Ohioans! VOTE "NO" on issue 2 TODAY!!

[Danoz]

Hey Ohio friends, absolutely, 100%, NO ON ISSUE 2! This seeks to strip your friends, family and neighbors of their right to collective bargaining-- their right to a VOICE. This would make it illegal for teachers, firefighters, police officers, first responders, to negotiate on anything from safety to work conditions. This one is important.

Stripping public employees of their collective bargaining rights is not the answer. We have declining standard of living in the private sector-- the goal should be to raise all boats, not condemn people already receiving fair wages and benefits by stealing their only recourse. The opposition's thinking on this issue is completely backwards.

Hope you are able to make it out today! I may be in Japan, but I'm from Ohio!

 

[datagal]

Don't you think that you might want this on the "other" one? Just saying.

Nevertheless, I hope Issue 2 is voted down.

Btw, your Governor is a jerk.

 

[TheBrew]

Don't you think that you might want this on the "other" one? Just saying.

Why? It would have more visibility here (which is what I think Danoz is going for).

 

[Vulagr]

This should probably go in TNZ, but I'd like to read the actual text of the measure before I listen to anyone's hyperbole on it.

But since I'm not in Ohio, I don't have to worry about it.

 

[Amaris]

This should probably go in TNZ, but I'd like to read the actual text of the measure before I listen to anyone's hyperbole on it.

But since I'm not in Ohio, I don't have to worry about it.

It's not hyperbole. That is what Senate Bill 5 is trying to do, remove the ability to collectively bargain. This puts teachers, firefighters, police officers, and many others in danger of losing benefits, adequate pay, and funding for their departments, and yes, I live in Ohio, and have for nearly my entire life. "Issue 2" was a bad idea, built up on the anti-union garbage being pulled in Wisconsin, among other places, and I'm hoping that it dies a quick death here before more lives are ruined by the greed and corruption of the Governor.

By the way, it's not wise to disregard an important issue simply because you do not live there. This all started in Wisconsin, and spread to many other states. California is not immune to such shortsighted stupidity, as Proposition 8 will attest.

 

[Vulagr]

like I said, I'd want to read the actual measure first before I made any decision because there is an awful lot of hyperbole in these things. I hear all kinds of claims regarding them and they're almost always wrong.

Remember Ferengi rule of Acquisition: Hear all, trust nothing.

 

[Amaris]

like I said, I'd want to read the actual measure first before I made any decision because there is an awful lot of hyperbole in these things. I hear all kinds of claims regarding them and they're almost always wrong.

Remember Ferengi rule of Acquisition: Hear all, trust nothing.

Another important lesson is listen twice and speak (or in this case, read) once. Perhaps waiting to read the measure before commenting about Danoz' post being hyperbole would have been the more fortuitous action. I have read the Senate bill. I read everything before I vote on it. You don't have to take my word on it, read the bill. His statement is not hyperbolic.

 

[Danoz]

like I said, I'd want to read the actual measure first before I made any decision because there is an awful lot of hyperbole in these things. I hear all kinds of claims regarding them and they're almost always wrong.

Remember Ferengi rule of Acquisition: Hear all, trust nothing.

Fair enough.

Supporters of Issue One believe that Public Sector unions are strangling the taxpayers and demanding benefits completely out of line with the private sector (and yes, on average, healthcare benefit and retirement packages are much better). This would immediately required all public sector employees to pay higher premiums and to contribute more of their salary to their retirement. Essentially, it's a massive pay cut disguised as a benefits restructuring in order to bring private sector benefits in line with public sector ones. We could debate the validity of this motion, but that's really not the issue because it doesn't stop there.

In order to maintain these changes, this would, in one sweeping change-- make it illegal for public employees to strike, collectively bargain the their own salaries and benefits, and to question/protest their working environments (which, in the public sector, often includes classroom sizes, or minimum number of firefighters/responders employed, etc.). The GOP logic is that that public employers are employed by the taxpayer, and they have no right to unionization (our GOP candidates have been pretty clear on that). If you remember a few months back, all the outrage on Fox News was against the "greedy" school teachers and their big, fat, golden parachutes of... umm... 40k and a year and health benefits o_O

The good news, is that even after the governor forced this through-- the backlash has been incredible (and no, they didn't expect it). Even my very conservative Aunt (big Coulter/Palin fan) is out voting against this thing because her son is a first responder. I think this legislation will get annihilated at the polls today. While I am in no way claiming to be unbiased, I hope this clears up for you, in some small way, the opposition's thinking behind it. Otherwise, there are many sites where you can actually read the legislation itself or where unbiased third parties have laid out the "costs/benefits" and cut through some of the campaign-style fat. All in all, it's pretty cut and dry. Restructure benefits, kill public unions; it's really that simple.

 

[Danoz]

Don't you think that you might want this on the "other" one? Just saying.

Sometimes Misc makes a better home for a thread like this where distribution is the most important thing--- and people tend to be more reserved and polite here in general. I wasn't looking for a convoluted partisan fight, just a reminder to get to the polls today--- and a polite discussion w/ anyone interested.

 

[Timby]

I wasn't looking for a convoluted partisan fight, just a reminder to get to the polls today

To be entirely fair, you did include "VOTE 'NO'" as part of your thread title.

We start our recall effort against Governor Walker here in Wisconsin a week from today -- fingers crossed for you in Ohio.

 

[Vulagr]

In order to maintain these changes, this would, in one sweeping change-- make it illegal for public employees to strike, collectively bargain the their own salaries and benefits, and to question/protest their working environments (which, in the public sector, often includes classroom sizes, or minimum number of firefighters/responders employed, etc.). The GOP logic is that that public employers are employed by the taxpayer, and they have no right to unionization (our GOP candidates have been pretty clear on that). If you remember a few months back, all the outrage on Fox News was against the "greedy" school teachers and their big, fat, golden parachutes of... umm... 40k and a year and health benefits o_O

And while I don't like unions, I am against things that don't allow workers to do things like strike or protest. That's just nuts.

But what those people who support this kind of legislation don't understand is that this kind of thing will eventually come back to bite them on their arse when they return to the private sector. After all, this legislation will affect everybody, including them. They've got another think coming if they think they'll be excluded from this legislation.

I really don't see how they can support this kind of thing. It's absolutely nuts.

It's absolutely nuts.

And I agree with posting it in here to get away from the stupid partisan fighting and bullying in TNZ. Sometimes I want to be able to discuss something without getting my nuts chomped off with a bear trap just for having a disagreement. That kind of thing gets real old real quick.

 

[Amaris]

You can see the current poll numbers as they're reported here:
http://www.wlwt.com/election-results/29707812/detail.html

 

[ShamelessMcBundy]

How can you not like unions?

 

[Kira's Mom]

1% in, yes 33%, no 67%. Looks like this one will go down in flames!

 

[ShamelessMcBundy]

MSNBC is saying Yes: 35%, No: 65%. But yeah. Looks like it's gonna go massively down.

 

[Danoz]

How can you not like unions?

Playing devil's advocate, some unions and union leaders have been known to use peer pressure and intimidation to influence votes and participation-- or push for public voting over anonymity. In some cases in the steel industry they refused to budge an anything during recessions and drove companies Chapter 11. Generally the exception to the rule, I think, but still a problem.

 

[Vulagr]

How can you not like unions?

My issues is that in some areas in the country you can not get a job unless you are part of a union. I believe in a right to work, and that one shouldn't have to be part of a special group in order to be able to work, nor should you have to pay someone in order to get a job.

Plus what Danoz said.

I am an adult and I should have the right to make my own choices and not have them made for me.

 

[Kira's Mom]

And the No's have it! MSNBC just called it.

 

[SPOCKED]

Good for you, Ohio. Also for rejecting the Obamacare mandate

 

[BillJ]

How can you not like unions?

My issues is that in some areas in the country you can not get a job unless you are part of a union. I believe in a right to work, and that one shouldn't have to be part of a special group in order to be able to work, nor should you have to pay someone in order to get a job.

Plus what Danoz said.

I am an adult and I should have the right to make my own choices and not have them made for me.

But I'm sure you'll still expect to be paid the same wages and benefits as the people around you, wages and benefits won in collective bargaining.