Ohio to limit union stranglehold on taxpayers

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

actuarial

Platinum Member
Jan 22, 2009
2,814
0
71
Looks like it's going to the Governor who will sign it today. It's a broad reaching, budget saving move that will prevent Unions from demanding outrageous benefits, prevent them from automatically collecting dues and using it to fund democrats. People will now not be FORCED to join a union in the public sector. They can still negotiate raises but raises and promotions MUST be based on merit and performance, just like the "real" world.

Just because a union demands outrageous benefits, doesn't mean the government has to agree to them.

Here's a thought: if you want to reduce medical costs, negotiate them. If you can't negotiate, fire everyone and re-hire different workers. If there is a clause that you can't fire them for striking - well then you shouldn't have negotiated that clause in the past. All of these things can be conditions in the next round of negotiations.

Legally restricting someone's freedom of assembly seems like a terrible way to achieve this.

Where is the responsibility on the government side of only agreeing to a deal they can afford? Of going through with the deals they agreed to?

There union is only holding the government hostage if they're forced to agree to terms (I've never seen any law that they have to agree with union demands). The government frequently bends over to unions because they're more concerned with the personal political harm a strike would cause then budget deficits. That's a problem with the politicians - not the unions.
 

CitizenKain

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2000
4,480
14
76
No sure if serious.

No, he's just retarded. He's had everything given to him and thinks that it works the same for everyone. Look at his posting, he's a little man who thinks that he hit it big in life because his wife leeches off taxpayer money. He thinks packing up and moving is something that is easy to do, and anyone who isn't living off of others knows this.
 

Acanthus

Lifer
Aug 28, 2001
19,915
2
76
ostif.org
This is why libtards are so stupid. That 600 didnt come from the sky, it came out of someone elses pocket. Some other family doesnt get to eat/go on vacation/ buy a car/etc.... just so some slob can push some papers around and get all their benefits paid for.

If teachers were riding high on insane salaries, I would tend to agree.

They are the lowest paid professional degree in the country.

Attacking their lean is just hitting them where it hurts. Benefits are really the only perk teachers have.
 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
No, he's just retarded. He's had everything given to him and thinks that it works the same for everyone. Look at his posting, he's a little man who thinks that he hit it big in life because his wife leeches off taxpayer money. He thinks packing up and moving is something that is easy to do, and anyone who isn't living off of others knows this.

This is quite hilarious. I owe my own personal success to the hardships I went through in my 20s (paying for my college, moving out, claiming residency in the state I went to school by working there full time in low wage jobs (frankly moving furniture can be quite lucrative thanks to the juicy overtime) to scrap by for over two years, beans and rice, living in a 150 bucks/month house with people I didn't know or like just to put a roof over my head, etc).

You know nothing of my background. And now you say I'm living off my mate for life because I choose a partner in marriage who holds the same values of God, hard work and providing for the family as I do when her only financial responsibility is saving 8K a month for our retirement? I take care of my wife, you insult her to my face or hers and you will get fucked. Know that.

Well, fuck you. I made it and if I can, anybody can.

I take care of my Wife, say it to my face. I dare you to say it to her face.
 

RocksteadyDotNet

Diamond Member
Jul 29, 2008
3,152
1
0
This is quite hilarious. I owe my own personal success to the hardships I went through in my 20s (paying for my college, moving out, claiming residency in the state I went to school by working there full time in low wage jobs (frankly moving furniture can be quite lucrative thanks to the juicy overtime) to scrap by for over two years, beans and rice, living in a 150 bucks/month house with people I didn't know or like just to put a roof over my head, etc).

You know nothing of my background. And now you say I'm living off my mate for life because I choose a partner in marriage who holds the same values of God, hard work and providing for the family as I do when her only financial responsibility is saving 8K a month for our retirement? I take care of my wife, you insult her to my face or hers and you will get fucked. Know that.

Well, fuck you. I made it and if I can, anybody can.

I take care of my Wife, say it to my face. I dare you to say it to her face.

I bet you 'take care' of your wife. I know your type, I would bet $10,000 you slap your wife around.
 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
I bet you 'take care' of your wife. I know your type, I would bet $10,000 you slap your wife around.

Yep, you're clearly 12 and don't know what it's like to take care of somebody else.

Bet accepted. How would you like to arrange this bet? Come back with terms.

The bet is spidey07 slaps his wife. I offer 10,000 USD that he has never slapped his wife or physically caused harm.

Bet or no bet mother fucker? Bet or no bet? You bet me you better follow through.
 
Last edited:

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
Haha, this has turned into a perknose thread.... BET ME BET ME!!!!

I did not propose the bet. Only accepted based on the bet terms. Ball is in bettor court. I am sure in my position. Awaiting terms for this proposition.

You insult my wife be prepared to pay.
 

davmat787

Diamond Member
Nov 30, 2010
5,512
24
76
I bet you 'take care' of your wife. I know your type, I would bet $10,000 you slap your wife around.

Oh fuck off, that is such a low thing to say about anyone you have never met and know personally.

I bet you wouldn't put that ten grand where your mouth is and go through on it. Nice eRage tough guy.
 
Last edited:

davmat787

Diamond Member
Nov 30, 2010
5,512
24
76
Yep, you're clearly 12 and don't know what it's like to take care of somebody else.

Bet accepted. How would you like to arrange this bet? Come back with terms.

The bet is spidey07 slaps his wife. I offer 10,000 USD that he has never slapped his wife or physically caused harm.

Bet or no bet mother fucker? Bet or no bet? You bet me you better follow through.

Proposal: Since derpshit is in Oz, why don't you guys meet in the middle? Say Tahiti? Of course the money should go into escrow and you will need a judge. Ten percent plus travel seems fair.

I nominate myself, Tahiti was great last time I was there and I know a few places.

One thing I notice in this forum more and more is that when someone disagrees with someone else, they turn to demonizing that person. Probably because if that person is bad, then that makes their position, by default, the just one.
 
Last edited:

RocksteadyDotNet

Diamond Member
Jul 29, 2008
3,152
1
0
Oh fuck off, that is such a low thing to say about anyone you have never met and know personally.

I bet you wouldn't put that ten grand where your mouth is and go through on it. Nice eRage tough guy.

So you need to meet someone to know them?

I've read a lot of Spidey posts, and he is an immoral, compassionless, hate filled idiot.
 

RocksteadyDotNet

Diamond Member
Jul 29, 2008
3,152
1
0
Proposal: Since derpshit is in Oz, why don't you guys meet in the middle? Say Tahiti? Of course the money should go into escrow and you will need a judge. Ten percent plus travel seems fair.

I nominate myself, Tahiti was great last time I was there and I know a few places.

One thing I notice in this forum more and more is that when someone disagrees with someone else, they turn to demonizing that person. Probably because if that person is bad, then that makes their position, by default, the just one.

I agree.

By my second post Spidey was calling me a 12 years old. He can't argue any of my posts in a rational way so he just reverts to name calling.
 

tcsenter

Lifer
Sep 7, 2001
18,536
336
126
Its not necessarily the wages and benefits, per se. Just like in the auto industry, it wasn't necessarily outrageous that autoworkers made $25+ an hour plus great benefits.

It was that the fucking work ethic and culture promoted by the militant UAW crowd left the company with practically no control over their own plants, no control over quality assurance or productivity, no control over efficiency and technology improvements, having to pay laid-off employees nearly their full wage to do nothing for up to two years (e.g. UAW Jobs Bank), no power to prevent excessive losses due to things like theft, vandalism, and sabotage, couldn't get rid of bad employees or even impose reasonable monitoring, surveillance, or control measures that would catch bad employees.

The company was forced to let the union police itself by the "team leader" concept. i.e. instead of having company supervisors, the union promised to be on its best behavior if the company would let unionized 'team leaders' handle most supervision of their own subordinate union buddies. It was all a fucking farce.

I'm not opposed to people making a good wage and benefits (if even perhaps more than the skills required would suggest they're worth), but God damned, I don't think its fucking outrageous to expect a work ethic and job performance that is commensurate with what they are getting paid. And that is where most American unions are epic fail.
 

davmat787

Diamond Member
Nov 30, 2010
5,512
24
76
I agree.

By my second post Spidey was calling me a 12 years old. He can't argue any of my posts in a rational way so he just reverts to name calling.

You agree, wonderful! So you will need my account info to deposit the ten grand for escrow + the ten percent travel fees to Tahiti. I will get right on that.

Woohoo, can't wait for some fresh Poisson Cru in Tahiti, you must try it. The local beer, Hinano also tastes great.
 
Jul 10, 2007
12,041
3
0
That would be true if all teachers worked in districts where there was a lot of parental involvement. You can put the best teacher in the world in a district where there's a lot of single parents and little parental involvement and their results would pale in comparison to the teachers who worked in a district with the Zipcode of 90210

who says the only way to judge a teacher's performance is by grades?
i remember back in grade school, every now and then, the principal along with a "guest" would stand at the back of the classroom.
we didn't know better back then but we now know they were being evaluated.
 
Jul 10, 2007
12,041
3
0
Once again you nut jobs live in some fairy land where everyone is born with good skills and into a rich family.

Not everyone has skills that can be used in another job. Not everyone can just drop everything and move to another town/state everytime the gov decides it want to screw workers in their pay negotiations.

too fucking bad.
find another employer or line of profession.

this is what's wrong with our world today. everybody expects someone else to pick up their slack and gift wrap life to them because they're "not as gifted or blessed" (which really is their way of saying they're a lazy ass mofo).

you idiots get this through your thick skull. you are entitled nothing in life. you work for it and earn it.
 

Acanthus

Lifer
Aug 28, 2001
19,915
2
76
ostif.org
Its not necessarily the wages and benefits, per se. Just like in the auto industry, it wasn't necessarily outrageous that autoworkers made $25+ an hour plus great benefits.

It was that the fucking work ethic and culture promoted by the militant UAW crowd left the company with practically no control over their own plants, no control over quality assurance or productivity, no control over efficiency and technology improvements, having to pay laid-off employees nearly their full wage to do nothing for up to two years (e.g. UAW Jobs Bank), no power to prevent excessive losses due to things like theft, vandalism, and sabotage, couldn't get rid of bad employees or even impose reasonable monitoring, surveillance, or control measures that would catch bad employees.

The company was forced to let the union police itself by the "team leader" concept. i.e. instead of having company supervisors, the union promised to be on its best behavior if the company would let unionized 'team leaders' handle most supervision of their own subordinate union buddies. It was all a fucking farce.

I'm not opposed to people making a good wage and benefits (if even perhaps more than the skills required would suggest they're worth), but God damned, I don't think its fucking outrageous to expect a work ethic and job performance that is commensurate with what they are getting paid. And that is where most American unions are epic fail.

So you reform the laws so that workers don't have insane levels of protection so that bad employees can get fired.

Destroying the union or slashing the pay isn't going to help anyone in the long run.
 

Acanthus

Lifer
Aug 28, 2001
19,915
2
76
ostif.org
too fucking bad.
find another employer or line of profession.

this is what's wrong with our world today. everybody expects someone else to pick up their slack and gift wrap life to them because they're "not as gifted or blessed" (which really is their way of saying they're a lazy ass mofo).

you idiots get this through your thick skull. you are entitled nothing in life. you work for it and earn it.

And what do you do when there is no work?

Like when real unemployment is at 17%?
 

tcsenter

Lifer
Sep 7, 2001
18,536
336
126
So you reform the laws so that workers don't have insane levels of protection so that bad employees can get fired.
There are no laws to define or impose such limits on how much "power" unions can accumulate or wield in their negotiations, and it would be difficult to do so. That is left to the labor contract negotiation process and to labor relations boards, both of which are heavily stacked in favor of unions. I don't know of any other way to impose or define such limits other than to fundamentally modify the bargaining power or rights of unions, or to change the make-up of labor relations boards to favor the company in disputes.
 
Last edited:

nobodyknows

Diamond Member
Sep 28, 2008
5,474
0
0
I negotiate all of that before taking the job, what are you talking about? If I don't like it, I don't have to work there. Mind of a liberal, where you are entitled to a job, with fabulous pay, benefits, etc. Free market forces be damned. Entitle that job even if it shuts the company down (like many unions have done recently).

Now you're trying to put words in my mouth to suit your sick little fantasy.

Didn't you just lose a job and were living off your wife's income? How would your "personal responsibility" mantra worked if your wife was terribly sick, couldn't work, and you had 5 kids to close and feed? Just because some people get the right breaks doesn't mean they all do.

Grow up little one.
 

Acanthus

Lifer
Aug 28, 2001
19,915
2
76
ostif.org
There are no laws to define or impose such limits on how much "power" unions can accumulate or wield in their negotiations, and it would be difficult to do so. That is left to the labor contract negotiation process and to labor relations boards, both of which are heavily stacked in favor of unions. I don't know of any other way to impose or define such limits other than to fundamentally modify the bargaining power or rights of unions, or to change the make-up of labor relations boards to favor the company in disputes.

So create laws to do so?

It is clear that it is a problem. Even teachers don't like how well the bad teachers are protected. The answer however is not getting rid of unions. It is simply limiting their ability to shield bad employees while still keeping their rights to collectively bargain on wages and other compensation.
 

trenchfoot

Lifer
Aug 5, 2000
14,898
7,427
136
There are no laws to define or impose such limits on how much "power" unions can accumulate or wield in their negotiations, and it would be difficult to do so. That is left to the labor contract negotiation process and to labor relations boards, both of which are heavily stacked in favor of unions. I don't know of any other way to impose or define such limits other than to fundamentally modify the bargaining power or rights of unions, or to change the make-up of labor relations boards to favor the company in disputes.

Not so from my personal experience. As a former production manager, I never lost an arbitration at the labor boards while representing the company I worked for.

On the other hand, as a current union business agent over the last 22+ years, I have sat in on only a couple of arbs that favored the employees who filed grievances.
 

Double Trouble

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,270
103
106
But you guys can't ever meet in the middle. It's always bullshit like, 'They don't need protection, if you dont like it find another job!'

That's totally unrealistic.

Wait. You mean... exactly like someone in the real world (private sector)? How is that unrealistic? If my employer does something I don't like, I have choices (get another job, move etc) just like someone who works for the government.

There are highly specialized people with specialized skill sets everywhere. You go into one of those fields knowing that your going to get good pay and benefits, but your mobility and job options are going to be more limited by specialization. That's your choice, not someone else's.
 

Double Trouble

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,270
103
106
So you reform the laws so that workers don't have insane levels of protection so that bad employees can get fired.

The whole point of the union is to "protect" it's members from such things and ensure higher wages or benefits than the market would otherwise pay. Unions are parasitic and lately have a habit of killing the host (in the private sector real world). The one place they can exist and thrive is in government where there is no real world pressure in terms of expense control, quality control, efficiency or any competition.