming over to your way of thinking? The way that will foster permanent republican rule in government through the destruction of unions because they support democrats? The way of the consolidation of power with the extreme fringe of the republican party? The way of the desire of plutocrat wannabes like the Koch Bros to continue to hold the strings on puppet politicians like Kasich, Christie, and Walker? Hardly coming to your side for those reasons. And why won't you, Jessiedavid, Kasich, anyone on the pro-SB5 side address these issues. Are you just shills for the above or are you paid to think that way?

Vote No on Issue 2. It won't solve the financial mess the republicans put us in with their irresponsible tax cuts of 2005.

Don't be intimidated by the pro SB 5 rhetoric that sidesteps the issues and paints gloom and doom to all Ohioans. This is a ploy to win your vote. Vote NO on SB 5.

Vote NO on Issue 2.

Suggest removal:

23Philo(99 comments)posted 2 years, 11 months ago

It's common knowledge that unions eat their own young. The older union members nearly always sacrifice the younger union members for their own greedy self interests. Rather than accept a reasonable reduction in pay and benefits, teachers, police and fireman would rather see the younger teachers, policemen and firemen laid off. Then, they have the audacity to talk about unsafe or difficult working conditions due to lack of manpower. And in schools this mentality hurts the kids. Although I have no objections to private sector unions there is just no room for unions in the public sector and they should be outlawed altogether. If that makes public sector jobs less desireable, so be it. There are many others who would be glad to have the jobs even at reduced pay and benefits. Just ask any of the hundreds of young people here in the valley with a teaching certificate who can't get a teaching job anywhere. Ultimately, SB 5 or some other legislation will be upheld because the current system is unsustainable. If by some miricle however, SB 5 is recalled, then the voters should never pass another levy anywhere in the state, regardless of the need.

Suggest removal:

24Dan_Moadus(33 comments)posted 2 years, 11 months ago

Maybe the teachers should have been using their political power to change those conditions instead of passing around petitions to stop Ohio's new election law.

Suggest removal:

25theotherside(333 comments)posted 2 years, 11 months ago

And Dan,

Many of us were standing outside of the locked statehouse in freezing weather in February as well. Shameful display of abuse of the citizens of Ohio.

Still waiting for an answer.

Why won't the pro-SB 5 supporters on here discuss the real intentions of Issue 2? Namely, the republican unstated goal to be the permanent governing party in power by destroying the unions to dry up democrat contributions. All while doing the biding of corporate puppet masters like the Koch Bros?

Save Ohio from these extremists.

Vote No on Issue 2

Suggest removal:

26Philo(99 comments)posted 2 years, 11 months ago

Fortunately, this problem will resolve itself in reasonably short order, regardless of the outcome of Issue 2. If SB 5 is upheld,(even though it doesn't go far enough and outlaw public sector unions altogether) it will provide some tools to keep costs under control. If SB 5 is overturned there will be a voter backlash and it will be difficult, if not impossible to ever get a levy passed no matter how badly the money is needed. The end result of not passing levies is that more public sector union employees will be laid off and less will be paying dues, since the senior union members will most certainly sacrifice their younger union brethern. This is an unsustainable model and in the end, the public sector unions will strangle themselves with their own greed and obstructionism.

Suggest removal:

27theotherside(333 comments)posted 2 years, 11 months ago

And the obfuscation continues. Jessiedavid and Philo gave non-answers to my charges that the real agenda behind Issue 2 is the republican desire to permanently hold onto government power by relegating the democrats to permanent minority status through union busting in an effort to dry up funding for the democrats. Instead, they make baseless accusations rooted in what they think they know about the issue. All while they ignore the facts that 93% of public employees already pay their share of their pension contribution (10%). It is mostly management who enjoy pension pick ups, not union members. And all public employees have no problem reaching the 15% health care premium contribution and in fact many already pay that level. So the only conclusion that can made is that they will not answer the real reasons for Issue 2 because they support the idea of the republican extremist fringe remaining in control of government as well as union busting to defund the democrats.

And that is why you should vote No on Issue 2.

Suggest removal:

28Dan_Moadus(33 comments)posted 2 years, 11 months ago

Oh; so the Democrat party doesn't want to permanently hold onto power and relegate the Republicans to permanent minority status? This is just a Republican goal right?

This is nothing more than battle of "personal interests" vs. the "public interests".

So you don't see the problem when a retiring Police chief walks away with a check of $564.000 and his full pension. Do you actually think this is sustainable?

SB5 (Issue2) is nothing more than a reaction to a system that doesn't work. It is in the public interest to create some flexibility in employee compensation where there currently isn't enough to enable the maintenance of public services. The very fact that cities and school systems have to reduce staffing and services when finances dwindle instead of reducing employee costs proves that the current system of negotiations do not work.

Suggest removal:

29theotherside(333 comments)posted 2 years, 11 months ago

I think either party that tries to press extremism is at fault. Just so happens, right now it's the republicans and their fringe, extremist, tea party handlers. The republicans in Columbus miscalculated that they could attempt to do what republicans have wanted to do back to Reagan and the air traffic controllers and long before that. Use the excuse of the economic downturn to blame the economy on public employees and pit Ohioans against each other, and then attempt to bust public employee unions. Union busting is republican heritage. Except this time, Kasich and his cronies failed to calculate the response from the rank and file. I agree that the police chief issue is excessive. But since the police chief is not part of the bargaining unit, what does that have to do with collective bargaining and the unions? Nothing. Again a management issue. Take it up with the management and politicians who permitted that excess. And it is not in the public interest to create a system where the premise expects "politicians and management to do the right thing". Collective bargaining and binding arbitration are truth finding checks and balances that protects the public interest from abuses in the system. SB 5 will enable those exact abuses if it becomes law.

Vote No on Issue 2

Suggest removal:

30Dan_Moadus(33 comments)posted 2 years, 11 months ago

Well, how's that collective bargaining and arbitration working out for us? It's not. Just look at all the school systems and cities that have to cut back on the service they provide, simply because there was no provisions to roll back employee cost when the tax base shrinks. The public worker is being lied to by their leadership. SB5 is the first and most benign attempt at easing them into the new economic reality. My guess is just as in the PATCO affair, they will overplay their hand until they no longer exist. Which by the way will happen when the taxpayer gets fed up enough.

Suggest removal:

31theotherside(333 comments)posted 2 years, 11 months ago

More obfuscation.

Vote No on Issue 2

Suggest removal:

32SAVEOURCOUNTRY(470 comments)posted 2 years, 11 months ago

Everyone for SB5 must have family in government management jobs. That has to be the only reason someone would want to see fellow middle class families forced into the poor house. "Hey, lets vote for the bill so Uncle Kasick will fire the teacher of the year from youngstown and hire cousin Judy. It doesn't matter that it took her 15 years too graduate from YSU and she finished last in her class. So what that she hasn't past the Ohio cert. test after 25 tries. She can do better than "teacher of the year".

Question? Do public employees already pay 10% of ones salary into retirement. YES....no need for SB5
Question? does collective bargaining work in Ohio? Yes, unions in the public sector have been giving back arcoss the board for 8 to 10 years now....long before this recent "depression" hit. No need for SB5

Question? why isn't elected officials covered under SB5? They would lose free healthcare, free clothes allowance, free pension, free cars, and the ability to hire friends and family that are not qualified for government jobs they are hired to do. No need for SB5....just a referendum that rein it elected officials like Kasick's power and make them act and feel like average citizens, not demigods like he thinks he is

Suggest removal:

33Dan_Moadus(33 comments)posted 2 years, 11 months ago

Maybe "saveourcountry" will be kind enough to cite some of the "across the board" give backs he claims. I would particularly like to see where any public employee union has ever agreed to a wage rollback.

And maybe "education_voter" will give us a few examples of the incorrect information he claims we keep repeating.

Suggest removal:

34SAVEOURCOUNTRY(470 comments)posted 2 years, 11 months ago

here are facts. Teachers pay 10% of their salary to the state retire system currently. Those for SB5 want you to think its picked up by the employeer. Its only true for police chiefs, fire chiefs superintendents and any other position deemed managaement. SB5 will not change a thing either way. Why is it needed then? Its Not. Secondly, Sb5 says public employees should pay 15% of health insurance. Currently I pay 28%. Public employees pay A percent of their wages for healthcare, not a percentage of the cost like the private sector does.
Another fact, most private sector healthcare packages allow for some sort of income to still be brought home when on sick leave. In the public sector, we have not such perk. If I don't have enough sick days, I have no money coming in if I am off sick or hurt.

Dan, When the kasick is able to keep his step raises and I am forced by choices agreed upon by my union's majority vote to take pay freezes for seven years in a row, that's a give back. When School districts like Youngstown turn down bigger raises (the board offered 2% each year and the teachers only accepted 1%) that's a give back. when unions like YSU are willing to accept a fact finders report that calls for cuts, that's a give back. Why? Public workers union understand the position that greddy republicans and democrats have put us in.
there are you facts.....book'em DANO

Suggest removal:

35Dan_Moadus(33 comments)posted 2 years, 11 months ago

Only someone who works in the public sector would call accepting a one percent raise, when two percent was offered, a cut. And only someone working in the public sector would view having a seven year wage freeze as a cut, as if it's a "right" to have a pay raise each and every year.

And I really love where "saveourcountry" says that most private sector healthcare packages allow for some sort of income to still be brought home when on sick leave. On sick leave, what the heck is that? Could anyone have a more naive opinion than that?

Suggest removal:

36SAVEOURCOUNTRY(470 comments)posted 2 years, 11 months ago

Naive, its fact. I look at my wife, off 8 weeks having a baby, all full pay and she works in the private sector. My father who worked for GE for 38 years was off sick several times in 38 years and collected a reduced pay check becuase he didn't have sick days or vacation days left. Its called sick leave pay, need I go on.
Yes, an increase in out of pocket costs is a cut whether public or private employement. Yet, you see no problem with KASICK getting is step raises either, do you? I do.As the private sector was getting pay rasies in the early part of the last decade, those of us with frozzen wages in the public sector said nothing. once again BOOK"EM DANO

Suggest removal:

37co060759(4 comments)posted 2 years, 11 months ago

What some people might not know is that in school when a person gets rehired after their date of retirement they do not keep any raises. They actually go back to starting salary.

So in some cases this is a great deal for schools. They get an experienced teacher for less money.

Not all teachers are good, but most are and they work for little pay. Starting rate around here is 31000.

Not all that much money considering the cost of college and the degree requirements. Also teachers are required to further their education by attending additional classes. In most cases this comes out of the teachers pocket.

Suggest removal:

38co060759(4 comments)posted 2 years, 11 months ago

Taking a 1% pay raise when the cost of living has gone up more than 1% sure seems like a give back to me.

Suggest removal:

39theotherside(333 comments)posted 2 years, 11 months ago

Bottom line.

John Kasich, Building a Better Ohio, and the Columbus republicans would have the voters believe that Issue 2 is about public employees paying more into their pensions and health care. And they would have voters believing this while 93% of public employees already pay 10% into pensions (SB 5 mandate) and many public employees already pay 15% for health care, and the rest that do not understand the need to do so. So these republican talking points aren't the issue and this is what the voters have to understand. The majority of voters in Ohio believe public employees should have the right to collectively bargain. SB 5 kills that right by allowing management to adopt it's final offer as a contract without regard for the union position. There will be no reason for management to bargain in good faith because they won't have to. They simply will wait out the negotiation and impose their final offer. This isn't collective bargaining. It is inherently unfair collective begging. The public needs to understand as well that in this fight, working conditions may well be affected for private sector union members as well as non union workers if Issue 2 passes. Why not? The republicans would be emboldened by an Issue 2 passage and feel they are mandated to let the next shoe drop. Is that a chance you are willing to take? Send Columbus the message that Ohioans won't be bullied by Kasich, Niehaus, and Batchelder and Ohio will send a message to the rest of the country that union busting is unacceptable.

Vote No on Issue 2

Suggest removal:

40Dan_Moadus(33 comments)posted 2 years, 11 months ago

Actually, giving the final say to elected officials is mainly a reaction to the many decisions made by arbitrators that cost cities more than they could afford. You may look at an arbitrator as a neutral party, and is a sense they are, but the arbitration system does not work. Witness all the cities and school systems who ended up in Fiscal Emergencies because they did not have the needed flexibility to deal with shrinking revenues. What's wrong with giving the decision over to people who have to answer to the voters every two years? And please, don't you think you're stretching when you try to convince anyone that the private sector unions (what's left of them) will be attacked. Just remember, you people are putting your personal interests ahead of the public interests.

Suggest removal:

41VINDYAK(1799 comments)posted 2 years, 11 months ago

Ohio Public Sector workers are paid 43.4 % more than private-sector workers. A report prepared for the Ohio Business Roundtable by Andrew G. Biggs, Ph.D. and Jason Richwine, Ph.D.

Opponents of SB 5 argue that Ohio public workers currently receive less compensation than they could
receive in the private sector, and that SB 5 would worsen the problem. This report compares current
public‐ and private‐sector compensation in Ohio, focusing on how the wages, benefits, and job security
of public employees compare to those of private‐sector workers with similar skills. We conclude that:
• Ohio public employees receive nearly the same wages as comparable private workers (2.5 percent
less), but
• Fringe benefits for Ohio public workers are more than twice as generous as those paid in the private sector, meaning that when pay and benefits are taken into consideration public workers receive 31.2
percent more in total compensation than private‐sector counterparts.
• Ohio Public employees enjoy significantly greater job security than private‐sector workers. That job
security has an economic value equal to approximately 10 percent of compensation.
In total, considering wages, benefits (including retirement), and the value of job security, Ohio public sector workers are paid 43.4 percent more than those in private‐sector employment.
• Even if the provisions of SB 5 were implemented in full, it is very likely that Ohio public‐sector workers
would continue to enjoy a substantial compensation premium over private‐sector Ohioans.

Suggest removal:

42co060759(4 comments)posted 2 years, 11 months ago

What formula do you use to quantify the job security public sector offers as equal to a 10% pay advantage?

Also the point that public sector jobs require a college degree seems to fall on deaf ears. The is an unequal comparison going on. It stands to simple logic that a college grad should make more and recieve better benefits compared to less educated worker. If this were not the case why would anyone willingly take the debt that college causes?

Suggest removal:

43snydro0108(61 comments)posted 2 years, 11 months ago

As an area politician, I have an opinion as to why they did this. First, they know that politicians in the Mahoning Valley who oppose the unions do not get re-elected.

THIS IS SO TRUE!!! PRO UNION gets you RE-ELECTED! PRO WORKER gets you defeated!

Suggest removal:

44SAVEOURCOUNTRY(470 comments)posted 2 years, 11 months ago

if your pro union, your are pro worker. They are one and the same...DUH!!!!!!

Suggest removal:

45GFD940(1 comment)posted 2 years, 11 months ago

You need to do some fact checking on you statements. You keep using Chief Hughes as an example on why to vote yes on Issue 2. Here are some fallacies with your example:
1. Police and fire chiefs are NOT union members.
2. Your numbers are still way off any ways. You state that Chief Hughes received $564,000 upon retirement. See http://www.tribtoday.com/page/content.... There is a big difference between $65,539 and $564,000. If you are considering his DROP payout, then be honest and say that it cost the tax payer $0. It is a reinvestment of his retirement earnings. And what he did receive was due to being a good steward of tax dollars and using his sick time diligently.
3. Public employees are compassionate and do understand the current economic climate. We have made many concessions, taken pay freezes, paid more into our healthcare. The reason I went into public service (and the majority of others that have) is to help their communities.
Your letter is full of half-truths and outright distortions of reality. Please step away from the Kasich-Aid!

Suggest removal:

46jupiter(116 comments)posted 2 years, 11 months ago

Moadus should stick to the cesspool that is Girard. Dan, this issue encompasses a lot more than your feeble mindedness can comprehend. Stick to more pressing issues, like which menu item at JibJab is the most popular.

Suggest removal:

47disgustedjoker(46 comments)posted 2 years, 11 months ago

Enough is enough! Stop blaming the unions for the mistakes of upper management! If you elected competent politicians, you wouldnt be in this debate. How would it be fair for an employee who makes 30k a year to pay the same co-pays as Kasich who is earning 6 figures? This is an attack on working people and Kasich has to go! Look at all the money kasich wasted on securing his home instead of moving in to the mansion which already had the security! The state is in fiscal emergency and Kasich keeps creating new positions and hiring his croneys! Working Ohioans are not stupid Kasich and we wont stand for you attacks! See you at the polls.

Suggest removal:


HomeTerms of UsePrivacy StatementAdvertiseStaff DirectoryHelp
© 2014 Vindy.com. All rights reserved. A service of The Vindicator.
107 Vindicator Square. Youngstown, OH 44503

Phone Main: 330.747.1471 • Interactive Advertising: 330.740.2955 • Classified Advertising: 330.746.6565
Sponsored Links: Vindy Wheels | Vindy Jobs | Vindy Homes | Pittsburgh International Airport