• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Are You Voting Next Tuesday?

Are You Voting November 8th?

  • Undecided.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    20
  • Poll closed .
No election here this time. And it would hardly be right of me to vote in the elections here when I'll be gone before the ballots are even counted.
 
If so, on what?

I know I am voting to repeal Ohio's law banning collective bargaining for public employees....I do need to study up on the ballot, though. I hear there are a lot of levies and other stuff. I'd link a copy of my sample ballot here, but Ohio counties and cities have ballot issues as well...and likely this is also true where you are, too. So instead, I urge you to Google for your sample ballot and study on your issues.

So, without a major issue or race involved, and without a hectic media blitz to annoy us all, will you be voting next week?

IMO, these "minor" elections may be even more important to our daily lives than the big presidential elections, as I believe what Tip O'Neil said:

"All politics is local."

Before you decide it ain't worth your time on November 8th, please remember....MANY people have fought for and even died for your right to vote.
Same here, voting to repeal sb5, otherwise known as issue 2...unfortunatley Kasich's sorry ass isnt on the ballot this time around, can't wait to put him out to the curb.
 
Why do you guys want to repeal a bill that corrects an ethics problems?
Unions exist to protect workers from employer abuse, the employers are the public.

Do you all really believe that the public will abuse state workers?
 
Why do you guys want to repeal a bill that corrects an ethics problems?
Unions exist to protect workers from employer abuse, the employers are the public.

Do you all really believe that the public will abuse state workers?
what exactly do you mean when you say 'ethics', please explain.
 
what exactly do you mean when you say 'ethics', please explain.

Public employees are in a non competitive market, aka a monopoly.
If public employees decide to strike, can the public not pay taxes until they return to work?

Also, unionized public employees get double representation towards the state/local government.
They get to vote and lobby government through their labor union.
They get more representation than the non public employee, aka the average voter.

It subverts the democratic process.

It's completely unethical and for a long time, even labor union leaders agreed that it was wrong.
 
Last edited:
Public employees are in a non competitive market, aka a monopoly.
If public employees decide to strike, can the public not pay taxes until they return to work?

Also, unionized public employees get double representation towards the state/local government.
They get to vote and lobby government through their labor union.
They get more representation than the non public employee, aka the average voter.

It subverts the democratic process.

It's completely unethical and for a long time, even labor union leaders agreed that it was wrong.

A monopoly!?!?!?!? I was a public employee teacher for 33 years. We had no monopoly. There were Catholic schools, military schools, Lutheran schools, charter schools, home schooling.... there was no monopoly.

So now the right wing has come up with a way to deprive union members who are public employees of their rights of citizenship via representation? Amazing.

How does what you describe subvert the democratic process? You state it but offer no proof of it. What part of the democratic process has been 'subverted' .... whatever that may mean?
 
A monopoly!?!?!?!? I was a public employee teacher for 33 years. We had no monopoly. There were Catholic schools, military schools, Lutheran schools, charter schools, home schooling.... there was no monopoly.

So now the right wing has come up with a way to deprive union members who are public employees of their rights of citizenship via representation? Amazing.

How does what you describe subvert the democratic process? You state it but offer no proof of it. What part of the democratic process has been 'subverted' .... whatever that may mean?

Can the public not pay taxes, if public employees go on strike?
The public is captive to the taxes levied on them, whether or not the services are rendered.

Public agrees to one level of taxation, public employees demand a raise, that would require a tax increase.

This isn't right and left, this is right and wrong.
 
Can the public not pay taxes, if public employees go on strike?
The public is captive to the taxes levied on them, whether or not the services are rendered.

Public agrees to one level of taxation, public employees demand a raise, that would require a tax increase.

This isn't right and left, this is right and wrong.

Why did you reprint my response and then say things that have nothing to do with what I wrote that refuted your post?
 
Public employees are in a non competitive market, aka a monopoly.
If public employees decide to strike, can the public not pay taxes until they return to work?

Also, unionized public employees get double representation towards the state/local government.
They get to vote and lobby government through their labor union.
They get more representation than the non public employee, aka the average voter.

It subverts the democratic process.

It's completely unethical and for a long time, even labor union leaders agreed that it was wrong.
issue 2/senate bill 5 is an attack on unions as a whole, continuing what appears to be the republican strategy of weakening organized labor(weakening their democratic opponents) and seen by many as being the first step in trying to turn ohio into a 'right to work' or, imo, a 'right to work for less money, benefits, and health and safety protections....senate bill 5 seeks to limit what govenment unions can collective bargain for, and by instituting new rules on what can be bargained for...Senate Bill 5, page 230, 4117.08 C: “nothing … impairs the right and responsibility of each public employer to......5)make any and all reasonable rules and regulations....as written, if the union wanted to collectively bargain against something, all the other side of the table would have to say is that what is being bargained against is 'reasonable', and that the union can't collective bargain on it...the bill accomplishes giving the public employer the power to determine what can be bargained for/against by its elimation of binding arbitration.

by eliminating binding arbitration, you effectively kill collective bargaining. disputes would be handled by the employer's 'legislative body'...heads the employer wins, tails the union loses. this is why the firefighters, police, and nurses are having such a fit, because this eliminates being able to bargain staffing levels. all the employer has to say is that the levels they want are 'reasonable' and can't be bargained on. there are no checks and balances in this bill.
 
Why did you reprint my response and then say things that have nothing to do with what I wrote that refuted your post?

You didn't bother to answer the pertinent question I asked in my post.

Can taxpayers not pay taxes, when public employees go on strike?
We already know the answer to this.

It's unethical, it may not fit your agenda, but the truth stands.
This isn't the same thing as private sector unions, which lobby to garner a more fair portion of the profit generated by a business.
Government isn't in the business of turning a profit, they get their funds from user fees and primarily taxes.

FDR was astute enough to realize this, maybe you should come around too.
 
issue 2/senate bill 5 is an attack on unions as a whole, continuing what appears to be the republican strategy of weakening organized labor(weakening their democratic opponents) and seen by many as being the first step in trying to turn ohio into a 'right to work' or, imo, a 'right to work for less money, benefits, and health and safety protections....senate bill 5 seeks to limit what govenment unions can collective bargain for, and by instituting new rules on what can be bargained for...Senate Bill 5, page 230, 4117.08 C: “nothing … impairs the right and responsibility of each public employer to......5)make any and all reasonable rules and regulations....as written, if the union wanted to collectively bargain against something, all the other side of the table would have to say is that what is being bargained against is 'reasonable', and that the union can't collective bargain on it...the bill accomplishes giving the public employer the power to determine what can be bargained for/against by its elimation of binding arbitration.

by eliminating binding arbitration, you effectively kill collective bargaining. disputes would be handled by the employer's 'legislative body'...heads the employer wins, tails the union loses. this is why the firefighters, police, and nurses are having such a fit, because this eliminates being able to bargain staffing levels. all the employer has to say is that the levels they want are 'reasonable' and can't be bargained on. there are no checks and balances in this bill.

The checks and balances are in the legislature, that are elected by "the people" and you're wanting to subvert that through the arbitration process.
It's wrong, "the people" elect individuals to represent their wishes in government, "the people" do not elect union representatives to change the rules in law.
 
The checks and balances are in the legislature, that are elected by "the people" and you're wanting to subvert that through the arbitration process.
It's wrong, "the people" elect individuals to represent their wishes in government, "the people" do not elect union representatives to change the rules in law.
no, it is not wrong. binding arbitration to settle disputes is well respected. the republicans in office now are not 'representing' my 'wishes' by trying to ram this turd of a bill down our throats.
 
A monopoly!?!?!?!? I was a public employee teacher for 33 years. We had no monopoly. There were Catholic schools, military schools, Lutheran schools, charter schools, home schooling.... there was no monopoly.

Of course, any parent who chooses to send their children to any of those alternatives is still compelled to pay for the public schools that they are not using in addition to the tuition that they pay on top of that to the schools that they are using.

I don't know that “monopoly” is entirely the right word to describe the situation, but clearly there is something wrong with a consumer being compelled to pay for goods or services from one provider, even if that consumer doesn't avail himself of that provider, choosing instead to buy from a different provider.
 
Last edited:
no, it is not wrong. binding arbitration to settle disputes is well respected. the republicans in office now are not 'representing' my 'wishes' by trying to ram this turd of a bill down our throats.

You don't seem to understand this.
I'm totally not caring who is ramming what down your throat.
If it were, socialists, democrats, anarchists, space aliens, nazi's, etc, I'd still be in favor.

Public employees are tasked with providing essential services to the public.
If they decide to strike, the welfare of the public is at stake and it essentially holds the public "hostage" to their demands.
It's wrong, completely and entirely unethical.

There is no getting around this.
 
Of course, any parent who chooses to send their children to any of those alternatives is still compelled to pay for the public schools that they are not using in addition to the tuition that they pay on top of that to the schools that they are using.

I don't know that “monopoly” is entirely the right word to describe the situation, but clearly there is something wrong with a consumer being compelled to pay for goods or services from one provider, even if that consumer doesn't avail himself of that provider, choosing instead to buy from a different provider.

He's cherry picking.
I wonder what police and fire services provider I can choose, if the public guys decide to strike. :doh
 
from HG

Also, unionized public employees get double representation towards the state/local government.
They get to vote and lobby government through their labor union.
They get more representation than the non public employee, aka the average voter.

Baloney. Lots of American gets lots of representation. If I am am member of a union, or a professional association, oran interest group, or a political action group, or any group which does lobbying - I can be represented and have my interests represented my man groups. You do not have to be in a public employee labor union to get that. NRA members get it. ABA members get it. Lots of people get it.

Can taxpayers not pay taxes, when public employees go on strike?
We already know the answer to this.

So what? This is irrelevant and means nothing. Its a red herring that sounds like something but actually is nonsensical.
 
Public employees are tasked with providing essential services to the public.
If they decide to strike, the welfare of the public is at stake and it essentially holds the public "hostage" to their demands.
It's wrong, completely and entirely unethical.

Not to mention that the public is still compelled, through taxation, to pay for these services even though the services are not being rendered. In the private sector, this would be considered theft and fraud.
 
You don't seem to understand this.
I'm totally not caring who is ramming what down your throat.
If it were, socialists, democrats, anarchists, space aliens, nazi's, etc, I'd still be in favor.

Public employees are tasked with providing essential services to the public.
If they decide to strike, the welfare of the public is at stake and it essentially holds the public "hostage" to their demands.
It's wrong, completely and entirely unethical.

There is no getting around this.
your opinion, and one that i do not share, just because you are 'public' employee, it doesnt mean that you have given up your rights. there is no getting around this.
 
Of course, any parent who chooses to send their children to any of those alternatives is still compelled to pay for the public schools that they are not using in addition to the tuition that they pay on top of that to the schools that they are using.

I don't know that “monopoly” is entirely the right word to describe the situation, but clearly there is something wrong with a consumer being compelled to pay for goods or services from one provider, even if that consumer doesn't avail himself of that provider, choosing instead to buy from a different provider.

And I hope you know that you pay for the public schools NOT because you have a child in them and directly benefit... but rather they benefit the ENTIRE community of which you are a member. It is NOT about if you use the local public school or if you do not use the local public school. That is irrelevant.

As to being compelled to pay - that decision was made by the community and your elected representatives.
 
Baloney. Lots of American gets lots of representation. If I am am member of a union, or a professional association, oran interest group, or a political action group, or any group which does lobbying - I can be represented and have my interests represented my man groups. You do not have to be in a public employee labor union to get that. NRA members get it. ABA members get it. Lots of people get it.

Other people do it, so it's ok for you to?
What's the next excuse?

I'm more than sure, as an educator, that you've told plenty of children that, 2 wrongs don't make a right.

So what? This is irrelevant and means nothing. Its a red herring that sounds like something but actually is nonsensical.

It's entirely relevant.
It's the important distinction between private business unions and public sector unions.
Private unions are legitimate, public sector unions are merely rent seeking entities.
 
And I hope you know that you pay for the public schools NOT because you have a child in them and directly benefit... but rather they benefit the ENTIRE community of which you are a member. It is NOT about if you use the local public school or if you do not use the local public school. That is irrelevant.

As to being compelled to pay - that decision was made by the community and your elected representatives.

Yes, so if public sector unions don't like what the community and elected representatives want to pay them, tough titty.
 
It's sad that personal ethics give way to political dogma.

Should legislators be able to unionize?
funny thing, this issue 2/sb 5, legislators and their staffs are exempt from it...they make the rules, but don't have to live within them.
 
funny thing, this issue 2/sb 5, legislators and their staffs are exempt from it...they make the rules, but don't have to live within them.

2 wrongs, don't make a right.

Edit:

Saying "the other kids did it too", is not a compelling argument to win approval.
 
Last edited:
2 wrongs, don't make a right.

Edit:

Saying "the other kids did it too", is not a compelling argument to win approval.
wasnt seeking your approval, i was stating a fact.
 
Back
Top Bottom