So Ohio gets union rights back; What next? Layoffs or tax hikes?

[eflatminor]

What is need: common, cool-headed bargaining.

And you expect that to happen with PUBLIC sector unions? Think of it this way: When a private union sits across the table with a business owner, they're bargaining based on what each understands to be in their best interest. Fine. However, when a public union sits across the table from a politician, he's bargaining with the very organization that helped to put him in power! How likely is it that the politician, bargaining with other people's money (taxes), will engage in cool-headed bargaining when his opponent is the key to his re-election? Perhaps the status quo, this "common coolheadedness", is why Ohio has a total state debt of approximately $240,236,606,000. Yea, that's working out well

This is why FDR himself was AGAINST public union collective bargaining.

 

[ClosedCaption]

This was about collective bargaining. What the fuck is wrong with collective bargaining?

What is the rights solution to bargaining with a corporation for benefits and wages? David and Goliath? There isnt strength in numbers?

You are not bargaining with corporations you are bargaining with the tax payers.

No you are bargaining with the Employer.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I have no idea what Ohio will do, but I think you are missing something in your assumptions. In the medium term, you can't pay people less and get the same quality.

Never mind the fact that the law/referendum in question had NOTHING to do with cutting salaries...

Taxes have to go up or spending has to be cut. Those are your choices.
If you arent willing to reduce spending on employee benefits, then where?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Massive blowback from the 2010 elections. It appears the over reaching of the neo cons and tea baggers will not go unrewarded.

The overhwleming passage of state isssue 3 goes a long way to negate this claim.

 

[M14 Shooter]

This was about collective bargaining. What the fuck is wrong with collective bargaining?

What is the rights solution to bargaining with a corporation for benefits and wages? David and Goliath? There isnt strength in numbers?

You are not bargaining with corporations you are bargaining with the tax payers.

No you are bargaining with the Employer.

Which is.... the people of the state of Ohio.
That is, the taxpayers.

 

[ClosedCaption]

You are not bargaining with corporations you are bargaining with the tax payers.

No you are bargaining with the Employer.

Which is.... the people of the state of Ohio.
That is, the taxpayers.

No, it's the govt. You sound like a chick who says to her cheating boyfriend "You hurt our children!"

 

[JakeStarkey]

What is need: common, cool-headed bargaining.

And you expect that to happen with PUBLIC sector unions? Think of it this way: When a private union sits across the table with a business owner, they're bargaining based on what each understands to be in their best interest. Fine. However, when a public union sits across the table from a politician, he's bargaining with the very organization that helped to put him in power! How likely is it that the politician, bargaining with other people's money (taxes), will engage in cool-headed bargaining when his opponent is the key to his re-election? Perhaps the status quo, this "common coolheadedness", is why Ohio has a total state debt of approximately $240,236,606,000. Yea, that's working out well

This is why FDR himself was AGAINST public union collective bargaining.

Yes, on occassion, FDR was against collective bargaining. He also he realized he had no choice because businesses would pay next to nothing for valuable work. That is the issue here: value.

Either unions and managers determine fair value, the system will fail. The American worker will not go back to the 1930s. That will not happen.

And, for all of your wailing, during the era of union good times, the greatest middle class of history and the most wealthy business class of all time was developed.

Then the 1% wanted more.

No.

 

[JakeStarkey]

And the taxpayers in Ohio spoke: treat union workers fairly.

 

[auditor0007]

So Ohio gets union rights back; What next? Layoffs or tax hikes?

Neither.

It merely means state employees have their rights back with regard to disciplinary actions and firings. It means they may avail themselves of employment due process.

Nothing more.

Which means unions can make threats to avoid discipline or termination of their members, aka, the lazy, spoiled moody workers who want 100K for doing a half ass job. Which means less productivity.

It means those with seniority cannot just be let go because they make too much money to be replaced by lower salaried employees. Those who hate unions always state that the unions protect high paid workers who have become unproductive. However, what they miss is that most of these employees are actually very productive, but by removing seniority as a protection to their employment, all of a sudden without the union backing, these people who have devoted their entire careers to doing a good job and getting to a point where they are actually finally making decent money could then just be let go because they make too much.

 

[M14 Shooter]

No you are bargaining with the Employer.

Which is.... the people of the state of Ohio.
That is, the taxpayers.

No, it's the govt. You sound like a chick who says to her cheating boyfriend "You hurt our children!"

The government is the represetnative of the people of the state of OH.
Public employees are employed by, well, the public.

 

[paulitician]

Yay for more Big Government! More Big Government,more Big Problems.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Yes, on occassion, FDR was against collective bargaining. He also he realized he had no choice because businesses would pay next to nothing for valuable work. That is the issue here: value.

False. The law/referendum in question had nothing to do with the right of public employees to bargain for their salaries.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Big Business is not the answer.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Dumbass left wingers just dont get the math do they. Ohio voters voted to bring back collective bargaining rights for public sector unions.

Its known that Ohio governments simply cant afford the status quo. But, the law is now the law, and unions are gonna always demand more, and refuse to sacrifice for the greater good. So........which is first:

1- Layoffs for firemen, cops, teachers. Gotta make payroll and budget. Time to trim some fat.

and/or

2- Raise taxes on companies and individuals. Which will cause business to leave Ohio for non-union states like South Carolina, which is rapidly attracting business like Google, Boeing, BMW, etc, due to non-union labor, low taxes.

So either way, Ohio loses jobs.

Good job libtards.

Hey its their state if they want to vote for something that guarantees tax hikes or layoffs so be it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yes, on occassion, FDR was against collective bargaining. He also he realized he had no choice because businesses would pay next to nothing for valuable work. That is the issue here: value.

False. The law/referendum in question had nothing to do with the right of public employees to bargain for their salaries.

Value has to do with work place safety as well as other issues. Value is not just $$$.

Get your facts and understanding straight.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Hey its their state if they want to vote for something that guarantees tax hikes or layoffs so be it.

Their vote will lead to layoffs and salary cuts.
:shug:

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Hey its their state if they want to vote for something that guarantees tax hikes or layoffs so be it.

Their vote will lead to layoffs and salary cuts.
:shug:

Yup. except or not and

 

[auditor0007]

You are not bargaining with corporations you are bargaining with the tax payers.

No you are bargaining with the Employer.

Which is.... the people of the state of Ohio.
That is, the taxpayers.

So if the taxpayers elect responsible officials, they will deal in a fair manner with the unions so that fair contracts will be put in place. Our elected officials do not have to give in to everything every union asks for. That is why it is called negotiation, so that there is give and take on both sides. When it comes to the schools, if voters don't approve school levies and the money isn't there, it doesn't matter what the union asks for, because they won't get it.

In our local school district, teachers agreed to a pay freeze over the next couple of years, even though they didn't have to. The choice was to lay off more teachers, so they agreed to the pay freeze even though their contract did not require it. Just because they are union does not mean they are completely unreasonable, especially when they can see that the money isn't there.

 

[M14 Shooter]

No you are bargaining with the Employer.

Which is.... the people of the state of Ohio.
That is, the taxpayers.

So if the taxpayers elect responsible officials, they will deal in a fair manner with the unions so that fair contracts will be put in place.

The point was previously made was that the unions have a strong say in who gets elected to these positions, especially in urban areas. The conflict in interest should be obvious.

Our elected officials do not have to give in to everything every union asks for.

They are far more likely to do so when the unions greatly affect their chance at re-election.

 

[eflatminor]

What is need: common, cool-headed bargaining.

And you expect that to happen with PUBLIC sector unions? Think of it this way: When a private union sits across the table with a business owner, they're bargaining based on what each understands to be in their best interest. Fine. However, when a public union sits across the table from a politician, he's bargaining with the very organization that helped to put him in power! How likely is it that the politician, bargaining with other people's money (taxes), will engage in cool-headed bargaining when his opponent is the key to his re-election? Perhaps the status quo, this "common coolheadedness", is why Ohio has a total state debt of approximately $240,236,606,000. Yea, that's working out well

This is why FDR himself was AGAINST public union collective bargaining.

Yes, on occassion, FDR was against collective bargaining. He also he realized he had no choice because businesses would pay next to nothing for valuable work. That is the issue here: value.

Either unions and managers determine fair value, the system will fail. The American worker will not go back to the 1930s. That will not happen.

And, for all of your wailing, during the era of union good times, the greatest middle class of history and the most wealthy business class of all time was developed.

Then the 1% wanted more.

No.

No, FDR was against all public sector collective bargaining...and for good reason. Try to focus here. We are not talking about private unions, only public.