Forgive me if there’s another thread on this, I searched and couldn’t find one.
Ohio Issue 2 is a ballot measure to repeal Senate Bill 5, which was recently signed into law by Gov Kasich. SB5 restricts the collective bargaining rights of state employees.
In a strange (to me) bit of semantic wordplay, a Yes vote on Issue 2 means you approve of SB5, and a No vote means you want to reject the new law. It was argued that this would make more sense to voters, even though technically the law has already passed and a Yes vote should be a vote to repeal it. It’s got me all confused.
The most recent poll shows popular support against SB5, with 57% opposing it and 32% in favor. This seems to agree with the random assortment of signs in my predominately conservative neighborhood. Despite their political leanings, it would appear nobody wants to piss off the unions.
I’m leaning towards a No vote at this point. Gov Kasich’s arguments have been of a budgetary nature, suggesting that SB5 will save the state x dollars. I feel that SB5 is overreaching in its slashing of bargaining rights, and at the same time shows no concrete path to how it will actually save the state any money.
The State of Ohio should get the best possible deal it can when hiring employees. If they can get good teachers willing to teach for $20 an hour and no benefits, they should do it. If they can get good fire/police for $15 an hour, they should do it. The state should hire a person only if it’s mutually beneficial to the state and the employee. State employment should be neither a “jobs program” nor an effort to create and sustain a “middle class”. Given that Ohio constitutionally must run balanced budgets, those things can’t be done without damaging the overall economy. Ohio can’t borrow and spend to provide temporary stimulus like the federal government can.
The public employee unions are - I don’t quite want to say part of a Democratic political machines- but it approaches that. They use political power to funnel money from taxpayers to state employees and it’s got to stop.
How do you expect to get good teachers for $20/hr and no benefits? A good teacher will go get a job in the private sector, and you’ll end up with a teacher who wasn’t able to get a job anywhere else. That’s not gonna be a good teacher.
ETA: And good luck getting people to run into burning buildings and crack dens for $15/hour.
The underlying issue is that the Republicans* are pushing an agenda, and selling it not on its own merits, but on the basis of the good things that will come of the agenda if the Republican model of how the world works is correct. This is a rather entitled approach, since the whole point of elections** is that you’re supposed to convince the voters that your ideas are the ones that work best. It’s literally a case of:
Retain SB5
…
Profit!
*stipulated: this is not exclusively a Republican problem
**at least in theory
Moreover, it was a hidden agenda. Not one word was spoken during the 2010 Campaign by the Republicans about their plans to neuter the unions, and then as soon as they were sworn into office in January 2011 they made cutting the unions job one.
And the Republican Machine(nationwide) uses political power to cut funding from the middle and lower class and funnel all the benefits they can to the people who already have everything.
There is a surplus of applicants because the pay and benefits, especially for teachers with a lot of seniority, are so good nobody wants to retire. We had a fully qualified middle school science teacher watching our kids a couple of years ago because she couldn’t find a teaching job.
Yeah, mine as well. And additionally, I don’t think the state has any business taking away workers’ right to collectively bargain, even in part. I would feel that way even if it were definitely going to save Ohio a lot of money, but “We think it will save some money, probably, by some vague means” makes it even weaker, IMO.
What about the middle class taxpayers who are funding kindergarten teachers to the tune of $80,000 for 180 days’ work, plus a $45,000 pension? Who are the haves and have-nots in this exchange?
Your argument is bass ackwards. If the job were overcompensated, it would cause more early retirements, for the obvious reason that the extra pay would make early retirement affordable.
My kids’ kindergarten teacher, working at a public school here in Ohio, does not make $80k, according to that search tool. Significantly less, in fact. Although I’m not really sure what your point is. I guess you have an idea in mind of how much a kindergarten teacher is worth, and that point is less than $80,000. Having spent some time observing a kindergarten classroom, my feeling is that those teachers deserve all that they get plus more.
Nobody is paid on the basis of what they deserve. They’re paid the smallest amount of money that keeps them coming in to work. If you hired a plumber, would you ask him how badly he needs the money before deciding how much to pay?
So your problem isn’t with a teacher making $80,000. It’s that you think that the teacher shouldn’t be making $80,000, because in your imaginary world where the unions don’t exist, teachers would be making…some other amount of money. Hard to say what exactly. But definitely less than $80k/yr! Is that about it?
When I make up imaginary worlds I like to make sure they have robots and flying cars in them. And shirtless cabana boys. Yours have kindergarten teachers who make somewhere less than $80k/year. That’s cool.
And, my son’s kindergarten teacher makes $79,000 and will get a pension of $52,000. Five two. Not bad for a job you can’t get fired from and that gives you all summer off. Plus, she was a lousy teacher. Of course that makes no difference in her pay.