NBR: Senate Bill 5

Ttimes3 · March 2011

I'm really not looking to start a war. I realize that I am CLEARLY bias regarding this issue. In all honestly, please someone help me understand the logic.

I also understand that this topic might be better suited for the P&CE board, but I don't do national boards. I want to hear from folks that I know/respect (even if we disagree).

What are your thoughts? Go...

jerseygirl81 · March 2011

Absolutely against it.

Ttimes3 · March 2011

jerseygirl81:
Absolutely against it.

Obvi, so am I.

Meg41208 · March 2011

against it. it's crazy.

I don't live in OH but if I did, I'd be writing letters.

Ttimes3 · March 2011

Meg41208:

against it. it's crazy.

I don't live in OH but if I did, I'd be writing letters.

Agreed. Our letters have been sent.

KittahMama · March 2011

I am more familiar with the Wisconsin situation/law but from what I have read they are similar.

Here is what I have learned/read/reasoned:
The unions aren't upset as much about the money they will have to pay towards pensions/healthcare (which I have some problems with myself, as most private companies don't offer pensions at all anymore).... but they were more upset about "collective bargaining rights"... even still what upsets them more from what I've read in the law was that many unions, such as the teachers unions, the law also takes away the automatic or necessity of JOINING the union for your job. In other words, in WI anyway, you have to join the NEA to be a teacher there- the law that they are trying to pass does away with that. It also makes merit base pay versus collective automatic pay based on time. I don't have a problem with that. THat is how the private sector works- if you do well in your job you get promoted/raises. If you've been there 20 years and slack off just because you are in a union and you know you are next in line for the promotion- you won't get it.

In the end I think some (NOT ALL) of the unions are more concerned about their membership dues and power than their actual members. There is a huge deficit that has to be fixed somehow- and this will enable local governments to take more control of their budgets, versus spending time fighting unions over something like a $15 copay on medicines.

But I am probably in the minority. I have no issue with unions, but many are so corrupt and concerned more about their well being than their actual members' well beings it annoys me. When they initially said that their members couldn't afford an increase to pensions/healthcare but then changed if they got to keep the automatic membership and time based raises, they lost my respect, personally.

mrs.george2be04 · March 2011

Against it and cannot figure out why anyone would be for it. Not being snarky, I promise. I would to hear someone who is for it's POV

Klmorgan83 · March 2011

Against it, DH is also a firefighter so it will personally change some things for our family.

jerseygirl81 · March 2011

KittahMama:
But I am probably in the minority. I have no issue with unions, but many are so corrupt and concerned more about their well being than their actual members' well beings it annoys me. When they initially said that their members couldn't afford an increase to pensions/healthcare but then changed if they got to keep the automatic membership and time based raises, they lost my respect, personally.

Yes, but this is true of pretty much any organization, churches included. This doesn't mean that they are bad entities in and of themselves. A few bad apples spoils the whole bunch, and all. It's one thing to say that they have to pay more into certain pools, but to take away collective bargaining, entirely, just isn't right in my book. Unions have played a major role in workers' rights and there should be reform, not abolition.

curlypie1 · March 2011

I work in administration and budget planning for a very union heavy state-funded organization so I don't feel comfortable responding in detail on-line. I can honestly say though that I don't reject or support it strongly either way. KittahMama made a few valid points specifically,

"It also makes merit base pay versus collective automatic pay based on time. I don't have a problem with that. That is how the private sector works- if you do well in your job you get promoted/raises. If you've been there 20 years and slack off just because you are in a union and you know you are next in line for the promotion- you won't get it."

I personally would feel more comfortable being able to say "yes" if tax-payers asked if we were using our dollars to run our organization as effective and efficient as we would like. The way things are set up now, that isn't an option.

*ETA* Even though I'm not in a union, I get the same benefits as those at our institution who are so I don't want you to think I'm coming from somplace personally I am not.

I'd be happy to discuss more in person. :-)

Ttimes3 · March 2011

jerseygirl81:
KittahMama:

But I am probably in the minority. I have no issue with unions, but many are so corrupt and concerned more about their well being than their actual members' well beings it annoys me. When they initially said that their members couldn't afford an increase to pensions/healthcare but then changed if they got to keep the automatic membership and time based raises, they lost my respect, personally.

Yes, but this is true of pretty much any organization, churches included. This doesn't mean that they are bad entities in and of themselves. A few bad apples spoils the whole bunch, and all. It's one thing to say that they have to pay more into certain pools, but to take away collective bargaining, entirely, just isn't right in my book. Unions have played a major role in workers' rights and there should be reform, not abolition.

Agreed (and I don't exactly know how to express the sentiment without it sounding like I'm piling on - I promise, that's not my intent, as I really do want to hear the opinions/interpretation of the other side).

KittahMama · March 2011

jerseygirl81:
KittahMama:

But I am probably in the minority. I have no issue with unions, but many are so corrupt and concerned more about their well being than their actual members' well beings it annoys me. When they initially said that their members couldn't afford an increase to pensions/healthcare but then changed if they got to keep the automatic membership and time based raises, they lost my respect, personally.

Yes, but this is true of pretty much any organization, churches included. This doesn't mean that they are bad entities in and of themselves. A few bad apples spoils the whole bunch, and all. It's one thing to say that they have to pay more into certain pools, but to take away collective bargaining, entirely, just isn't right in my book. Unions have played a major role in workers' rights and there should be reform, not abolition.

Oh I don't disagree. My understanding is that this doesn't do away with all collective bargaining rights, just paid time off, merit based pay vs. automatic increases, and pension bargaining.

Is that not what the Ohio bill does?

Ttimes3 · March 2011

curlypie1:

"It also makes merit base pay versus collective automatic pay based on time. I don't have a problem with that. That is how the private sector works- if you do well in your job you get promoted/raises. If you've been there 20 years and slack off just because you are in a union and you know you are next in line for the promotion- you won't get it."

Yes, in theory this makes sense. However, in practice, merit based pay has its own flaws when applied, broadly, to teachers in the public school system (IMO, of course).

curlypie1:

I'd be happy to discuss more in person. :-)

It's a date.

curlypie1 · March 2011

daves_sweetpea:

I think some reform is needed but not nearly to the extent that the governor & others are pushing.

Ditto...this is why I am on the fence about the whole thing.

jerseygirl81 · March 2011

KittahMama:
Oh I don't disagree. My understanding is that this doesn't do away with all collective bargaining rights, just paid time off, merit based pay vs. automatic increases, and pension bargaining.

Is that not what the Ohio bill does?

The amended form doesn't propose doing away with collective bargaining completely, no, but it does severely limit it, and I don't agree with the limits they're placing. Again, reform the system to make it better, don't just start eliminating aspects of it, altogether.

jerseygirl81 · March 2011

Ttimes3:
Yes, in theory this makes sense. However, in practice, merit based pay has its own flaws when applied, broadly, to teachers in the public school system (IMO, of course).

This, too. Who is going to define merit? What is it based on? How can we possibly get a fair idea of what is merit-based (speaking specifically about teachers, here) when we have so many different ideas about what makes a good teacher? Standardized test scores are clearly not the answer.

curlypie1 · March 2011

jerseygirl81:
Ttimes3:

Yes, in theory this makes sense. However, in practice, merit based pay has its own flaws when applied, broadly, to teachers in the public school system (IMO, of course).

This, too. Who is going to define merit? What is it based on? How can we possibly get a fair idea of what is merit-based (speaking specifically about teachers, here) when we have so many different ideas about what makes a good teacher? Standardized test scores are clearly not the answer.

Yup, it's a gray area and obviously the story is different for each sector that you'd like to examine. This is why I don't have a strong opinion about this issue.

Ttimes3 · March 2011

daves_sweetpea:

As a historian I know the abuses workers faced before unions and I think the development of unions was a very good thing. As a Democrat I think they should still exist and I think public employees do need the protection of collective bargaining. I think some reform is needed but not nearly to the extent that the governor & others are pushing. Also, I really, really despise our current governor so that makes me feel even more opposed to SB5 (and I know that's not rational). Most of all I feel worried for teachers-I think this bill will really hurt Ohio's schools.

YES (especially the bolded parts)!

daves_sweetpea:

That said, I have almost always worked in the private sector and I have never been part of a union. The proposed changes are what I have almost always encountered at my jobs so I feel like I can't relate to some of the arguments against the bill.

I've worked in both sectors, including having been a union member. Trust me when I say that it's not [entirely] possible to run a [public] school like a business. Separate from what you are saying, here, it drives me bonkers when people make the comparison.

Ttimes3 · March 2011

jerseygirl81:
Ttimes3:

Yes, in theory this makes sense. However, in practice, merit based pay has its own flaws when applied, broadly, to teachers in the public school system (IMO, of course).

This, too. Who is going to define merit? What is it based on? How can we possibly get a fair idea of what is merit-based (speaking specifically about teachers, here) when we have so many different ideas about what makes a good teacher? Standardized test scores are clearly not the answer.

Bingo-bango. Merit is so subjective. On paper = good idea. In practice = NIGHTMARE!

Meg41208 · March 2011

Ttimes3:
Trust me when I say that it's not [entirely] possible to run a [public] school like a business. Separate from what you are saying, here, it drives me bonkers when people make the comparison.

It's crystal clear why it's not possible - if schools could be run like a business, then all of the under-performing kids would be thrown out with the bathwater, not just the under-performing teachers.

KittahMama · March 2011

I can't comment on public schools here because they are run so far differently from what I know. I am still coming to grips with it and trying to understand it and I don't know what merit pay is Based on (eta). I imagine that Ohio is different from WI in their teachers at least, though, because starting pay in WI is around $50, but with benefits and whatnot takes you to over $100k a year. That is outrageous!!

I am ALL FOR paying our teachers better wages, but I know engineers with MBA's that have been working for 6-8 years (not starting out) that don't make that!!! WI is out of control. I assume that this isn't the case in OH as I know KY teachers don't make that!

I do think however, no matter when reform came/comes with ANY union (private or public) that there will be an outcry. It's the basis of many industries and anyone that begins to "attack" them is automatically vilified.

Again I am more familiar with WI than OH because my brother was living there and although we are up here we aren't really settled yet so I haven't learned about OH's situations as much.

Ttimes3 · March 2011

KittahMama:

I can't comment on public schools here because they are run so far differently from what I know. I am still coming to grips with it and trying to understand it and I don't know what merit pay is. I imagine that Ohio is different from WI in their teachers at least, though, because starting pay in WI is around $50, but with benefits and whatnot takes you to over $100k a year. That is outrageous!!

In OH, starting pay is nowhere near $50K for a first year teacher; however, in general, I don't understand all the "hate on teachers' (well, all public employees) pay + total benefits package" arguments that I've been *hearing,* related to this debate. IMO, NOBODY has much of a foot to stand on, as it relates to commenting on how much is too much to pay a teacher, unless/until they've walked in a teacher's shoes. It's effing HARD work. Trust me.

andailey · March 2011

Ttimes3:
KittahMama:

I can't comment on public schools here because they are run so far differently from what I know. I am still coming to grips with it and trying to understand it and I don't know what merit pay is. I imagine that Ohio is different from WI in their teachers at least, though, because starting pay in WI is around $50, but with benefits and whatnot takes you to over $100k a year. That is outrageous!!

In OH, starting pay is nowhere near $50K for a first year teacher; however, in general, I don't understand all the "hate on teachers' (well, all public employees) pay + total benefits package" arguments that I've been *hearing,* related to this debate. IMO, NOBODY has much of a foot to stand on, as it relates to commenting on how much is too much to pay a teacher, unless/until they've walked in a teacher's shoes. It's effing HARD work. Trust me.

Thank you, TTT! Yes

As a public school teacher, I am totally against SB 5. I may go into premature labor if I start typing about it - I'll get all fired up.

KittahMama · March 2011

Ttimes3:
KittahMama:

I can't comment on public schools here because they are run so far differently from what I know. I am still coming to grips with it and trying to understand it and I don't know what merit pay is. I imagine that Ohio is different from WI in their teachers at least, though, because starting pay in WI is around $50, but with benefits and whatnot takes you to over $100k a year. That is outrageous!!

In OH, starting pay is nowhere near $50K for a first year teacher; however, in general, I don't understand all the "hate on teachers' (well, all public employees) pay + total benefits package" arguments that I've been *hearing,* related to this debate. IMO, NOBODY has much of a foot to stand on, as it relates to commenting on how much is too much to pay a teacher, unless/until they've walked in a teacher's shoes. It's effing HARD work. Trust me.

My two best friends are teachers- one was punched in the stomach at 28 weeks pregnant by a student of hers (6th grade).. she worked in the ghetto in SC which is a whole other type of issue.

The principal/district/union told her to deal with it and that the kid stayed. My two closest friends here work for the state as social workers- thats a job I cannot begin to fathom holding. Their stories make my teacher friends look like puppy care givers.

I don't have issues with good benefits/pay for anyone - so long as it is justified vs private sector.

Pensions in the private sector are almost unheard of today and when they are around they are not 100% funded by the company... hell most companies barely match anything on a 401k and with the recession it isn't feasible for tax payers to pay for the majority of healthcare/pensions when they are already barely able to afford their own. Does that make sense?

allobosc · March 2011

Jersey is my sister from another mister on everything she's posted. The rhetoric out there is outrageous too. I love them throwing out how public ppl make 40% more than their private counterparts. DH works public non union and would easily be clearing over six figures in the private sector. And when is the last time you've seen private firemen? where are they getting this info from? I guess some ppl forget how using private contractors has (not) worked for the budget in other government areas.

warriormomerin · March 2011

Ttimes3:
KittahMama:

I can't comment on public schools here because they are run so far differently from what I know. I am still coming to grips with it and trying to understand it and I don't know what merit pay is. I imagine that Ohio is different from WI in their teachers at least, though, because starting pay in WI is around $50, but with benefits and whatnot takes you to over $100k a year. That is outrageous!!

In OH, starting pay is nowhere near $50K for a first year teacher; however, in general, I don't understand all the "hate on teachers' (well, all public employees) pay + total benefits package" arguments that I've been *hearing,* related to this debate. IMO, NOBODY has much of a foot to stand on, as it relates to commenting on how much is too much to pay a teacher, unless/until they've walked in a teacher's shoes. It's effing HARD work. Trust me.

Starting salary for teachers in Ohio depends a lot on the district. I've seen it anywhere form $19,000-$25,000 for people with a BA.

I had a student threaten to kill me the other day so hellz yeah I think teachers deserve $50 K a year at least. I could tell you all kinds of other fun stories.

Finally, as the anti SB-5 people have pointed out, Hitler abolished the unions in Germany. Here I thought Obama was the Socialist. <---sarcasm

Just sayin'

KittahMama · March 2011

BTW I am not getting riled up just pointing out other opinions. Believe it or not you guys are the first I have met against it. BUT everyone I know doesn't live here so keep that in mind!

Ttimes3 · March 2011

KittahMama:
BTW I am not getting riled up just pointing out other opinions. Believe it or not you guys are the first I have met against it. BUT everyone I know doesn't live here so keep that in mind!

Trust me, no hard feelings at all. I love debate. In fact, I wish we entered into more of it on this board. I love to pick brains.

Meg41208 · March 2011

KittahMama:

Pensions in the private sector are almost unheard of today and when they are around they are not 100% funded by the company... hell most companies barely match anything on a 401k and with the recession it isn't feasible for tax payers to pay for the majority of healthcare/pensions when they are already barely able to afford their own. Does that make sense?

State pensions are NOT 100% funded by the state.

Ttimes3 · March 2011

KittahMama:

I don't have issues with good benefits/pay for anyone - so long as it is justified vs private sector.

Pensions in the private sector are almost unheard of today and when they are around they are not 100% funded by the company... hell most companies barely match anything on a 401k and with the recession it isn't feasible for tax payers to pay for the majority of healthcare/pensions when they are already barely able to afford their own. Does that make sense?

No, it doesn't make sense. Pension is just one part of a teacher's [underwhelming] benefits package. [I think that] you'd agree that OH teachers already make crap as it relates to salary. Are you saying that you believe they should make LESS than they already do?

Ttimes3 · March 2011

Meg41208:
KittahMama:

Pensions in the private sector are almost unheard of today and when they are around they are not 100% funded by the company... hell most companies barely match anything on a 401k and with the recession it isn't feasible for tax payers to pay for the majority of healthcare/pensions when they are already barely able to afford their own. Does that make sense?

State pensions are NOT 100% funded by the state.

This, too.

Aimlc1281 · March 2011

KittahMama:
I am more familiar with the Wisconsin situation/law but from what I have read they are similar.

Here is what I have learned/read/reasoned:
The unions aren't upset as much about the money they will have to pay towards pensions/healthcare (which I have some problems with myself, as most private companies don't offer pensions at all anymore).... but they were more upset about "collective bargaining rights"... even still what upsets them more from what I've read in the law was that many unions, such as the teachers unions, the law also takes away the automatic or necessity of JOINING the union for your job. In other words, in WI anyway, you have to join the NEA to be a teacher there- the law that they are trying to pass does away with that. It also makes merit base pay versus collective automatic pay based on time. I don't have a problem with that. THat is how the private sector works- if you do well in your job you get promoted/raises. If you've been there 20 years and slack off just because you are in a union and you know you are next in line for the promotion- you won't get it.

In the end I think some (NOT ALL) of the unions are more concerned about their membership dues and power than their actual members. There is a huge deficit that has to be fixed somehow- and this will enable local governments to take more control of their budgets, versus spending time fighting unions over something like a $15 copay on medicines.

But I am probably in the minority. I have no issue with unions, but many are so corrupt and concerned more about their well being than their actual members' well beings it annoys me. When they initially said that their members couldn't afford an increase to pensions/healthcare but then changed if they got to keep the automatic membership and time based raises, they lost my respect, personally.

Obviously I am against Senate Bill 5. First off, teachers do not require you to be in the union. It is a choice you make. To me it means being protected in the event of a lawsuit. It also means I make up in retirement what I did not get in my yearly salary. The state requires us to get a masters degree yet we (in general) don't even get paid what the average college graduate does.

And as far as making up the deficit, getting rid of unions will only save 4 cents to the dollar. There are much bigger fish they can fry to make up for those 4 cents.

warriormomerin · March 2011

Meg41208:
KittahMama:

Pensions in the private sector are almost unheard of today and when they are around they are not 100% funded by the company... hell most companies barely match anything on a 401k and with the recession it isn't feasible for tax payers to pay for the majority of healthcare/pensions when they are already barely able to afford their own. Does that make sense?

State pensions are NOT 100% funded by the state.

Dude, if their bill gets overturned I'm totes moving to Wisconsin. Sounds like they got a nice set-up for teachers.

pinkylu · March 2011

I am nowhere near informed enough to debate specifically about SB 5, however I just want to say that I cannot conceive of anyone arguing that teachers make too much money, even if they did start at 50k. It is a sad, strange world that we live in where the likes of Britney Spears and A Rod make millions of dollars a year, yet school teachers make so little.

KittahMama · March 2011

So I am to understand Cincy public schools in that wherever you live that is where you go to school, no matter what? Unless you do private of course?

I am from Louisville and there you have a "home school" area with usually 3-4 schools in it and if you still don't like those you can ask to be assigned to a different school in the district. If there is room they admit you and even make sure you have busing to get you there.

ANd how are the schools funded here? Is it by local area property taxes? Because wouldn't that mean that poorer areas have poorer schools?

I really don't know how it works in Cincy and I am still trying to figure it out. Thus far we've been looking at Lakota or Mason districts because I've heard they are better and when I look online they aren't huge. I think I offended our realtor when she said Lakota had like 11 national merit semifinalist... I couldn't comprehend that when the high school graduating CLASS I was in had 23 alone that year...

Also, do teachers in OH have to get their masters? In KY my SIL was a teacher before moving/having a baby and she had to start getting her masters within 3 years of starting teaching and all teachers have to have it by 5 years I believe. Is that true for OH?

Ttimes3 · March 2011

Aimlc1281:

Obviously I am against Senate Bill 5. First off, teachers do not require you to be in the union. It is a choice you make. To me it means being protected in the event of a lawsuit. It also means I make up in retirement what I did not get in my yearly salary. The state requires us to get a masters degree yet we (in general) don't even get paid what the average college graduate does.

And as far as making up the deficit, getting rid of unions will only save 4 cents to the dollar. There are much bigger fish they can fry to make up for those 4 cents.

I never realized exactly how much I love you...until right now. Wink

Aimlc1281 · March 2011

jerseygirl81:
Ttimes3:
Yes, in theory this makes sense. However, in practice, merit based pay has its own flaws when applied, broadly, to teachers in the public school system (IMO, of course).
This, too. Who is going to define merit? What is it based on? How can we possibly get a fair idea of what is merit-based (speaking specifically about teachers, here) when we have so many different ideas about what makes a good teacher? Standardized test scores are clearly not the answer.

Yes

KittahMama · March 2011

I don't have a problem with a $50k, and again the info I have is more on WI but from what I read it said that OH was basically the same.

And yes, in WI starting pay for a first year BA teacher around age 23 is $50 and with benefits it takes them to $100k and it is mandatory there you join the union to teach in public schools. They're pensions were also 100% funded by the state until last year when 5% contributions were asked for.

They had it SWEET.

$50,000 is a lot of money though. I don't think starting pay should be there for many areas, including teaching. Teachers work 9 months a year. I can see a 3-4 year teacher with experience but not first year teachers out of school. That doesn't make financial sense. Where do you cap teachers salaries? And does their education/experience justify that amount?

In private schools teachers don't start out NEAR there, but I also realize they have smaller classes and more flexibility with students and usually parents involved.

I have issues with WISCONSIN's setup for teachers but I have to say I am not knowledgable enough about what teachers in OH get to say. Not too mention teachers are only ONE group this bill affects. It affects WAY MORE non teachers.

Ttimes3 · March 2011

KittahMama:

And how are the schools funded here? Is it by local area property taxes? Because wouldn't that mean that poorer areas have poorer schools?

Ohio school funding is a topic that would take 4 days (and a case of beer) to discuss.

Ttimes3 · March 2011

KittahMama:

Teachers work 9 months a year.

Careful. These are fighting words. Wink

KittahMama · March 2011

Ttimes3:
KittahMama:

Teachers work 9 months a year.

Careful. These are fighting words.

I smiled as I typed that- my best friend harasses me- she gets eight weeks off in the summer and hollers at me (she teaches ina catholic school in Tennessee, I didn't even know Tennessee had Catholics, and I AM Catholic!)... anyway, I use that when I try to rile her up.

Want a personalized experience?

NBR: Senate Bill 5

Re: NBR: Senate Bill 5

Choose Another Board

Search Boards