Comment history

Once a union metropolis, Valley sees that title fade

Like I've said, unions only thrive when competition is limited to protect them, like in the public sector. It's NOT an American value to give people less options, but there are some that think we should just so unions can survive. If unions want to survive, they need to compete for the workers' dues, not force dues from them. But union leaders for the most part are Socialists at best and don't understand this (or care to understand it).

Issue 2 is important because it takes away the monopoly power of the public sector unions. Look at the scare tactics the unions have used. Do you think they should lie to people for their own selfish economic gains (with YOUR money)? Send the union bosses a message on Tuesday!

November 6, 2011 at 7:59 a.m. suggest removal

Youngstown leads nation with poverty rate of 49.7%

Average: Politicians don't create jobs, they create an environment that helps to create jobs... low corporate taxes, incentives for hiring and reinvestment, limited regulation, strong schools to develop the workforce, and limited union presence. We have not had that environment in a long time in the U.S. and I don't think ever in Youngstown. The unions run wild because the people and the politicians allow it. The vast majority of Ohioans, in any poll you look at, favor right to work legislation. This would make unions earn their members instead of mandating them to join or loose their job. That legislation alone would solve the union greed issue, and take politics out of the union movement, while still giving workers the protections they need. Not to mention that giving workers a choice is the right thing to do. So yes, the politicians can create jobs.

November 3, 2011 at 9:49 a.m. suggest removal

Youngstown leads nation with poverty rate of 49.7%

It is funny how some here blame Republicans for poverty in Youngstown. A Republican has not been elected in Youngstown since the 1970's. Times were good under Bush for most the U.S. Obama has had three years and things only seem to get worse. Yet Republicans are to blame, even though Democrats had complete control of government for two of those three years. Youngstown's repeated "doubling down" on Democrats have backfired. Yet most of these people are going to double down on unions and vote against Issue 2, and think things will change by doing the same old thing. And of course they will blame the Republicans when cities and townships have to layoff teachers, firefighters and police to balance their budget, even though there is not a Republican in sight. The Republicans tried to find a solution, the dumb masses want the status quo, yet expect a different result.

November 3, 2011 at 8:31 a.m. suggest removal

Which side in SB 5 argument has best pay deal?

AnotherAverageCitizen, I am not sure who specifically you are talking about, but I'll take you at your word. Although we both know Republicans and Democrats alike do the very same thing, give sweetheart deals to their cronies. It is wrong when both do it. But I think this issue is being used just to get more people angry at Kasich so they will vote against SB5. Union bosses are the biggest Democrat cronies who get major sweetheart deals like preferred stock in GM when other investors lost everything. Not a lot of people on the left complaining about that. If you've lived in the Mahoning Valley for more than a few years you can site tons of examples of Democrats paying off cronies.

October 26, 2011 at 12:57 p.m. suggest removal

Which side in SB 5 argument has best pay deal?

AnotherAverageCitizen: so I wonder how the public employees that work for Kasich got a raise without the help of a union. Gee, maybe unions really are not needed. Maybe there are other ways to get what you want. I know, radical thinking.

October 26, 2011 at 11:49 a.m. suggest removal

Which side in SB 5 argument has best pay deal?

NoBS - workers will have a say, but not through collective bargaining. 88% of the workers in this country are non-union, and workers have plenty of say. They just have to go about it differently, like the rest of us do. In Georgia, teachers make more money given cost of living than teachers anywhere else in the nation. Any they are non-union, and very organized. I know that does not make sense to a lot of union people, but it can be and is done. The difference is the Democrats don't get their pockets lined by doing it other ways.

As far as the steel mills, perhaps you forgot the union would not let management modernize the plants. Remember the "Not One Job" mantra of the SWU. Management tried to modernize the plants, which would lead to job cuts and different skills needed. But the union said h**l no, we want it the old way. So they used 100 year old equipment until they could not sell steel anymore for the price they needed to charge, and they shut the doors.

And if the evil steel barons could have made money with or without a union, believe me, they would have. It's all about money to them. The rest is noise. You don't get rich being emotional with business decisions, and "getting even" is emotional.

October 26, 2011 at 11:27 a.m. suggest removal

Which side in SB 5 argument has best pay deal?

hmm...just a few thoughts about your post. First, my main concern is that unions force workers to pay them or be forced out of their jobs. My mission in life is to help stop that unconstitutional and totally immoral practice that should have died in the dark ages. We might still have a steel industry if Ohio were right to work.

Also, saying that it will be illegal to talk to management about anything is simply a lie. That is union propaghanda made to scare people into voting against SB5. It may ban the union from having any say in the matter, but if you need equipment, the union (or you) could go to a city council meeting and address them and the public, you could talk directly to the head of your department, you could call the press, many ways to communicate what you need.

Go back and look at the actual wording of the law to see if what the union told you was true. If it is not, be sure to let your union rep know that you do not appreciate being lied to by your paid representative.

October 26, 2011 at 10:34 a.m. suggest removal

Which side in SB 5 argument has best pay deal?

Another reason to support SB5 is that it will permit teachers, firefighters, etc to opt out of union membership if they so choose. I saw a report yesterday that said over 50% of teachers in Wisconsin have opted to leave the union. That's a choice ALL people should have. No one should be forced to support a union and its politics if they do not want to.

Also, all the whining about not being able to strike. Federal employees are permitted to unionize, but they are forbidden to strike. SB5 is pretty similar to the federal law, but you don't hear them complaining, and their pay has gone up even more than state employees.

The bottom line is the Democrats don't want to loose a funding source that makes people pay up or lose their jobs. Save that mentality for the mafia. What better reason to vote yes.

October 26, 2011 at 8:35 a.m. suggest removal

Faculty union, administration reach a tentative agreement

saveourcountry: It sounds like you are advocating a liberal temper tantrum. The fact of the matter is very few public employees will leave their post after SB5 becomes law. If they do, best of luck to them. Many are working in the public sector out of a feeling of duty to the community. They will not leave and will continue to be well compensated. Others are doing it for the type of job, hours, or other reason. They too will not leave. If they plan to stay in Youngstown, I am not sure where they would get a private sector job from, but I guess they could look.

Once the union temper tantrums are over, and public sector employees survive and even thrive in the new world they will be in, life will return to a better "normal". And Ohio will be a much stronger state because of it.

September 29, 2011 at 12:34 p.m. suggest removal

Faculty union, administration reach a tentative agreement

YSU students take notice. The union was going to strike and inconvenience you, which would have withheld your student aid, and possibly destroyed your graduation plans. But they changed their minds when the union bosses realized it may affect the SB5 vote. Not because they love their students, but because it would hurt their chances to get what they want in November.

What is to learn here? That the public sector does not need to have the right to strike in order to get what they want. Whether you like SB5 or not, whether you like the governor or not, they saved you a lot of inconvenience, money and pain, and the faculty will still get what they need. They won't need food stamps or have to live under a bridge. When you reign in greed, in this case union greed, everyone wins.

Consider voting yes on the SB5 vote in November. You have already been helped by it. And the world didn't end thanks to it.

September 29, 2011 at 8:37 a.m. suggest removal