Comment history

Kasich: Issue 2 helped with budget passage

Olddude, for the first time we seem to agree! haha. It has been swept under the rug for as long as I can remember. I am basically one of the bottom rungs on the public sector ladder and I worry they will start at the bottom instead of the top where the excess is being spent. I work all year 8 hours a day and I made less than almost all of my friends. I put up with the comments for years about cleaning toilets and cleaning up puke and how much more money they made. I always thought to myself the benefits and job security make up for the less pay. I think alot of people on both sides are arguing the same point. Yes we need to cut back, but this is not the right way.

Falconeddy, I quit smoking a few years ago too to save money. I smoked cigars that are still $2.19 per pack, not cigarettes because they were too expensive then. As for a vacation ha! My property taxes, electric, gasoline and basically everything has went up over the last few years like everyone else and things have been tight. Public job or not I am living pay check to pay check just like most middle class people.

November 2, 2011 at 10:14 p.m. suggest removal

Kasich: Issue 2 helped with budget passage

So how does getting rid of our unions, senority rank and cutting our retirement solve all of the economic problems? We are a small part of the budget. Cutting welfare, unemployment or other government funded programs could help too. My district is not proposing a levy and is in the black so why should we be affected? We have cut costs and figured out a way to work with what we have, so should the rest of the districts. No matter what program you look at there is always some people that abuse it. Like I said, I am all for a cut back in government spending, I just think this issue is not the way to do it. There is so much waste that needs addressed, but I do not see how cutting our unions helps this. It is the Treasurers job to balance their own budget, if the economy is better and there is money for raises fine, if not too bad. I am even shocked at some of the wages goverment employees get and I think its excessive, but why should it affect every employee. There needs to be a more detailed approach than what they have proposed.

I keep going back to unemployment because I personally see several people taking advantage of it. The last I heard it lasted for about 99 weeks and almost everyone I know that is on it refuses to get a job doing anything less than what they did before. Why work a lower class job when you can sit at home and make the same? Well what about our tax money that goes to that? And a number of people collect unemployment and work under the table. So we are paying for part of their salary and the non taxed income they get does not help balance it out. What are people expecting will happen? If we lose our unions jobs will magically appear for them? I truely feel bad for those honest people that are laid off right now and I wish them the best, but this is not the right way to cut back.

Also welfare... The abuse of that system is disgusting. Cut back on the length of time, added money for having more kids and DRUG TEST!!! We had to start clipping coupons when our bills went up but our wages didnt and I see people in walmart with shopping carts full of name brand food laughing because they have so much money in food stamps that they have to buy extra food they dont need to use all the money. I see alot of problems that we as taxpayers can not do anything about, but they attack our unions? Its like the smoking ban. As a smoker I was all for banning smoking in resturants, but why not give bars and clubs the choice? The bill that passed was too broad of a stroke and I feel this is the same way.

November 2, 2011 at 7:38 p.m. suggest removal

Kasich: Issue 2 helped with budget passage

The state budget has already passed cutting funds to schools and nursing homes, so why target our unions? If the bill was to have wage freezes across the board we would have not had a problem with it. I do read more than SB5 discussions and I am not ignorant to the problems in our economy. My wife works in the private sector and every year she has gotten a raise. And another note, when I die she cannot collect my retirement if she herself is on social security. There are alot of details left out about our retirement in this debate. Vote NO to Issue #2

November 2, 2011 at 3:31 p.m. suggest removal

Kasich: Issue 2 helped with budget passage

It is not ok for us to have a union or raises(which have lowered over the last 10 years with the recession and have been frozen now).

If you are going to quote me dont leave out the part where our raises have been frozen. Everyone in our union was happy to not take a raise and pay more per month for health insurance since we are not ignorant to the fact the economy is down. Everyone is ASSuming that we are all money hungry and that is not the case. You cant get blood out of a turnip is an old saying my Grandmother always said. If there is no money we make cut backs just like the private sector.

Everyone keeps comparing our retirement to a 401k or Ira. Our retirement is our SOCIAL SECURITY. If you work in the private sector you get social security and a 401k or Ira if you choose to invest in one. We pay 10% into our required retirement, you pay around 6%. If you put the extra 4% into a 401k after 34 years and added that to your social security you would not be as far off as you think. Also figure in a private job that requires a Masters and I would be willing to bet you would exceed $91k after 34 years. I cannot speak for teachers salary, I can only tell you how mine works and I make a third of what your friend makes and I am at a dead end. If the cut backs leave me without a job, I will have start over with social security since we do not pay into it. Our retirement is setup for lifetime employment since we can not work 30 years at a school and get a job at walmart to further our retirement credits like you can with social security. We pay almost double into our retirement over our careers, but we are not entitled to receive it? I have never once heard "if sb5 does not pass the state tax rate is going to 20%" If so that will affect us too. If no one was working "under the table" and we all did our part we would not be in this situation. We have stopped getting raises pre sb5, we still pay more into our retirement, pay for our health insurance and we pay taxes like everyone else. I think we should get rid of the state tax and establish a state sales tax. That way everyone, no matter how they get their income, pays evenly. Drug dealers, welfare, people working under the table while on unemployment, and the work force. If you make $30k you buy less than someone who makes $1.2 million therefore you pay less in tax. Just my opinion...

November 2, 2011 at 3:19 p.m. suggest removal

Kasich: Issue 2 helped with budget passage

"If only the public sector went to wage freezes, 15 to 20% health-care contributions and increases to their pension back when the recession started. Guess what? You would be saying who's John Kasich? Where's McKees Rocks PA? And what is SB5? Ted Strickland would still be the gov. Don't blame the private sector blame yourselves for the position you're in now"

If the private sector would have taken your advice when the problems first started companies would not have outsourced to China, Mexico, etc creating a huge part of our unemployment problems. Plus if the private sector raised their social security rate could you imagine the up roar? It is not ok for us to have a union or raises(which have lowered over the last 10 years with the recession and have been frozen now) or health insurance (which has also increased every year for the last 10 years), but it is ok for the government to have to pay "prevailing wage" for any tradesman to work on government property? I know the Cleveland pipefitters wage for a laborer to sweep the floors or haul trash on a government construction site is around $38.00 per hour. Thats over double what I make. Another thing to consider is for most public jobs you need a job specific degree or training. For example a teacher needs a Masters degree to teach that is thousands of dollars and 6 or more years in education. They dont deserve a raise or benefits? How many private jobs that REQUIRE a Masters degree do not get raises or benefits? Or a Police or Fireman, how many private jobs do you risk your life everyday to protect people you do not know? In my opinion someone had a grudge and started SB5 and most of the people that support it are only in it because they think public employees get all kinds of "free stuff". If they would have have tried this when the private sector was making double of what the public employees were no one would have cared. Whats to stop them from banning all unions public and private? Most people forget the past working conditions that the union founders had to deal with that carry over to non union jobs as well. Minimum wage and other job safety laws could be the next target.

November 1, 2011 at 11:10 p.m. suggest removal

Kasich: Issue 2 helped with budget passage

"Go to the buckeyeinstitute web site and you will see that most teachers are making 30 or 40 percent more than they were in say 2004....."

Private sector has Social Security, which your employer has to match. We have a state retirement that is the same way. We have no choice on what we put it, just as you do not for social security.

If you choose to open an IRA you collect that plus social security. We can pay into an IRA and collect it with our retirement also and we get no match on it either.

November 1, 2011 at 5:24 p.m. suggest removal

Kasich: Issue 2 helped with budget passage

As a school employee, I pay more into my retirement than you pay into social security, I pay for my health insurance and I pay state, local and federal taxes just like everyone else. I have also not gotten a 30-40% percent raise since 2004 like I read above. I also pay union dues like any other union member public or private. I have heard alot of people tell me that sb5 is to cut down on our "free retirement and health insurance" while I currently pay higher percentages than they do at their private jobs. Keep in mind also that if a public employee has ever had a job in the private sector and has paid into Social Security, when we retire we forfeit most of the money. We can not take both forms of retirement. So anyone who has a part time job, self employed, or previously worked in the private sector has "paid into your retirement" Dont get me wrong, I know there are ways to cut down on spending in the government, but I feel attacking us personally is not the right choice. Our raises dropped with the economy and we are currently in a pay freeze to help cut costs. Not every union employee expects to not have to work and a 10% raise every year. Union or not it is the supervisors job to monitor their staff and to make sure everyone is pulling their weight. It is fine for our tax money to go towards welfare or government aid while some take advantages of those funds working under the table or doing illegal activities to earn non taxed income and its fine for our tax money to go towards our prison system for inmate comforts, name brand foods, etc, but you target the wages and the right to bargain of the government workers instead of useless spending? Or how many people know someone on unemployment that is receiving that check, plus working under the table too making NON taxed income who still complains about "their tax money going to the government"? There are alot of places the government can cut costs, but the people in charge do not want to do it. Issue #2 will not help with that.
VOTE NO to Issue #2.

November 1, 2011 at 3:53 p.m. suggest removal