Ohio voters reject Republican-backed union limits

DVSentinel said:

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".

Click to expand...

If a person makes $25k a year he has essentially no disposable income. A 9% tax is coming out of money he needs for food and shelter. A person making $250k a year has more than enough to pay an effective 20% tax rate and still live quite comfortably.

danarhea said:

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.

Click to expand...

I think my post is directly on point since most of you girls are blathering on about the tsunami wave of liberalism washing over the Country......and that is simply not true. Carry on.

digsbe said:

Democracy speaks. Although Ohio voters made the wrong decision in my opinion.

Click to expand...

I agree, unfortunately this democratic decision will further non-democratic activities. The collective bargaining issues were specific to PUBLIC unions. These PUBLIC unions can still negotiate their wages/benefits with public entities and leverage their demands via strike threats. This extorts their compensation from the TAXPAYER, very non-democratic.

Relish in it Ohio.

Boo Radley said:

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.

Click to expand...

There is no doubt the governor blew it. He clearly did not spell out the probable outcome if Ohio continues down the path of stealing money from the working stiffs and doling it out to pay excessive salaries and benefits to public sector union folks. He also didn't spell out to the union folks the current model is unsustainable. In a word, Kasich sucks.

disneydude said:

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.

Click to expand...

It's blatantly dishonest to imply that SB5 imperils public safety. Staffing levels are likely to go down regardless, as there is simply less money in the state.

Not to mention the emotional appeals (the grandmotherly old woman, the child being carried from the burning house). It's clear propaganda.

AdamT said:

If a person makes $25k a year he has essentially no disposable income. A 9% tax is coming out of money he needs for food and shelter. A person making $250k a year has more than enough to pay an effective 20% tax rate and still live quite comfortably.

Click to expand...

Then this should motivate the individual making $25K to make changes and get the education and skills needed to raise his/her income level. It is not mine, nor someone making $250k a year, responsibility to soften the impact of the choices made by the person that led to them making only $25K a year. Only if the person is limited to $25K a year due to mental or physical disabilities is there a community responsibility to aid them. If such a limit is imposed by a persons own choices and decisions, they tough petunias, you made your bed, now sleep in it. The only reason for normal healthy person to be economically limited is because they were too lazy to seek out education, training and other methods to increase their own incomes or they did not properly evaluate the choices that they made before they made them. I have no moral, nor should I have a legal, obligation to not let these people suffer the consequences of their own actions.

"Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness", Life-you are given it upon birth, what you make of it and whether or not you keep it is entirely up to you, no one has the right to take it from you, but neither does anyone have an obligation to help you keep it or make it more comfortable for you. Liberty-Freedom is not free, Liberty can only flourish when regularly watered with blood of patriots. The Pursuit of Happiness- no one ever guaranteed that you would catch happiness, only that you have the right to pursue it. It does not mean that you should not suffer or gain as a result of your own choices.

conservativeguy said:

There is no doubt the governor blew it. He clearly did not spell out the probable outcome if Ohio continues down the path of stealing money from the working stiffs and doling it out to pay excessive salaries and benefits to public sector union folks. He also didn't spell out to the union folks the current model is unsustainable. In a word, Kasich sucks.

Click to expand...

Nope wrong..Kasich walked in and this is what im going to do and if you dont get on the bus im running you over...and I dont care who likes it or not....and I dont care if you dont like me...then VOILA after the voters kicked his ass...he bent right over and cared very much...lol....he got exactly what he deserved the moron

conservativeguy said:

There is no doubt the governor blew it. He clearly did not spell out the probable outcome if Ohio continues down the path of stealing money from the working stiffs and doling it out to pay excessive salaries and benefits to public sector union folks. He also didn't spell out to the union folks the current model is unsustainable. In a word, Kasich sucks.

Click to expand...

Stealing money? Notice the rhetoric. Stealing. A negotiated agreement is stealing? I would argue the incompetence of those who negotiated if you think the agreement is that bad.

Have you ever seen the difference in rhetoric on Fox between what teachers make and taxing people over 250K? You should look it up. Funny stuff.

"They're not big shot teachers with their desks and seemingly endless supply of colored construction paper."

"Oh! And their number two pencils," Stewart went on. "I suppose Number three pencils aren't good enough for Your Majesty."

He then played footage from just a few months ago that showed Fox anchors wailing that the Bush tax cuts must be extended for people making over $250,000 per year because those people, as one anchor put it, were almost living in poverty.

"See the difference?" Stewart asked. "Regardless of the greed-based, slightly sociopathic job bankers did wrecking our economy, those people were there every single day, twelve months a year."

Jon Stewart Nails Fox News Hypocrisy On Teachers Vs. Wall Street Pay Levels (VIDEO) | TPM LiveWire

Click to expand...

Swit said:

I never claimed you did have to listen.... as a matter of fact his just proves that negotiation sometimes break down.

Click to expand...

Hearing them is one thing but having all these laws that make it impossible for employers to ignore what they hear is another.

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.

Click to expand...

I'm saying when you close off every outlet for the employer to not talk and sue them when they don't as well they are forced to bargain.

Well, in my opinion it is related like this.... and here is your quote for reference:

While your assertion may in fact be correct, how can you complain that you are doing anything different?

Click to expand...

Because a right can't come from the violation of someone else's rights or the work of another person. This supposed right breaches both. I understand people believe government creates rights, but even if that was true, which its not, it makes no sense to breach rights when you create a right.

Boo Radley said:

Stealing money? Notice the rhetoric. Stealing. A negotiated agreement is stealing? I would argue the incompetence of those who negotiated if you think the agreement is that bad.

Click to expand...

EERRR, I think you misread. The point was that 'Ohio' would be 'stealing' money from 'working stiffs' (the taxpayers) and giving it to 'public sector union folks'.


Please reduce the level of your 'partisan rhetoric alarm'.

Because a right can't come from the violation of someone else's rights or the work of another person. This supposed right breaches both. I understand people believe government creates rights, but even if that was true, which its not, it makes no sense to breach rights when you create a right

Click to expand...

How does my right to be in a union hurt your supposed rights?

haymarket said:

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.

Click to expand...

Did you just call the Koch Brother and the tea party authoritarian? Care to explain that logic. I'm a bit lost on how that is possible.

Union rights are a joke and have always been a joke. Hell, unions are a joke and have always been a joke. They have hurt more people in their existence that caused more harmful laws to be passed that hurt poor families, blacks and small business than any other movement. They are nothing but a rash that needs treatment. I'm all unions, but government help in effectiveness is another story and all we have today.

Saying that though, unions in government makes no sense.

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.

Click to expand...

So basically it was all about the worker and what he wanted with others money. Good to know. Oh that wasn't what his ass handed to him meant? Please explain then.

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

Click to expand...

Interesting. I can't help but laugh that you actually think a vote no matter what it is on actually represents the people. Votes always, always, represent the wolf. That you can bank on.

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.

Click to expand...

Learn what rights actually are and say that bit of nonsense again.

Boo Radley said:

Stealing money? Notice the rhetoric. Stealing. A negotiated agreement is stealing? I would argue the incompetence of those who negotiated if you think the agreement is that bad.

Click to expand...

It really has nothing to do with incompetence. It has to do with money. If the people at the table are hired by people that get money to get elected they will put someone up that will side with the union. If the elected officials are actually only for the worker and ignore their boss, the taxpayer because they need the money from the employee to get reelected the system is broken and theft is present. Or you could say there is a nice circle jerk going on.

Pretty easy to understand. The system needs correcting and the only ways is to take away bargaining ability or to take away their ability to fund elections and vote. I realize you don't like either choice, but maybe then you realize why unions and government don't mix. Probably not though.

Henrin said:

It really has nothing to do with incompetence. It has to do with money. If the people at the table are hired by people that get money to get elected they will put someone up that will side with the union. If the elected officials are actually only for the worker and ignore their boss, the taxpayer because they need the money from the employee to get reelected the system is broken and theft is present. Or you could say there is a nice circle jerk going on.

Pretty easy to understand. The system needs correcting and the only ways is to take away bargaining ability or to take away their ability to fund elections and vote. I realize you don't like either choice, but maybe then you realize why unions and government don't mix. Probably not though.

Click to expand...

Elected officials work for both union workers and non union workers. Both can vote for them or against them. Both can give money. Business, for example, gives money all the time.

I don't agree that taking barganing power away from the worker is the only way. We could do more to remove money being given to our politicans, be it from unions or business or any group. Instead make competitence and doing the right thing, bargining for the better deal, the critieria for effective service. We could stop the demonizing and focus on the end product, on the process, and how to best serve all the people.

I've lived in Ohio most of my life and I've never seen anything like this.

In the last couple of months I've had at least 3 canvassers knock on my door urging me to vote no on issue 2. I've also had at least a dozen phone calls urging me to vote no on issue 2. And that's just when I was home. Who knows how many times they knocked on my door or called my home phone when I wasn't here. And the internet advertizing was everywhere. Almost every time I got on the internet in the last month I've seen banner ads urging me to sign up for early voting, or absentee voting and vote no on issue 2.

All that stuff is expensive. But it paid off for the bastards. They won.

It is amazing how propaganda can convince so many people to vote against their own best interests.

The story headline should have read, "Voters agree to allow state employees to protect themselves from voters."
What are state employees unionizing against?
The voters.

You can't make this **** up and so many people support this flavor of big business and corporate cronyism.
Ideological contradictions abound.

Boo Radley said:

Elected officials work for both union workers and non union workers. Both can vote for them or against them. Both can give money. Business, for example, gives money all the time.

Well first off that is different part of the debate. That post was only talking about government workers where the employer is the taxpayer and business is not involved. The problem with the public sector workers that belong to a union giving money to elected officials is the influence that money brings with it in the process that affects who they will accept at the table that works at the direct disadvantage of the taxpayer giving them the salary they are bargaining for.

I don't agree that taking barganing power away from the worker is the only way. We could do more to remove money being given to our politicans, be it from unions or business or any group. Instead make competitence and doing the right thing, bargining for the better deal, the critieria for effective service. We could stop the demonizing and focus on the end product, on the process, and how to best serve all the people.

Click to expand...

Taking the money away was a solution I said. The problem with that is it still has to be connected to voting as they will merely vote for the person that gives them everything they need. Its the same problem with doing favors and subsiding business or even passing things to harm business which causes not only business to try to get out to vote against any more of it but other people to get out to get control of business. Same with any sort of chance for people to get some sort of favor in government. My point is unionization in government directly effects how people vote and has to be connected if taking money out of the process is put on the table.

I really feel sorry for the children of Ohio. These people have chosen to maintain an inefficient money pit of a system.

Figures are from The Office of Budget and Management Budget summary March 2011

Let us look at why such proposals were made in the first place. The single largest portion of that states budget is Medicaid (pretty much common in all states). Other things to consider, the Department of Education is getting $11.5 billion, while the Department of Job and Family Services is getting $21.5, almost double education. Some of these programs are Federally mandated and at least partially Federally funded portions of the budget. Some some budget Items are not going to be touched. Therefore, to balance the budget, cuts must be from areas where those creating the budget can make cuts. That is why Police, Fire and Education are primary targets for cuts pretty much in all states.

Now, Ohio tried to change how these cuts would be implemented. Instead of the tenure/time based system favored by the Union, it would make more sense to cut the least effectual workers, regardless of tenure/time. But it can only be cut using a performance measure if the Unions bargaining is broken otherwise any cuts will be back to tenure/time base. Thus, with the defeat of this measure, the state will now have to retain sometimes less productive employees and cut sometimes more productive employees, this will only lead to decreased efficiency in the system and create greater costs because the state will have to maintain a higher number of employees to make up for the deficiencies of retaining less productive labor that the Unions won't let them shed. This is just another example of the masses choosing their own selfish interest over the longterm health and maintainability of the system.

So now, this state will probably be forced to raise taxes instead of making necessary cuts to improve efficiency and will probably still end up making cuts.

The reason I feel sorry for the children of this state is that they will continue to see a decline in the quality and usefulness of their education system as better teachers are cut and those quality teachers that do remain will slowly or rapidly (based upon individual motivations) tire of the effort to put out higher quality when only time instead of performance will see them get raises and greater protection from being cut and the lesser performers get rewarded only because they have been there longer.

DVSentinel said:

I really feel sorry for the children of Ohio. These people have chosen to maintain an inefficient money pit of a system.

Click to expand...

Wrong. The people have rejected one possible solution to a problem. That does not mean they do not support changes.

Harry Guerrilla said:

The story headline should have read, "Voters agree to allow state employees to protect themselves from voters."
What are state employees unionizing against?
The voters.

.

Click to expand...

The headline should read ...."Ohio voters shoot down property tax increases while voting for union collective bargaining rights which will lead to increased property taxes....these people are seriously dumb"

TurtleDude said:

no what it means is that cities will have to lay off union workers

Click to expand...

The message of the voters is 100% clear- they won't tolerate trying to put the whole deficit just on the backs of the middle class. If Republicans in the state ignore that and just ram ahead with a different mechanism to accomplish the same thing, their days of being a serious party in Ohio would be over. I doubt they'll be that dumb. No, they need to find a solution to the deficit that requires everybody to chip it- rich and middle class alike.

haymarket said:

How does my right to be in a union hurt your supposed rights?

Click to expand...

It doesn't, never did, never could have. But fair and balanced folks will continue to distort, mischaracterize, stereotype, and outright lie because thats all they have left now. Probably all they ever had.

What amazes me is how delusional the US right is on unions and the economy and that they are willing to take peoples rights away to promote a political fantasy.. Wonder what is next for the US right, a ban on interracial marriage? Or how about a ban on Muslims holding public office?

from Henrin on my mentioning the great film MEET JOHN DOE and noting its obvious parallels with the Koch Bros and the tea party:

Did you just call the Koch Brother and the tea party authoritarian? Care to explain that logic. I'm a bit lost on how that is possible.

Click to expand...

When you watched the film, what else would you label D. B. Norton but a right wing authoritarian? That is 100% crystal clear by his many comments and actions in the film. What else would you call the John Doe movement except a populist effort that was hijacked by Norton? There is no fancy logic you need to apply here. Just watch the film again.

Union rights are a joke and have always been a joke. Hell, unions are a joke and have always been a joke.

Click to expand...

The joke is apparently on you. The Wagner Act says differently and the US Supreme Court says differently.

I described the final scene in MEET JOHN DOE and how the right wing industrialist is exposed by the common many who had seeked to use for his own political gain

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.

Click to expand...

Henrin commented

So basically it was all about the worker and what he wanted with others money. Good to know. Oh that wasn't what his ass handed to him meant? Please explain then.

Click to expand...

The scene is very clear. The right wing industrialist had attempted to use the common people and they turned on him and rejected him, his money and his movement. His ass was indeed handed to him. When you watched the scene it should has been very very clear what happened. The line is "There you are, Norton - - the people, try and lick that."

It fits perfectly with the comments from the Jane Darwell character - Ma Joad - in another great film from the same era GRAPES OF WRATH when she explains the virtues of the common man.

I ain’t never gonna be scared no more. I was, though. For a while it looked as though we was beat. Good and beat. Looked like we didn’t have nobody in the whole wide world but enemies. Like nobody was friendly no more. Made me feel kinda bad and scared too, like we was lost and nobody cared…. Rich fellas come up and they die, and their kids ain’t no good and they die out, but we keep on coming. We’re the people that live. They can’t wipe us out, they can’t lick us. We’ll go on forever, Pa, cause we’re the people.

Click to expand...

GRAPES OF WRATH is another great film made at the same time as MEET JOHN DOE when America was preparing for the war against fascism.

more from Henrin

Interesting. I can't help but laugh that you actually think a vote no matter what it is on actually represents the people. Votes always, always, represent the wolf. That you can bank on.

Click to expand...

I taught Government for nearly 34 years and have no idea what that means. Votes are wolves!?!?!?!? :roll:

I made this observation

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.

Click to expand...

Henrin replied

Learn what rights actually are and say that bit of nonsense again.

Click to expand...

All we have there is me telling you that your own opinion about your own rather unique view of what rights are is irrelevant to reality. That is a 100% valid statement and you presented nothing to say otherwise. You seem more intent on expressing some anger about election results that you are not happy about so you strike out at me in your anger. And that does not make a case for you.

PeteEU said:

What amazes me is how delusional the US right is on unions and the economy and that they are willing to take peoples rights away to promote a political fantasy.. Wonder what is next for the US right, a ban on interracial marriage? Or how about a ban on Muslims holding public office?

Click to expand...

Ok, first, I am not the right. I have my own issues with a lot of their policies and philosophies. Do I normally vote for Republican Candidates instead of those from the Democrats, yes, but not because I actually support or believe in the Republicans, but because I absolutely hate socialist/socialistic policies, which the left (democrats) certainly do pursue. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend", I don't believe that, so the Republicans are not really my friends, they are an ally in the fight against the socialists. In next years election, I will not actually be voting for the Republican candidate, I will be voting against BO. Likewise, I will not be voting for Republican House and Senate candidates, I will be voting against the Democrats running for those offices. Unfortunately, our system is primarily a two party system, with either the Republicans or Democrats having any realistic chance of winning and for years, some of us have not really been supporting either side but choosing what we believe is "the lesser of the two evils." Since my personal belief is that Socialism and Socialistic socio-economic philosophies and approaches to economics are the greatest Evil ever created by mankind and foisted upon mankind, they you can pretty much bet, and consistently win, that I am not going to be voting for a National Level, or even State Level for that matter, candidate from the Democrats, but that does not automatically make me right winged or on the "US Right".

Second, no where in the US Constitution, including the Bill of Rights is the "rights" to unionize and collective bargaining ever specifically mentioned. The belief that those are rights are interpretations of what is actually written.

Third, for over 50 years now, Unions, using collective bargaining has been raising labor costs in the US. In the case of public sector jobs, this has raised costs for state budgets and has directly led to bloated, money hungry inefficient departments inside all levels of government. This is not opinion, this has been proven over and over again with direct evidence (state budgets being just one source) and circumstantial evidence (cost of education vs education rankings). In the private sector, the two primary reasons given for outsourcing labor, usually unskilled labor, is Labor Cost and the cost of meeting Government Regulation, with a very strong emphasis on the EPA. With a few exceptions, nobody in the last 40 plus years actually equates "Made In America" with high standards of quality. Both the high cost of labor (higher pay and benefits from collective bargaining) and the continued reduced quality of products produced by that labor (directly related to job protection bargaining which restricts or eliminates a companies ability to fire low/unproductive workers or workers who continually fail quality control standards) are directly related and caused by Union activities.

Unions were once a good thing in America, however, their greediness has far exceeded their usefulness in modern society. No, or at least very few, modern Union officials will actually place the wellbeing of the labor they represent over that officials personal fortune or political influence.