• 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!

Ohio voters reject Republican-backed union limits

Henrin said:
Always worth a laugh when people actually consider bargaining a right.
Click to expand...
So free speech isn't a right then? Someone in authority can just dictate terms and you have no right to provide your position / counter offer?

Henrin said:
If you are forcing someone to bargain with you it can't possibly be a right to do.
Click to expand...
There are countless examples of one group or another refusing to bargain with the other.... since this is the case how can you claim it is forced?

Henrin said:
Please do not tell me but that isn't what it is about. If the government said no just once people would cry they had their rights violated and this kind of thing proves it.
Click to expand...
So can I assume that if government said you owe us 100% of your income you would be okay with it? I.E. it seems that in this situation you would be "crying" about your rights.
 
Swit said:
So free speech isn't a right then? Someone in authority can just dictate terms and you have no right to provide your position / counter offer?
Click to expand...

Free speech and results have nothing to do with each other. You can say whatever you please, but that doesn't mean anyone has to listen.

There are countless examples of one group or another refusing to bargain with the other.... since this is the case how can you claim it is forced?
Click to expand...

If I can't fire them and I can't keep on the replacements instead of the strikers as that would be a violation of federal law. I can't move to another factory to get around the process, nor can I send the work elsewhere in any other way. Tell me again how I can ignore these people in front of my business and better yet how to get rid of them without bargaining with them? Got any ideas? The only thing the employer gets is they don't have to pay them when they strike. Gee..maybe they will leave or maybe they will be even a bigger pest and hurt my business. Btw, ever here of the government suing business when they refuse to bargain? Yeah, that is what happens.

So can I assume that if government said you owe us 100% of your income you would be okay with it? I.E. it seems that in this situation you would be "crying" about your rights.
Click to expand...

Ah..how is that related exactly? These people have jobs, JOBS they can leave if they don't like how they are paid. If the government said I owe them everything I make I don't exactly have any other choice since they arrest me if I say no. Learn your laws and market forces then offer up a good comparison.
 
Last edited:
AdamT said:
Perhaps they realize that there is no real difference in budget problems between states that allow collective bargaining and those that don't.
Click to expand...

Actually, when it comes to states with serious pension liability problems, there does seem to be a difference.There are only 5 states that don't allow collective bargaining for public sector unions. Of the 45 states where it is permitted, it's mandatory in 34 of them.

Now, according to a 2010 Pew Research study, there are 19 states considered to be in serious financial trouble when it comes to funding the pensions of state union workers. Of those 19 states, 18 of them allow collective bargaining and only 1 does not. The study also considers 16 states to be in solid financial shape when it comes to funding union pensions. Of those 16, 14 of them allow collective bargaining, while 2 do not. The remaining 15 states the study classifies as "needing improvement".

So, when it comes to funding union pensions:

* Currently, 40% of the states that allow collective bargaining are in serious financial trouble, compared to only 20% for the states that don't allow it.

* Less than 1 in 3 collective bargaining states (31%) are financially solid, compared to the 40% for states that don't allow collective bargaining.

As you can see, when you break the numbers down it shows there is a difference.
 
GhostlyJoe said:
I actually think the "no on issue 2" side's propaganda was worse this time -- at least there was definitely a lot more of it.

Check out this bit of propaganda.



Here's one from the other side.




Sad.
Click to expand...


Considering that one ad (#1) told the truth....and the second ad was filled with lies and rhetoric (i.e. "Gold-plated pensions")....I think your post just proved my point.

The pro-corporate GOP's propoganda failed despite their best efforts.
 
Grim17 said:
Actually, when it comes to states with serious pension liability problems, there does seem to be a difference.There are only 5 states that don't allow collective bargaining for public sector unions. Of the 45 states where it is permitted, it's mandatory in 34 of them.

Now, according to a 2010 Pew Research study, there are 19 states considered to be in serious financial trouble when it comes to funding the pensions of state union workers. Of those 19 states, 18 of them allow collective bargaining and only 1 does not. The study also considers 16 states to be in solid financial shape when it comes to funding union pensions. Of those 16, 14 of them allow collective bargaining, while 2 do not. The remaining 15 states the study classifies as "needing improvement".

So, when it comes to funding union pensions:

* Currently, 40% of the states that allow collective bargaining are in serious financial trouble, compared to only 20% for the states that don't allow it.

* Less than 1 in 3 collective bargaining states (31%) are financially solid, compared to the 40% for states that don't allow collective bargaining.

As you can see, when you break the numbers down it shows there is a difference.
Click to expand...

What you have spouted off here is nothing more than talking points from the anti-worker/pro-corporate propogandists. There is absolutely no correlation between the numbers you site and collective bargaining rights.
When did "Conservatives" become so "big government" oriented?

Why should workers not have a right to negotiate with the government regarding their wages and benefits?
 
Henrin said:
Free speech and results have nothing to do with each other. You can say whatever you please, but that doesn't mean anyone has to listen.
Click to expand...
I never claimed you did have to listen.... as a matter of fact his just proves that negotiation sometimes break down.

Henrin said:
If I can't fire them and I can't keep on the replacements instead of the strikers as that would be a violation of federal law. I can't move to another factory to get around the process, nor can I send the work elsewhere in any other way. Tell me again how I can ignore these people in front of my business and better yet how to get rid of them without bargaining with them? Got any ideas? The only thing the employer gets is they don't have to pay them when they strike. Gee..maybe they will leave or maybe they will be even a bigger pest and hurt my business. Btw, ever here of the government suing business when they refuse to bargain? Yeah, that is what happens.
Click to expand...
So basically your are just saying you don't want to comply with federal law in certain instances... OK well I can understand that there are many laws I don't feel I should have to comply with either.

Henrin said:
Ah..how is that related exactly? These people have jobs, JOBS they can leave if they don't like how they are paid. If the government said I owe them everything I make I don't exactly have any other choice since they arrest me if I say no. Learn your laws and market forces then offer up a good comparison.
Click to expand...
Well, in my opinion it is related like this.... and here is your quote for reference:
Please do not tell me but that isn't what it is about. If the government said no just once people would cry they had their rights violated and this kind of thing proves it.
Click to expand...
While your assertion may in fact be correct, how can you complain that you are doing anything different?
 
Last edited:
TurtleDude said:
do you have any proof that the teaparty is mostly made up of people making more than 250K a year?
Click to expand...

The first time you PROVE or even provide a link for anything you say...Ill consider it...thank you :)
 
AdamT said:
What it means is that the people of Ohio realized that teachers and firefighters aren't the problem, despite unrelenting efforts by Republicans to demonize them.
Click to expand...
-------
This.
 
Henrin said:
If I can't fire them and I can't keep on the replacements instead of the strikers as that would be a violation of federal law. I can't move to another factory to get around the process, nor can I send the work elsewhere in any other way. Tell me again how I can ignore these people in front of my business and better yet how to get rid of them without bargaining with them? Got any ideas? The only thing the employer gets is they don't have to pay them when they strike. Gee..maybe they will leave or maybe they will be even a bigger pest and hurt my business. Btw, ever here of the government suing business when they refuse to bargain? Yeah, that is what happens.
Click to expand...

I don't oppose the right of a group of employees negotiate as a single unit, nor do I oppose the right of a group of employees to threaten (or actually do) walk off the job.

However, I do oppose the sorts of government restrictions you cite above. Both the employee and the employer must have the ability to walk away, but it looks like the law takes away that ability from the employer.

Actually, it looks like the only party actually being restricted in any way is the employer.
 
Most excellent news from Ohio. The people exercised great judgment and refused to be brainwashed by right wing propaganda. The tide has turned and the winds have shifted. Ohio could well be in the Democratic column in 2012 based on this rather one sided vote.

Here in Michigan, unions also won a big vote as conservative GOP House member Paul Scott became the first member of the legislature to be successfully recalled in twenty years. He was chairman of the Education Committee which has rammed through anti teacher union bills over the past ten months. He was recalled Tuesday night. Teacher unions were the backbone of the campagn against him.

I am reminded of Twisted Sister this morning.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xmckWVPRaI&ob=av2n

the message has been sent loud and clear.
 
Last edited:
Henrin said:
Always worth a laugh when people actually consider bargaining a right.

If you are forcing someone to bargain with you it can't possibly be a right to do.

Please do not tell me but that isn't what it is about. If the government said no just once people would cry they had their rights violated and this kind of thing proves it.
Click to expand...

In 1941, seventy years ago, the great American filmmaker Frank Capra made MEET JOHN DOE. Its about the Koch Brothers and the tea party. A right wing authoritarian attempts to whip up the common people in a new political movement which would strip those same people of their rights when their dreams of power are achieved. Watch it and observe how eerily it predicted the entire tea party movement and their manipulation by rich authoritarians and extremists.

At the end of the film the authoritarian rightie is exposed and showed up by the common man who no longer will be led by the nose. the last line of the film comes from a hardboiled worker who informs the industrialist that he just got his ass handed to him.

There you are, Norton - - the people, try and lick that.

The people have spoken in Ohio. Deal with it. Or not. We still won. And what you think or do not think rights are is irrelevant to reality.
 
haymarket said:
Most excellent news from Ohio. The people exercised great judgment and refused to be brainwashed by right wing propaganda. The tide has turned and the winds have shifted. Ohio could well be in the Democratic column in 2012 based on this rather one sided vote.

Here in Michigan, unions also won a big vote as conservative GOP House member Paul Scott became the first member of the legislature to be successfully recalled in twenty years. He was chairman of the Education Committee which has rammed through anti teacher union bills over the past ten months. He was recalled Tuesday night. Teacher unions were the backbone of the campagn against him.

I am reminded of Twisted Sister this morning.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xmckWVPRaI&ob=av2n

the message has been sent loud and clear.
Click to expand...

Hay sorry dude...that is one whacked out lousy video lol
 
I did some research a moment ago and found this interesting tidbit about the Ohio voters yesterday. Yes, they voted to allow collective bargaining which will increase their taxes. But wait, voters in major cities shot down attempts to increase property taxes to actually fund their own schools. Voters in Cleveland, Dayton, Cinncinnati, and other cities, rejected higher property taxes to fund their schools, which are running substantial deficits. Without the new money, many of the school districts are going to be laying off teachers. What's up with that?
 
lpast said:
they didnt touch my pension and they cant..and let me give you a clue..i dont need my pension to live a good life.

The teaparty is of the rich and only for the rich...each one of the teaparty supported and elected govs have screwed public workers vilified them and either gave or tried to give what they took of them to the richest and the corporations.
Turtledude the gop cant bullchit the mass's anymore...we know corporations pay squat for taxs and the rich pay pennies on what they used to pay and should pay...we know the rich have milked this country dry and screwed every working person in their path as they did it...but the biggest thing that turned me against the teaparty is their rhetoric..that sounds just like yours...everyone that isnt rich is a parasitic pos...and they and their families deserve nothing...nada, no pensions, no healthcare no security, their only function as humans is to service the rich and make them richer.....im rich i got mine and screw everyone else....well screw the teaparty :)
Click to expand...
amen!! Preach it brother!!
 
conservativeguy said:
So what is the problem in minds of the Ohio voters? They aren't paying enough taxes?
Click to expand...
the problem is the way kasich's ignorant ass and his republican cronies tried to ram the pos bill down our throats...kasich claims the state has a budget crisis..ok, then why not sit down with the unions, and seek concessions? this never crossed kasichs mind....he had this in his head that he was going to ram this through, and bend the unions over the table and stick it to 'em good...he didnt count on the backlash from his ham handedness in handling this.....kasich is a 'my way or the highway' type prick...well, the good people of ohio told him and his cronies to piss off yesterday. personally, i'm ok with asking those government employees to pick up more of the cost of their benefits, no problem, sit down and negotiate...don't come and say f### you unions, we are doing this my way, tough s### if you don't like it....another problem i had was the bill would have taken away arbitration as a solution for disputes between the unions and the government. when you think that stripping people of their rights is the solution to your problems, i have a BIG PROBLEM with that.
 
AdamT said:
What it means is that the people of Ohio realized that teachers and firefighters aren't the problem, despite unrelenting efforts by Republicans to demonize them.
Click to expand...
This is a real victory for middle class Americans and a portent for 2012.
 
This is too funny. Keep telling yourself yesterday marked a major change in the tide.......speaking of tides, how about the vote in VA. It looks like the entire statehouse is going to be controlled by republicans, many strong social conservatives. This is the second time this has happened since the frigging Civil War. :lamo
 
Last edited:
All the pro-union victory on SB5 does is delay the day of reckoning.
 
conservativeguy said:
This is too funny. Keep telling yourself yesterday marked a major change in the tide.......speaking of tides, how about the vote in VA. It looks like the entire statehouse is going to be controlled by republicans, many strong social conservatives. This is the second time this has happened since the frigging Civil War. :lamo
Click to expand...

And that has what to do with the overturning of Ohio's anti union legislation? Please, try to keep up with the rest of us, or better yet, feel free to start this in a new thread.
 
Democracy speaks. Although Ohio voters made the wrong decision in my opinion.
 
Swit said:
Nope.... do you have any proof that anyone is suggesting that people making less than 250k/yr should pay more taxes? Well besides Herman Cain, Rick Perry and any other person suggesting a flat tax.

EDIT: Keep in mind these were your words: "this is really hysterical. most of the people in the tea party movement are not the top 1 percent but rather those are tired of government waste, entitlement mentality and being told that they need to pay more and more taxes. Its the people who actually are paying income taxes"

EDIT 2: oops meant to mention: Bold emphasis added by me.
Click to expand...

Lets see, if a person makes $25 K a year, a flat tax of 9% would be $2250 a year, if a person makes 250K a year, a 9% tax rate would be $22500 a year. So how exactly is a flat tax making people under $250K a year pay more taxes. If the tax rate is equal for everyone, then the more you make, the more in actual dollar amounts you will pay. Apparently to some people, "All men are created equal" should only apply to those who want "entitlements" from the government and used as a basis for enacting those "entitlements", but should not be applied to financially successful people when it comes to collecting monies to pay for the "entitlements".

The "I want, they have" attitude seems to be growing in America. People seem much less likely to take into consideration that those who have more might of actually earned it. This constant "I am human, they are human and I deserve to have the same things regardless of what I actually have accomplished and earned" instead of "they did this or that and earned what they have and if I get off my lazy butt I could do the same and have the same things" is frankly annoying and in the long-term a very stupid way to approach socio-economics.
 
lpast said:
YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Just the beginning

The state's new collective bargaining law was defeated Tuesday after an expensive union-backed campaign that pitted firefighters, police officers and teachers against the Republican establishment.



Ohio voters reject GOP-backed union limits
Click to expand...

Ohio voters made their bed,they can now lay it. Its a shame voters didn't approve of it.
 
jamesrage said:
Ohio voters made their bed,they can now lay it. Its a shame voters didn't approve of it.
Click to expand...

I know this is a radical thought, but there is the possibility that the governor apporached it wrong, and does present himself as anti-worker. Many conservatives come across that way, and perception is important.
 
Boo Radley said:
I know this is a radical thought, but there is the possibility that the governor apporached it wrong, and does present himself as anti-worker. Many conservatives come across that way, and perception is important.
Click to expand...

Limiting unions does not make one anti-worker regardless of what big unions say. Most likely the unions claimed some bull**** it was for the for the kids(unions are not for kids,so it is a damn lie when they say its for the kids) or something else unrelated to unions like they did in Wisconsin to scare monger the people into voting for the unions.
 
jamesrage said:
Limiting unions does not make one anti-worker regardless of what big unions say. Most likely the unions claimed some bull**** it was for the for the kids(unions are not for kids,so it is a damn lie when they say its for the kids) or something else unrelated to unions like they did in Wisconsin to scare monger the people into voting for the unions.
Click to expand...

The big unions are saying anything here; I am. he came across, like many conservatives, as anti-worker. And teachers unions don't represent kids, so it's kind of silly for anyone to make a argument about them concerning kids at all. That said, they are not anti-kid either. Both parties sign the agreements that are made. You should hold those who agree to conditions you find inappropriate in as much contempt as you do worker's unions. That you don't seem to, comes across as anti-worker.

But really it is the rhetoric your side uses that most often paints that side as anti-worker. You make it sound often as if all teachers are bad when there is really a very small percentage that would fit that category. Too often you take the worse of all workers, again a small percentage, and behave as if it is all workers. Teachers, police officers, fire fighters all demonized in one way or another, and seldom express any support for issues that effect them greatly. But let someone suggest rasing a tax on a on a millionare or even a billionare, and those people are then so picked on. Poor poor folks.

If you look, I think you can see what I mean.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom